The GHG Protocol published their Scope 3 Stakeholder Survey Responses recently.
Lindsay and I are starting a new series where we unpack those suggestions and look at what the pros and cons of each are 😊
First up in our series - we're chatting about the often criticised 💸 Spend-Based Calculation methods 💸
Catch the full interview here 🎦
What did you think about these suggestions? Are there any you agree or disagree with?
We're curious to hear what you think! Do let us know!
Stay tuned for Part 2 coming out soon, we'll be delving into what the feedback means for those magic numbers 🪄 Emission Factors 🪄
Watched this the other day. Yes, the thoughts on the removal of using spend based methods altogether might have negative consequences as businesses will need some way to start before they can get on board with more accurate scope 3 data
Do we think it’s possible to define the spend method for scope 3 as a “hot spot assessment” to work out where we might focus attention on getting activity and primary data, rather than an acceptable method for reporting purposes?
@Jessica Richmond - I love this and it should be the intended approach for spend-based data, but I think there is a place for spend-based for reporting in the interim while businesses get their systems in place. For example, for some businesses, CAPEX/OPEX spend is a highly material Scope 3 source, but it's often not feasible at the moment to go down to activity-data level tracking for capital projects. Spend based is a good place to identify capex portfolios that are highly material and then use as the basis to drill down to get granular activity data for those portfolios. Maybe we advise clients to still report spend based where feasible, but disclose data improvement plans for highly material emissions activities?
