Shippers face mounting pressure to reduce Scope 3 emissions due to complex regulatory requirements. Read our blog article to learn about added value of precise and transparent emission data and how shippers get started with a “best practice” approach.
The Challenge: navigating emissions data complexity
Many shippers still try to get an overview of transport Scope 3 emissions data in their global and multi-modal supply chains, but they often even cannot assess the source. In-depth data quality is required to fulfill mounting stakeholder expectations (management board, institutional investors consumers etc.) and help to achieve net-zero goals. Businesses that fail to decarbonize risk falling behind while their competitors pull further ahead in their efforts to “go green” and fulfill consumer and regulatory obligations.
But creating accurate CO2e emission reports is hampered by various reasons:
- Poor data quality and transparency – transport data is often stored across multiple non-synchronized ERP systems and limited to basic information.
- Inconsistent data in multiple Excel files – headquarters usually cannot evaluate various data sets provided by different sustainability representatives of country divisions or business units.
- Complex carrier collaboration – logistics partners frequently provide data in inconsistent formats without standardization or validation.
- Varying maturity levels – transport providers have different capabilities for creating emission reports and implementing sustainable practices.
- Lack of standardized KPIs – without common decarbonization metrics, many shippers struggle to compare carriers or integrate sustainability into procurement decisions.
Globally operating shippers must navigate these challenges while dealing with ambitious SBTi goals, fluctuating demand patterns, regional variations in decarbonization potential, and increasing expectations for transparent emissions data.
Why common approaches will fail
Most shippers attempt to manage transport emissions data through either in-house solutions or generic CSRD tools, but both approaches have significant limitations:
In-house solutions struggle with compliance scalability, long and resource-intense accreditation cycles, and keeping up with changing regulations. Data management becomes labor-intensive with manual inputs creating errors, while decentralized systems may take months or years to consolidate emissions data across supply chains.
Generic CSRD solutions typically rely on default values with limited understanding of logistics processes. Results provide only rough estimates that are rarely compliant with ISO 14083 and insufficient for management decision-making or strategic planning.
Without proper methodology and regularly updated emission factors, shippers cannot establish correct reporting baselines or effectively steer Scope 3 emissions reduction measures.
| Developing an in-house solution | Using an all-in-one (CSRD) solution |
|---|---|
| Not scalable: resource-intensive and costly to maintain, develop and synchronize with evolving regulatory requirements | Wrong decisions: methods are too superficial for management accounting, decision-making, or decarbonization strategy development |
| No verification: lack of external third-party validation for data quality and calculation methods (e.g., GLEC 3.1, ISO 14083) | Far from logistics: does not reflect the complex, realistic logistics processes (routing, LCL/FCL, heating/cooling, roll-on/roll-off etc.) |
| Error-prone: lack of expertise and processes for data enrichment and data quality assurance | Far from reality: uses only average emission factors for CO2 calculation |
Scope 3 emissions: negative effects of insufficient emissions data
Relying on inaccurate or incomplete transport emissions data leads to significant business risks:
- Poor decision-making based on rough estimates rather than accurate measurements
- Operational inefficiencies resulting in wasted resources and missed targets
- Higher costs due to conservative calculations that prevent realistic efficiency planning
- Ineffective partner management with limited sustainability integration in tenders
- Unrealistic sustainability goals that hamper optimization efforts
- Lost business opportunities as minimum sustainability scores become prerequisites for contracts
- Greenwashing with misleading environmental claims that cannot be properly verified
- Reputational damage in industries where consumers value sustainable transport
- Higher decarbonization investments without the ability to target efforts efficiently
As carbon pricing continues to rise—potentially up to $200 per ton by 2030—these risks represent significant financial implications for unprepared companies.
Scope 3 emissions: establish future-proof data structures
Even though the challenges for shippers in terms of transport emission management seem overpowering, they can efficiently manage their scope 3 emissions with a trustworthy in-depth technology solution to establish future-proof data structures.
With the integration of primary data like real fuel consumption of vehicles, transport emission data will become much more meaningful. This applies of course only consent-based if carriers approve the usage of data. Any additional data related to specific transport legs will lever the potential of decarbonizing supply chains.
Relying on precise transport emission data serves overarching strategy development and ultimately strengthens the business as decision-making is based on robust data. Shippers can confidently report to internal and external stakeholders while being compliant with changing regulations, standards and frameworks.
To gain insights how shippers should proceed in a “best practice” approach to reduce Scope 3 emissions, please download our whitepaper.
