“ IT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE EXERCISE WHEN YOU ’ RE TRYING TO COVER 15 CATEGORIES ”
TOM CALDICOTT PRODUCT STRATEGY MANAGER , UL SOLUTIONS
the overall success of emissions reduction efforts for their supply chains . Simply asking the question , ‘ who is responsible for Scope 3 ?’, opens up the conversation to evaluate their progress and begin taking action on both sides . This also opens up the discussion to the complexities and differences between organisations and their emissions footprints depending on their position .
“ If you are an oil major , the vast majority of your Scope 3 will be embedded in the product that you sell – they know very
acutely what they ’ re selling both in terms of volume and in terms of characteristic ,” says Barber .
“ Generating a Scope 3 footprint for that chunk of what you do is relatively more straightforward than for perhaps an organisation that sits right in the middle of a value chain . A complicated series of transactions looks further back into its supply chain and perhaps doesn ’ t show transparency of how its products are used after it has performed its role within that value chain .”
From his perspective of ESG and risk , Barber is highlighting the importance of full transparency . ‘ Full ’ meaning that organisations may be lacking in data from previous transactions – prior to sustainability strategy to even an understanding of its importance . Data doesn ’ t just look forward , but it also goes backwards in order to set benchmarks , analyse longer periods of progress , and understand the level of carbon embedded in the history of a supply chain .
sustainabilitymag . com 131