The challenge of Scope 3 emissions reduction in complex product portfolios
For companies with complex product portfolios, driving Scope 3 emissions reduction is a challenging task. Jaco van Zijll Langhout, Partner at BearingPoint, outlines why this is particularly difficult for organizations and how they can build the data and carbon accounting foundations needed to drive meaningful action.
For many organizations, the journey towards net zero starts with a simple question: what is our carbon footprint? In practice, answering that question, accurately, consistently and at scale, is anything but simple.
Scope 1 and 2 emissions are usually well understood. Scope 3, however, and especially Category 1 emissions related to purchased goods and services, quickly become the most complex and impactful part of the footprint. For organizations with large and diverse product portfolios, these product-related emissions often represent the majority of their total footprint: WRI estimates that Scope 3 emissions average around 75% of total corporate emissions.
Why Scope 3 emissions matter
Scope 3 includes indirect emissions outside your own operations – both upstream (example: purchased goods, logistics) and downstream (example: product use, end‑of‑life). The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard provides the framework and organizes Scope 3 GHG emissions into 15 categories across the value chain.
As an example, let’s take a hammer sold by a DIY retailer. Its footprint includes upstream emissions from steel production, manufacturing and packaging, as well as downstream emissions from transport, and end‑of‑life treatment. Multiply that by tens (or hundreds) of thousands of products in your product portfolio and the GHG accounting of your Scope 3 footprint becomes a decarbonization battlefield.
Understanding product footprints is therefore not an academic exercise. It is the key to knowing where emissions truly sit and where organizations have leverage to reduce them.
Challenge 1: Measuring emissions with sufficient accuracy to act
Accurate product carbon footprint calculations sound straightforward, but in practice they rarely are. The core issue is data quality, or the absence of it. Product composition, material types, weights, recycled content, and supplier processes all directly influence the footprint. Yet, this information often lives outside the organization or is unavailable at the required level of detail.
Importantly, accuracy does not mean perfection. The truth is that organizations operate at different levels of data maturity, and that is alright. Based on our experience, data typically ranges from:
- No product-specific data at all
- Estimates and/or industry averages
- Portfolio-level proxies
- Detailed, activity-based product data (example: material weights)
Activity-based data is the theoretical ideal, but it is not always necessary everywhere. The key is understanding where higher accuracy matters most and where estimates are sufficient.
Consider two similar products, for example, two shampoo variants. One has detailed data on ingredients, packaging materials, and recycled content, while the other does not. Both can still be modelled but using different data approaches. Trying to reach maximum accuracy for every product from day one often leads to paralysis.
Successful organizations take a different approach: they start with what they have, transparently document assumptions, and progressively improve data quality where it has the biggest impact. This is fully in line with the GHG Protocol, which emphasizes using the best available data and continuously improving footprints rather than waiting for perfection.
Challenge 2: Making calculations repeatable and consistent at scale
Once the first calculation is done, a new problem emerges: doing it again next year. Many organizations are painfully familiar with the symptoms:
- Complex Excel files on personal drives
- Untraceable pivots built on copied data
- Manual uploads with inconsistent logic
- Different results for the same product year over year
This quickly becomes a business risk. Without consistency, organizations cannot demonstrate progress over time, and auditors begin to ask uncomfortable questions.
The core issue is not a lack of effort, but a lack of repeatable systems and processes. Carbon accounting requires a standardized flow from source data to calculation, ensuring that the same inputs always produce the same defensible outputs.
This is where automation and standardization matter. By capturing raw product and activity data at the source, agreeing on shared calculation rules, and letting a central platform handle the calculations, organizations move from fragile spreadsheets to reliable, scalable processes.
As a result, changes in emissions reflect real business decisions, not data noise.
Challenge 3: Engaging a complex supply chain
The third challenge appears as soon as organizations look beyond their own walls. Most companies work with dozens, sometimes hundreds of suppliers, each with their own systems, methodologies, and maturity levels. Even when suppliers provide carbon data, it is often not directly comparable.
Two suppliers can calculate a product footprint using different, yet valid, methodologies and end up with different numbers for the same product. Without alignment, this undermines confidence and decision making.
Two lessons stand out from practice. First, standardizing methodology upfront is critical. Whether organizations choose a PACT-compliant framework or another recognized standard, everyone in the supply chain needs to work from the same rulebook.
Second, tooling matters. Structured supplier engagement, with embedded rules, guidance, and traceability, removes friction and prevents methodology from becoming a negotiation after the fact.
Leading organizations are also increasingly collaborating at industry level. By aligning approaches across sectors, they reduce the burden on suppliers and accelerate progress for everyone involved.
An integrated approach
Addressing these challenges requires more than technical carbon calculations alone. It requires a structured carbon and ESG management system that supports detailed footprinting, transparency, and traceability, alongside organisational changes that ensure processes are aligned, KPIs are consistent, and governance is in place across teams and departments. This enables insights to be translated into meaningful, actionable outcomes.
