Why the Most Significant Corporate Emissions Don’t Come from Your Facilities
Scope 3 emissions often represent the largest – and most overlooked – share of a company’s carbon footprint. They are the emissions that reveal an organisation’s impact across the entire value chain, from raw material sourcing to end-of-life product disposal.
In this article, we explain the differences between Scope 1, 2 and 3, the categories defined by the GHG Protocol, the implications for CSRD reporting, and a concrete case study of a company we supported through the measurement process.
What are Scope 3 emissions?
The distinction between Scope 1, 2 and 3 originates from the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, the international reference framework for measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The three scopes classify emissions according to their source relative to the reporting organisation.
Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions generated by sources owned or directly controlled by the company: natural gas combustion in production processes, company vehicles, fugitive emissions from refrigeration systems.
Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam or heat: the company does not produce them directly, but causes them by purchasing energy from third parties.
Scope 3 emissions encompass all other indirect emissions occurring in the organisation’s value chain, both upstream and downstream of its operational activities.
Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions compared
To understand why Scope 3 carries such significant weight, it is useful to look at the proportion between the three scopes. In manufacturing companies, and across the fashion, luxury and food sectors, Scope 1 and 2 emissions – those directly controllable – typically account for a minority share of the total. The dominant portion is Scope 3, which can cover between 70% and 90% of total emissions.
This does not mean Scope 1 and 2 are irrelevant: they are the first to act on, precisely because the company has direct leverage. However, limiting measurement to only these two categories provides a partial and distorted picture. A company that has electrified its production and purchases renewable energy, but does not know its suppliers’ emissions, still does not know what its total actual climate impact is.
The 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions
The GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard divides Scope 3 into 15 categories, split between upstream and downstream emissions along the value chain.
Upstream categories include, among others, purchased goods and services, capital goods, energy-related activities not covered by Scope 1 and 2, upstream transportation and distribution, waste generated in operations, business travel, and employee commuting. Downstream categories include downstream transportation and distribution of finished products, processing of intermediate products, use of sold products, end-of-life treatment, leased assets and franchises.
In practice, not all 15 categories are relevant for every type of organisation. The first step of the work consists precisely in identifying the significant ones through a materiality analysis, weighting parameters such as estimated emission magnitude, the company’s capacity to intervene, and data availability.
Why measure Scope 3 emissions
Measuring Scope 3 emissions is not merely an exercise in transparency: it is a management tool. Knowing where emissions are concentrated along the value chain makes it possible to identify the most effective reduction levers, engage suppliers around shared targets, and build a credible climate strategy.
From a regulatory standpoint, the CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) requires companies subject to the directive to also report Scope 3 emissions in accordance with ESRS E1 standards. The Omnibus package has introduced changes to the application thresholds, but the principle of value chain reporting remains central. Companies that begin measuring today are in an advantageous position, both to meet regulatory deadlines and to avoid the risk of greenwashing accusations for climate communications not supported by verifiable data.
Widely adopted voluntary standards such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) also require companies to set reduction targets covering Scope 3 when this represents a significant share of the total.
How they are calculated: the GHG Protocol method
The underlying methodology follows a straightforward logic: emissions are calculated by multiplying an activity data value by an emission factor. Activity data can be the quantity of raw material purchased (in kg), kilometres travelled by suppliers to deliver goods, kWh of energy consumed upstream, or waste produced. The emission factor converts that quantity into tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e).
The practical challenge lies not in the calculation itself, but in collecting activity data: companies and suppliers do not always maintain their own GHG inventories, and management systems are rarely structured to extract data in the required format. Where specific data is unavailable, sector-average emission factors from databases such as Ecoinvent or DEFRA are used instead. For this reason, active engagement of the supply chain and the development of a standardised data collection process are key elements for inventory quality.
The Mosaiq Group case: Scope 3 in luxury packaging
We supported Mosaiq Group – an Italian holding comprising five companies specialised in sustainable packaging for fashion and luxury – in preparing their first GHG inventory. The work was carried out in accordance with ISO 14064-1 – the international standard for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions at organisational level – covering Scope 1, 2 and the material Scope 3 categories.
The materiality analysis revealed that purchased goods (Scope 3, category 4.1a) account for 79% of total group emissions. Upstream transport follows at 9% and downstream transport at 5%, while direct Scope 1 emissions amount to just 3% of the total. This emissions profile, dominated by the supply chain, is typical of manufacturing companies with multi-supplier supply chains.
The uncertainty analysis, conducted according to GHG Protocol methodology, returned a “high” ranking (4.24%), confirming the robustness of the inventory.
Etifor’s support: from measurement to climate strategy
Etifor supports companies in measuring and managing emissions through the MARC approach, aligned with international standards including GHG Protocol, ISO 14064, SBTi, and ESRS, GRI and TNFD reporting requirements.
The Measure phase involves building a complete GHG inventory, with a materiality analysis that focuses efforts on the most relevant emission categories for the company’s specific profile. This is followed by the Avoid phase, in which a science-based reduction plan is developed with annual targets in line with the SBTi 1.5°C pathway.