The first challenge: Selecting the right emission factors
Anyone who wants to calculate Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions or prepare a CO₂ footprint in accordance with the GHG Protocol quickly encounters a key question: Which emission factors are the right ones?
The selection is anything but trivial. Emission factors differ depending on the energy source, region, system boundaries, and calculation methodology. Companies must decide whether to apply activity-based, production-based, or spend-based factors. At the same time, units vary, from kilowatt hours and liters to tonne-kilometers, and must be correctly converted before they can even be incorporated into a greenhouse gas inventory.
Publicly available data sources, such as the comprehensive tables provided by the Federal Environment Agency, illustrate how differentiated and detailed these emission factors are structured. Anyone who researches, filters, compares, and transfers this data manually inevitably works with complex Excel models and methodological assumptions.
Scope 3: Methodological complexity along the value chain
Scope 3 emissions are particularly challenging. Here, companies must account for emissions across their entire value chain, from purchased goods and transport services to the use or disposal of products.
The greatest challenge lies in data availability. Exact primary data is often not available, meaning that approximations must be used. Companies must document in a methodologically sound manner which assumptions were made, which emission factors were applied, and how system boundaries were defined. These decisions directly affect the reliability, comparability, and auditability of the CO₂ footprint.
CO₂ accounting is therefore less a purely mathematical exercise and more a matter of methodological governance.
From accounting to an integrated solution
In this solution, emission factors are systematically embedded, unit logics are integrated, and Scope 1, 2, and 3 are assigned automatically. The calculations are aligned with the GHG Protocol and can be directly transferred into reporting frameworks in accordance with CSRD or VSME. This eliminates the need for extensive independent research, and results no longer have to be manually transferred into reporting structures.
The CO₂ footprint thus evolves from an isolated Excel project into an integrated component of a structured ESG process.
Conclusion
Scope calculation and CO₂ accounting remain demanding, particularly in the area of Scope 3. However, the real challenge lies less in the theory than in the operational implementation: in selecting the correct emission factors, properly assigning data, and ensuring consistent documentation.
Our approach was to address precisely these pain points and translate them into a consistent, transparent process. Not to deny the complexity, but to make it manageable in a structured way.
Learn more: https://esg-dna.com/starboard-enterprise/
ESG.DNA GmbH
ESG? We take care of it.