Objet de l’information
The practical emphasis is usually on coverage across the organisation’s operations and value chain, not just a few flagship sites or the easiest-to-measure activities. Organisations should think about whether their reporting approach is broad enough to reflect the full business footprint, while also being clear about any gaps, estimates, or areas where data quality is still developing.
Ce support pédagogique LRA aide à préparer l’information. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle CARB.
Préparer
Que rassembler avant de rédiger
Cochez chaque champ à l'arrivée des preuves. Les responsables sont les équipes qui détiennent habituellement les fichiers sources.
-
Included Scope 3 categories
Sustainability reporting / ESG data ownerList which indirect emissions categories are counted in the reported Scope 3 figure, using the organisation’s chosen category set for the period.
Éléments probants GHG inventory boundary note, category list in the emissions workbook, reporting pack sign-off.
Point de vigilance Category list does not reconcile to the inventory workbook, so a category is counted in one place but left out of the reported set.
-
Category emissions split
Carbon accounting / sustainability analyticsCapture the emissions amount for each included Scope 3 category, with each category mapped to its own figure for the same reporting period.
Éléments probants Category-level emissions schedule, calculation workbook, source activity data and emission factor files.
Point de vigilance Category totals do not reconcile to the category schedule, or a category is rolled into the wrong bucket.
-
Data source mix
Carbon accounting / data methodology leadRecord which parts of the Scope 3 calculation use direct records, supplier-provided inputs, proxy estimates, or sector averages.
Éléments probants Methodology note, source log, supplier data extracts, estimation workbook.
Point de vigilance Source type labels do not match the calculation files, so direct supplier data is mixed up with proxy or average-based inputs.
-
Estimation approach
Carbon accounting / methodology ownerDescribe the calculation approach used to turn activity data into Scope 3 emissions, including the main estimation logic applied.
Éléments probants Calculation methodology, model notes, emission factor library, assumptions register.
Point de vigilance The method used in the workbook does not match the method described in the disclosure, so the calculation basis is misclassified.
-
Reporting year window
Financial reporting / ESG reporting controllerState the exact reporting period used for the Scope 3 figure, including the start and end dates covered by the data.
Éléments probants Annual reporting timetable, consolidation calendar, period control sheet.
Point de vigilance The disclosure period does not match the underlying data cut-off, so part-year data is mixed with a full-year total.
-
Scope 3 total emissions
Carbon accounting / ESG reporting ownerProvide the single total amount of Scope 3 emissions for the reporting period, expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Éléments probants Final consolidated emissions statement, signed reporting pack, calculation summary.
Point de vigilance The total does not reconcile to the sum of the included category figures, or a non-Scope 3 amount has been pulled into the total.
Avant de commencer
- Have you settled which upstream and downstream activity groups you will include in the total, and which ones you will leave out?
- Will the figures come from one defined reporting window, and is that period the same one used across the rest of your emissions work?
- Can each category figure be traced back to a source record or dataset, rather than only to a summary total?
- For each category, have you decided whether the input comes from direct records, a secondary dataset, a proxy, or an industry-average source?
- Have you fixed the method you will use to turn activity data into emissions for each category, so the approach is consistent and explainable?
Comment le préparer
Demander les données
Request the Scope 3 emissions data
Traduisez l’information en une question métier interne, puis adaptez-la au vocabulaire de votre organisation.
What is the organisation’s total indirect emissions figure for the reporting period, with the category split, source basis and calculation approach behind it?
Use your organisation’s own names for the teams, systems and emissions buckets first, then map them to the reporting categories for this request. Keep the ask in everyday operational language rather than framework wording, and check the official source before sign-off.
Demande faible
Please provide the Scope 3 disclosure data for the reporting period, including category coverage, category emissions, data sources, estimation methods and total emissions.
Pourquoi elle échoue : It uses framework language that many operational teams do not use day to day, so the owner may not know which systems, buckets or files to pull. It also does not tell them how to present the split, what to include as evidence, or which internal labels to use.
Meilleure demande
Please send the indirect emissions figures for [reporting period], split by your internal emissions buckets, with the source used for each bucket, the calculation approach, and the total for the period. Include any buckets that are only partly covered or excluded, and return the file or system name used to build the numbers.
Modèle d’e-mail formel
Subject: Request for indirect emissions data for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], I’m pulling together the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the indirect emissions figures for [reporting period]. Please send: - the total indirect emissions figure for the period; - the breakdown by your internal emissions buckets / activity areas; - which buckets are included in the total and which are not; - the data sources used for each bucket (for example, actual records, supplier data, proxy or industry-average estimates); - the calculation approach used; - the reporting period covered; - the file name, system, or model used to produce the numbers. Please return the figures in a table and add a short note on any assumptions, gaps, or changes from the prior period. If helpful, I can send a simple template. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms first, then map it to the reporting categories. Check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Version courte pour Teams / Slack
Hi [name/team] — could you send the indirect emissions figures for [reporting period], plus the split by your internal buckets, the data source for each one, and the method used to calculate them? Please include any exclusions, assumptions, and the file/system used. I can share a simple template if useful. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms first, then map it to the reporting categories. Check the official source before sign-off.
Exemples sectoriels
Retail
Contexte. A retailer tracks emissions across stores, warehouses, transport and supplier spend.
Demande adaptée. Please send the indirect emissions figures for [reporting period], split by your internal buckets such as inbound freight, outbound delivery, packaging, waste, business travel and purchased goods. For each bucket, include the source used, whether it is actual data or an estimate, and the method used to calculate emissions.
Exemple de réponse. A table showing each bucket, the mapped reporting category, the data source type, the calculation method, and emissions in tCO2e, plus a note that supplier-specific data was available for some purchased goods lines and spend-based estimates were used for the rest.
Manufacturing
Contexte. A manufacturer collects data from procurement, logistics, travel and product teams.
Demande adaptée. Please send the indirect emissions figures for [reporting period], split by your internal activity areas such as raw materials, inbound freight, outbound logistics, waste, employee travel and product use assumptions. Include the source system for each area, the basis used where actual records are not available, and the total emissions for the period.
Exemple de réponse. A spreadsheet with each activity area, the source system, whether the figure is based on primary records or a proxy, the calculation method, and emissions in tCO2e, plus a note that logistics data came from the transport management system and some supplier inputs were estimated using industry averages.
Rédigez votre information
Des notes qui transforment les données en information publiée
Modèles pédagogiques LRA — adaptez-les à votre organisation et vérifiez la source officielle avant validation.
Note méthodologique
State which value-chain categories are included, what reporting period the figure covers, which calculation methods were used, and whether the inputs came from direct records, secondary records, proxy data, or sector averages.
Note de contexte
Explain that the total reflects emissions across the included value-chain categories, while the category split shows where the main contributions sit and how much each part adds to the overall figure.
Déclaration sur les variations
If the total or category mix changes, point to shifts in the included categories, the underlying data sources, or the estimation approach, and note whether the reporting period itself also changed.
Entrée de l’index de contenu
SB253-SCOPE-3 Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions — [location / page] / [notes]Centre de téléchargement
Outils et formulaires de préparation
Téléchargez les outils de préparation pour SB253-SCOPE-3 pendant 24 heures après confirmation gratuite de votre adresse e-mail. Les liens vers les rapports sources restent publics.
Vérifier
Pour chaque affirmation, vérifiez les preuves
We set out which parts of the wider value-chain inventory we included in the coverage figure, so readers can see the boundary we used.
Risque An assurer may test whether the boundary was chosen consistently, whether any relevant parts were left out without explanation, and whether the wording could mislead readers into thinking the figure is more complete than it is.
Preuves à vérifier Inventory boundary paper; category inclusion/exclusion list; methodology note explaining any omissions; management sign-off on the final boundary.
We broke the disclosed amount down by category, rather than only giving one combined figure, so the underlying components can be traced.
Risque An assurer may probe whether each category total is supported by source data, whether categories were grouped or split consistently, and whether the sum of the parts reconciles to the published total.
Preuves à vérifier Category-level calculation workbook; source extracts for each category; reconciliation from category totals to the published aggregate; review notes for any regrouping or mapping decisions.
For each part of the calculation, we recorded the type of input used, including direct records, third-party information, estimated inputs, and benchmark-based inputs where relevant.
Risque An assurer may challenge whether the input type was correctly classified, whether weaker inputs were used where better evidence was available, and whether the mix of inputs creates a material quality issue.
Preuves à vérifier Data source register; evidence of source classification for each line item; supplier or internal records; rationale for any estimated or benchmark-based inputs.
We documented the calculation approach we used for the disclosed amount, including the estimation steps and any conversion or allocation logic applied before publication.
Risque An assurer may test whether the method was applied consistently, whether the chosen approach fits the stated accounting basis, and whether the calculation logic contains errors or unsupported assumptions.
Preuves à vérifier Methodology memo; calculation model; emission factor or conversion factor file; assumption log; version-controlled spreadsheets or system outputs.
Where the reporting boundary changed because of a transaction or other structural event, we adjusted the disclosed amount using the same accounting approach throughout the period.
Risque An assurer may ask whether acquisitions, disposals, mergers, or similar events were identified completely, whether the treatment was consistent with the stated method, and whether the adjustment could distort comparability.
Preuves à vérifier Corporate transaction register; boundary-change assessment; supporting schedules showing pre- and post-change treatment; approval of the adjustment approach.
We stated the prior financial year covered by the data and checked that the publication timing aligned with the required sequence of disclosures.
Risque An assurer may verify that the period stated matches the underlying data set, that the timing is correct relative to the earlier public release, and that the reported year is not ambiguous.
Preuves à vérifier Reporting calendar; published dates for the earlier disclosure and the current one; period-end data extracts; final disclosure draft showing the stated year.
Dossier de preuves à préparer
Lacunes fréquentes dans les rapports
- Figures are stated without the supporting narrative, or narrative without figures.
- Scope is inconsistent between the text and the numbers.
- The reporting boundary is left undefined.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Estimates and measured values are not distinguished.
- Source records for the figures are not identified.
Là où les brouillons dérapent
Erreurs à éviter et points nécessitant un jugement
La colonne de gauche montre ce que les préparateurs font mal lors de la collecte ; celle de droite, où vous devrez exercer et expliquer un jugement.
Erreurs à éviter
- Wrong owner askedThe team chases the sustainability lead for figures that sit with procurement, logistics, finance, or another operational owner, so the source data never comes from the people who actually hold it.
- Framework terms used too earlyPeople ask for the data in reporting-language terms instead of the business terms used day to day, and the request is misunderstood or routed to the wrong internal team.
- Boundary left vagueNo one pins down which parts of the business, subsidiaries, or activities are in the data set, so different teams collect different slices and the final numbers do not line up.
- Wrong period basisThe collection window is not fixed to the same reporting period across teams, so some records are pulled from a different date range and cannot be compared cleanly.
- Counting basis mixedOne team sends spend-based estimates while another sends activity-based figures without flagging the difference, which makes the combined result inconsistent and hard to reconcile.
- Source labels stripped outOriginal tags such as supplier file names, system fields, or method notes are removed during consolidation, so the audit trail back to the starting record is lost.
- Populations merged too soonSeparate groups such as business units, regions, or transport modes are rolled together before review, which hides gaps and makes it impossible to check each group properly.
- Evidence details missingThe file arrives without the date, owner, version, or other trace details needed to show where it came from and when it was last updated.
- No approval trailThe draft numbers move forward without a clear review and sign-off record, so nobody can show who checked the data or confirmed it before use.
Jugement requis
- Set the group boundary after a buy-in or saleDecide whether to include emissions from businesses added or removed during the year, explain the cut-off date you used, and keep the same approach unless a change is clearly justified.
- Handle mixed country definitions with one internal ruleWhere local records use different business or activity definitions, map them to one group-wide method, note any exceptions, and explain how you translated the source data.
- Decide how to treat activities near the edge of the value chainFor items that could sit inside or outside the reporting boundary, state the rule used to include or exclude them and describe any material judgement made.
- Choose one timing basis and stick to itIf source data arrive on different reporting cycles, explain whether you used actual period data, a later proxy, or another timing basis, and why that was the most workable option.
- Separate measured figures from estimatesShow which parts come from direct records and which rely on proxies, industry averages, or other estimates, and explain the method used to fill gaps.
- State how you dealt with privacy limits in small datasetsIf detailed operational data could identify individuals or sensitive sites, aggregate the figures before reporting and explain the level at which the numbers were combined.
- Explain any rounding approachIf category figures or the total are rounded, say how you rounded them and make sure the rounded category values still reconcile sensibly to the total.
- Keep the reporting year clear when the data trail is incompleteIf the best available evidence spans more than one internal cycle, explain the period covered, the basis for any roll-forward or roll-back, and how that affects comparability.
Exemples
Ce que cela donne sur la page
Synthétiques, rédigés par LRA — ils ne proviennent ni d’un rapport d’entreprise ni du texte d’une norme.
for the 2025 reporting year, we have set out the parts of our value-chain footprint that we included, the emissions attached to each part, and the methods and data types used to build the estimate. Our total Scope 3 figure is 1,240,000 tCO2e.
Illustrative Scope 3 breakdown for the 2025 reporting year (tCO2e)
| Included value-chain area | Emissions (tCO2e) |
|---|---|
| Purchased goods and services | 420000 |
| Capital goods | 90000 |
| Fuel- and energy-related activities | 60000 |
| Upstream transport and distribution | 110000 |
| Waste generated in operations | 30000 |
| Use of sold products | 530000 |
Illustrative only. Shows a concise first-person disclosure that names the included value-chain areas, gives category-level figures, and explains the main estimation approach and data inputs used for the year.
for the 2025 reporting year, we included the value-chain areas listed below and estimated them using a mix of primary records, supplier inputs, proxy data, and sector averages where needed. Our total Scope 3 figure is 385,000 tCO2e.
Illustrative Scope 3 breakdown for the 2025 reporting year (tCO2e)
| Included value-chain area | Emissions (tCO2e) |
|---|---|
| Purchased goods and services | 150000 |
| Upstream transport and distribution | 25000 |
| Waste generated in operations | 10000 |
| Business travel | 15000 |
| Employee commuting | 5000 |
| Downstream transport and distribution | 180000 |
Illustrative only. Shows a second plausible reporter with a different mix of included areas and a smaller footprint, while still identifying the reporting year, the data sources used, and the estimation approach.
Échelle de qualité
- Basique
My Scope 3 total for the period was 12,400 tCO2e.
- Meilleur
For the year ended 31 December 2025, I reported 12,400 tCO2e across purchased goods, transport, business travel and waste, using supplier data where available and estimates where not.
- Optimal
For the year ended 31 December 2025, I reported 12,400 tCO2e across purchased goods, transport, business travel and waste, based on a mix of supplier records, proxy data and industry averages, and the rise from last year mainly reflects higher freight activity and broader category coverage.
Vérifiez votre compréhension
Scénarios à travailler
A preparer has a draft table for the year ended 31 December 2025. It shows a single total for value-chain emissions, but the working papers only cover purchased goods, transport, and business travel; no other categories have been assessed yet.
A company has calculated its value-chain emissions using supplier-specific activity data for some purchased materials, spend-based estimates for freight, and an industry-average factor for leased assets. The draft notes mention the methods, but not which source type was used for each category.
A group reports its value-chain emissions for the 2025 financial year, but one business unit has used calendar-year supplier data and another has used a rolling 12-month estimate ending in March 2025. The consolidated total is ready, but the reporting note does not explain the period basis.
A preparer has a final value-chain total of 18,400 tCO2e for 2025. The category breakdown adds up correctly to that total: purchased goods 9,600 tCO2e, upstream transport 2,300 tCO2e, business travel 1,100 tCO2e, and other categories 5,400 tCO2e.
Rapports réels
How 3 companies report it
Exemples de pratiques de publication complètes et partielles. Ce sont des analyses fondées sur des preuves, non des modèles à recopier.
C.H. Robinson
Cargill
Bank of America
| Champ | C.H. Robinson | Cargill | Bank of America |
|---|---|---|---|
| Included Scope 3 categories | Non trouvé | Non trouvé | Non trouvé |
| Category emissions split | Non trouvé | Non trouvé | Non trouvé |
| Data source mix | Non trouvé | Non trouvé | Non trouvé |
| Estimation approach | Partiel | Partiel | Partiel |
| Reporting year window | Non trouvé | Non trouvé | Non trouvé |
| Scope 3 total emissions | Non trouvé | Non trouvé | Partiel |
Carte complète des preuves avec citations et numéros de page →
Interrogez l’assistant IA du Knowledge Hub sur cette information
Obtenez des réponses pratiques adaptées à votre contexte de reporting.
Vérifier votre texte
Collez un ou deux paragraphes. L’extrait est utilisé uniquement pour cette vérification et n’est pas enregistré dans votre conversation.
La comparaison utilise les exemples de cette fiche, et non leur fréquence dans le corpus de rapports.
Conseil, pas assurance
Références au référentiel
Exigences California applicables et informations connexes
California
SB253-SCOPE-3
au sein de California SB 253 : Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Connexes et exploration
Plus dans California SB 253 →Parcourir le catalogue complet →Rechercher dans toutes les informations →
FAQ
Questions auxquelles cette page répond
The page says to prepare the included Scope 3 categories, category emissions split, data source mix, estimation approach, reporting year window and the Scope 3 total emissions. It also gives a step-by-step preparation section to help you organise those inputs before drafting.
Use the page’s preparation list to identify the included Scope 3 categories and then keep the category emissions split aligned to those categories. The page is designed to help you set the scope before you turn the data into a draft.
The page asks you to prepare a data source mix and an estimation approach, so you can explain where the numbers came from and how they were built. That helps you keep the disclosure and the evidence pack consistent.
The page is set up for practical preparation, so you can use the workbook and step-by-step section to assign who owns each input, such as category data, source data and the final total. It is meant to support a clear handoff into drafting and assurance readiness.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence focus. That gives you a practical starting point for building an assurance-ready file set.
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each linked to a claim, risk and evidence check. Use them as a review list to test whether your draft, calculations and supporting documents line up before sign-off.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can check for missing categories, inconsistent splits, weak source explanations or gaps between the draft and the evidence pack. It is intended as a practical pre-submission check.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is there to help you organise the preparation inputs and assurance checks. The page also provides a printable Library Card in .pdf for quick reference.
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line to help you convert the prepared data into a written draft. It is designed to move you from data collection to a usable disclosure text.
Yes, the page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both contexts. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you should treat it as a practical cross-reference rather than a one-to-one match.
Autres questions auxquelles cette page peut aider