2. Standardization & data consistency

The lack of uniform GHG emissions reporting complicates data collection. Suppliers use different calculation methods, emission factors, and reporting standards, making consistency difficult. Some report only scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, while others include scope 3, which varies significantly between companies. This inconsistency makes it hard to compare emissions across suppliers or rely solely on supplier-reported emissions.

Data fragmentation adds to this problem. Emissions data is often stored in different formats across various systems, complicating reconciliation and analysis. For example, it’s common for electricity data to come from utility bills, spend data to reside in financial procurement software, and business travel data to exist within travel management platforms, all with differing data structures and completeness. Organizations struggle to obtain a holistic view of their emissions footprint without a centralized, standardized approach.

3. Methodology discrepancies across the value chain

Scope 3 emissions, or a company’s value chain emissions, pose a whole separate host of challenges. Many organizations rely on industry-average emissions factors instead of actual supplier data due to the scarcity and difficulty of collecting them. While industry averages help estimate emissions when supplier-specific data is unavailable, these factors are limited to looking at the averages across an entire industry and fail to capture key differentiators among suppliers. These include location, energy mix, material sourcing, or production methods, which can significantly differ between suppliers within the same category. Supplier-specific data captures these differences, allowing supplier comparisons based on emissions intensities and paving the way for reduction opportunities.

4. Technology & infrastructure limitations

Despite advances in digital tools, many organizations still use spreadsheets to manage their emissions data. While familiar and flexible, spreadsheets are prone to errors, inconsistencies, and version-control issues. Dedicated carbon accounting platforms streamline measurement, leverage up-to-date emissions factors, and provide an auditable trail for raw data, but adoption remains slow due to cost and implementation challenges.

Integrating emissions data with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and procurement platforms presents another hurdle. While integrations automate data collection and improve accuracy, they can require significant time and investment when companies have to set it up on their own. Additionally, different systems may use incompatible formats, making extraction and synchronization difficult.

5. Data verification & accuracy

Even when emissions data is collected, ensuring accuracy is another challenge. Self-reported data carries risks, as suppliers may overestimate efficiency or underreport emissions to appear more sustainable. Some organizations require third-party assurance to validate reported data, which can take 4 to 12 weeks and involve extensive document reviews and meetings. While verification enhances credibility, it is both expensive and time-consuming.

Verification also requires maintaining detailed raw data records, calculation methodologies, and underlying assumptions. Without structured data management, companies may struggle to provide auditors with the necessary documentation, causing delays and uncertainties.

The difficulties in data collection can make carbon accounting complex, time-intensive, and frustrating. Companies will face uncertainty in emissions calculations without reliable data, leading to inaccurate reporting and misguided reduction strategies. Fragmented data, lack of standardization, and manual effort create inefficiencies while managing carbon data across teams and systems can become overwhelming. Addressing these challenges requires coordinated supplier engagement, better technology, and support from carbon accounting specialists to ensure transparency, completeness, and accuracy. Organizations investing in improved data management, standardized methodologies, and streamlined reporting will be better positioned to track and reduce emissions effectively.

GHG reporting is a team effort 

Beyond the data, there is the human challenge of knowing who to go to for certain information. All too often, companies approach GHG footprinting as a simple exercise and think just one person in the organization, usually the sustainability manager, can handle it all on their own. The reality is that it’s a comprehensive endeavor that requires collaboration across multiple teams, from operations to finance to human resources. 

When sustainability leaders attempt to tackle GHG footprinting on their own, they often face a variety of barriers and frequently struggle to even get access to their data in a timely manner. Developing a comprehensive footprint requires information across your entire business. Finance teams provide the backbone for spend-based accounting and business travel. Facility managers hold the keys to energy consumption and waste metrics. Human resource partners are necessary to gather employee commuting information. Simply put, sustainability is a team sport. Involving a diverse range of stakeholders is the only way to ensure data quality, authenticity, and, ultimately, meaningful climate impact.

Table 1: Where to find data within your organization

Engaging your teams doesn’t have to be difficult, and leveraging a carbon accounting platform with hands-on guidance facilitates easier data collection and fosters ongoing communication. By providing a single source of truth for emissions data and related insights, sustainability teams can ensure that each department has real-time access to the information they need to make informed decisions. Instead of chasing down spreadsheets or duplicating efforts, teams can simplify processes and focus on integrating climate metrics into their core responsibilities. This level of transparency reduces administrative burden and encourages collaboration, as everyone can see how their contributions advance shared climate goals. In turn, the sustainability team can concentrate on amplifying the overall impact of each department’s work.