Scope 3: From “Unmeasurable” to “Action-Led Management”

English - Ngày đăng : 08:00, 20/11/2025

Scope 3 often accounts for 70–90% of a logistics company’s total emissions - yet it is the hardest to measure and standardize. The shift from “measuring for awareness” to “managing through an action framework” requires disciplined data, science-based targets, a priority on real reductions, and a transparent mechanism for using carbon credits only for the hard-to-abate short-term remainder.

p2(2).jpg — Scope 3 - From “Unmeasurable” to “Action-Led Management”

Why Scope 3 is logistics’ biggest lever
Across supply chains, indirect emissions from suppliers, contracted transport, use of sold goods, and end-of-life treatment typically far exceed Scope 1–2. In logistics, dominant sources include outsourced transport (road, rail, ocean, air), partners’ warehousing, packaging and consumables, and the last mile. Core challenges are fragmented data (many carriers/lanes/gateways), divergent measurement standards (activity metrics and emission factors), and the risk of double counting when multiple parties report the same activity. The way forward is to build a “data spine” organized by journey–order–mode, unify measurement conventions (ton-km, kWh, fuel) and certified emission factors, and pilot light-touch reporting portals with contractors to shift from default factors to actual activity data.

Do not chase certificates before locking in near-term, science-based targets. Select the five largest Scope 3 lanes/categories using the Pareto principle, set annual reduction goals, and publish a transparent supplier scorecard: emissions intensity, on-time performance, and the share of actual vs. estimated data. Tie incentives/penalties to scores to drive improvement.

VCMI Scope 3 Action Code – gaps and how to close them
The VCMI (2025) framework sets rules of engagement for Scope 3 abatement: prioritize real value-chain reductions and allow the use of high-quality carbon credits up to a ceiling of 25% of the shortfall against target, with transparent retirement reporting by period. Current gaps include: uneven “quality” criteria across credit programs; the need for rigorous third-party verification of geographic relevance, real additionality, leakage avoidance, and permanence; and the absence, in many firms, of “data plumbing” to map credits to shortfalls by specific Scope 3 segments. Close these gaps by standardizing a Scope 3 taxonomy by lane/mode/provider, linking each shortfall to an eligible “credit basket,” and establishing at least annual independent assurance.

A four-step path: measure – set targets – reduce for real – offset the remainder
Step 1 (Measure): build Scope 3 MRV centered on activity units (ton-km, kWh, liters of fuel, delivery counts), applying recognized emission factors and prioritizing actual activity data over defaults.
Step 2 (Targets): lock science-based annual targets (intensity and/or absolute) with a 2030 glidepath, allocate them down to lanes/providers, and embed them in service contracts.
Step 3 (Real reductions): execute a portfolio ranked by payback and impact—load-factor and empty-km optimization; intermodal shifts; electrification of short hauls; packaging improvements and pallet turns; renewable energy in warehouses.
Step 4 (Offset remainder): use credits only for the hard-to-abate residual in the near term, capped at 25% of the shortfall; apply a “quality-first, price-second” principle and disclose credits retired quarterly/annually.

p1(2).jpg — The shift from “measuring for awareness” to “managing through an action framework” requires disciplined data, science-based targets

When using credits, apply “quality before price”: geographic relevance, real additionality, no leakage, third-party assurance. Map credits to a specific Scope 3 segment (e.g., ocean lane Asia–EU), disclose serial numbers and retirement periods publicly. The goal is market trust, not box-ticking.

p3(2).jpg — Scope 3 often accounts for 70–90% of a logistics company’s total emissions - yet it is the hardest to measure and standardize

Scope 3 becomes less nebulous when companies move from ad-hoc measurement to a disciplined action framework: journey-level data, annual science-based targets, an abatement portfolio prioritized by payback and impact, and a transparent credit mechanism only for the gap. Quarterly reporting of intensity/absolute emissions and the share of actual data enables leaders to see true performance and invest where it matters. Thus, Scope 3 ceases to be a “compliance cost” and becomes a competitive lever: stronger contracts through transparency, leaner networks via load and modal optimization, and a stronger brand through integrity in decarbonization pathways.

By Minh Tam