Accounting for Purchased Metal-Containing Waste under GHG Protocol – Scope 3 Category 1

Hi everyone,

I’m currently supporting a facility that purchases metal-containing waste for thermal treatment and material recovery, and I’m looking to validate the appropriate GHG accounting approach for this setup under the GHG Protocol Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions.

Our Situation

  • We purchase metal-containing waste streams from external parties.
  • The waste is treated thermally on-site — pollutants are combusted, and the resulting heat is used directly in our production process (i.e., not for electricity generation).
  • After treatment, metals are recovered and reintroduced into the material cycle.
  • We fall under an EU ETS exemption for the combustion of hazardous waste, with the polluter-pays principle applying to the original generator.

Accounting Interpretation – Category 1

Although the input material is classified as waste, we purchase it and use it as a functional input to our production process. Based on that, we interpret this as falling under:

Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased Goods and Services

According to the GHG Protocol:

“If a company purchases a product or material that contains recycled content, the upstream emissions of the recycling processes are built into the cradle-to-gate emission factor for that product and would, therefore, be reflected in category 1.”

Initially, guidance on Category 5 (Waste Generated in Operations) was considered, due to the nature of the material. However, since the waste is not generated by us but purchased, and used as an input, we now understand that Category 1 is the more appropriate classification.

Questions

  1. Category Confirmation
    Can others confirm that purchased waste used as a raw material input (even if legally classified as “waste”) should be reported under Scope 3, Category 1, and not Category 5?
  2. Emission Factor Challenges
    Emission factors for waste-based inputs are not widely standardized. How have others addressed this?
  • Have you used proxies from recycled materials (e.g. secondary metals)?
  • Which databases (ecoinvent, GaBi, DEFRA, etc.) have you found most suitable for this kind of input?
  1. Scope 1 – Combustion Emissions
    We conduct the combustion on-site and use the resulting heat directly. Our view is that this results in Scope 1 emissions, since:
  • We own and operate the thermal treatment process;
  • The emissions occur within our operational boundaries;
  • And the energy is used internally (not sold).
    Does this interpretation align with others’ understanding of Scope 1 boundaries for self-combusted, purchased waste?
  1. Avoided Emissions from Material Recovery
    After thermal treatment, we recover metals that displace the need for virgin material. According to GHG Protocol, these avoided emissions may be reported separately (e.g., in optional disclosures).
    Has anyone modeled avoided emissions from similar recovery processes, and if so, which approach did you use?
  2. Implementation Experience
    Has anyone gone through GHG accounting for a comparable setup — where waste is purchased as an input, treated thermally, and followed by material recovery?
  • How did you approach the categorization and quantification?
  • Any lessons learned, pitfalls, or data sources you would recommend?

This isn’t a standard case that fits neatly into the typical Scope 3 examples, so I’d really appreciate hearing from others who’ve navigated similar situations.

I hope some of you can share your experiences or interpretations — it would be extremely helpful as we align our approach with GHG Protocol best practices.

Thanks in advance!

Hi Joey,

Since the metal containing waste is being purchased and not being generated by the reporting company, it falls (to my understanding) under scope 3 category 1.

The emissions from the combustion process are proces related emissions under scope 1. Important: under ETS often only CO2 emissions are taken into account (experience from the past, not up to date with the details regarding ETS2). In regard to the GHG protocol it is important to calculate the CO2equivalent emissions for other greenhouse gasses such as CH4 or others, when for example incomplete combustions occurs.

Best of luck, Ruben

Hi Joey,

I have a similar case of a company that purchases waste as its raw material. They operate as a MRF (material recovery/recycling facility) where the output of the process is recycled metal ready to use in smelting. I have the same question as your first question, do you have to account for the life cycle emissions for raw material purchases that fall under the category as waste?

Initially I also concluded that the life cycle emissions had to be taken into account in scope 3 category 1. The provided quote from the GHG protocol looks to insinuate this. This quote however refers to companies purchasing recylced material, not MRFs. It also insinuates that the product carbon footprint of the recovered metal should (only) include the recycling process emissions, and not the life cycle emissions of the previously purchased waste.

In the product standard of GHGp on page p74 box [9.3] there is following explanation:

“If an intermediate product has recycled inputs, companies can use the recycled content method and account for the material recovery facility (MRF) and recycling process emissions and removals for that input.”

This lead me to assume that for the corporate carbon footprint of an MRF the recycled content method should also be used. This method is also called the cut off approach. This approach cuts off the impact of the material before the MRF unlike the avoided burden method where the impact of the recycling process falls into the end of life treatment of the primary producer.

In the scope 3 calculating guidance it is also recommended to use the recycled content method for the calculation of the category 5 and category 12 emissions. I thus conclude that for the MRF this method should also be used, meaning that the category 1 emissions of the purchased waste are zero.

Is there anyone that can corroborate this conclusion?