Scope 3 Category 11 — Minimum boundary vs. life-cycle emission factors

Greenhouse Gas Protocol
1

Hello everyone,

We would appreciate your views on how the software applies Scope 3 Category 11 — Use of Sold Products, particularly for products that directly consume fuel or electricity during use.

Let us take the example of a company that manufactures and sells diesel-powered trains. The GHG Protocol Technical Guidance states that the calculation should use:

“Life cycle emission factors for fuels”
“Life cycle emission factors for electricity”

However, we have noticed that, for diesel consumption under Category 11, the software only includes the combustion emissions — Tank-to-Wheel — and excludes the Well-to-Tank emissions associated with fuel extraction, production, refining and transport.

We have observed a similar treatment for electricity: the software includes the emissions associated with electricity generation but excludes the upstream component and transmission and distribution losses.

We understand that the minimum boundary of Category 11 refers to the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions of the end user. This could support the approach applied by the software:

  • diesel: combustion or Tank-to-Wheel emissions only;
  • electricity: the end user’s Scope 2 emissions;
  • excluding WTT, upstream electricity emissions and T&D losses.

Nevertheless, the calculation guidance (GHGP) specifically refers to life-cycle emission factors, which could indicate that the upstream components should also be included.

Our questions are therefore:

  1. Is applying only the minimum boundary —Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions of the end user— fully aligned with the GHG Protocol for Category 11?
  2. Should the software instead apply full life-cycle emission factors, including WTT emissions for fuels and upstream electricity emissions?
  3. What approach should consultants recommend to companies: the minimum boundary, the broader life-cycle approach, or a choice between both provided that the methodology is transparently disclosed?

We would be very interested to know how other consultants are handling this issue, particularly where the choice could have a significant impact on the reported emissions from sold products.