Spend-based Vs industry average based analysis - balancing effort and reward

Emission factor databases
1

We currently provide spend-based emissions analysis and are working with the client to obtain supplier specific data to replace spend-based where possible. We’d also like to replace other elements of the spend-based analysis with industry specific date but I want to understand what the options are for those emissions factors.

Exiobase is another spend-based library isn’t it, so I assume that, while it may or may not be any more accurate than the UKGov figures, it’s the same approach.

EcoInvent is based on products or materials and the units are mass, volume or unit. While the client will know how many of a thing they have purchased (in theory!), data in that form isn’t readily available and I’m not sure the effort to extract the data will give results that are sufficiently more accurate than the spend-based to warrant the effiort when the next step is to try and get supplier specific data anyway.

Are there are alternatives to these? Is there an approach to quantify that sits between spend-based and supplier-specific that requires an acceptable level of effort when considering the reward?

Any thoughts, very welcome!

2

Hi Kev,

Very relevant question, but answer is very dependent on the context of the client (industry, size, maturity, use of the footprint..) and your preference as an advisor.

Going from spend-based emission factors to supplier-specific emission factors, is a big step. I would for sure work with sector-average activity factors as a step in between.

Personally, I very much like to start high-level with sector-average activity factors as of day 1. And this for following reasons;

  • It’s not more work, if you start with the top 5-10 (groups of) materials that they source (that typically covers 80-90% of their PGS emissions, the last 10-20% can be covered with spend factors)
  • Companies do know the volumes and weights they source of their top 5-10 materials. Maybe not in detail, but for sure the order of magnitude (if they don’t, they have other issues)
  • The resulting carbon footprint will be more accurate and more insightfull then doing a spend-based on 100+ expense lines
  • From there, you can further refine by for instance splitting the top 2 groups of materials groups into their more detailed materials

So in summary, with actvitiy based you can both save time and have a more accurate footprint (if you start top-down).

That’s my personal view at least :slight_smile:

Kenneth