In my work as a sustainability consultant, I often see the same pattern: certain elements of a greenhouse gas inventory are measured with extreme precision – for example, the exact amount of waste a company produces – while entire emission sources or even entire (sub-)scopes are left out completely.
The result: high effort, but low impact.
The goal of measuring a carbon footprint is not to produce perfect numbers.
A greenhouse gas inventory is a tool – and as such, it should primarily help identify effective measures to reduce emissions.
What Is the Purpose of a Carbon Footprint?
A carbon footprint – also known as a Corporate Carbon Footprint (CCF) – records a company’s greenhouse gas emissions across its entire value chain. It typically follows recognised standards such as the GHG Protocol and is divided into Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions.
The main goals are:
- Identify the largest sources of emissions
- Set priorities for reduction
- Track and measure progress
A carbon footprint is therefore not an end in itself, but a tool for strategic emissions reduction.
The Misconception: Accuracy at All Costs
Many companies invest enormous resources into precisely measuring individual items – often because the corresponding data is readily available. Paper consumption or the exact volume of residual waste can usually be determined down to the kilogram.
At the same time, more complex or harder-to-measure emission sources – such as large parts of Scope 3 (purchased goods and services, product use phase, disposal, etc.) – are often not recorded at all.
The problem: When central emission sources are missing, the picture is distorted.
In the worst case, the most impactful levers are not being identified, and the emissions reduction strategy is ineffective.
Why Completeness Matters More Than Accuracy
When in doubt: Completeness before accuracy.
It’s critical to include all relevant emission sources in your footprint – even if some values are only rough estimates at first.
- In the first step, the order of magnitude is sufficient to identify the most important levers.
- Estimates can be made quickly and reliably based on industry benchmarks, emission factors, or expert experience.
- Time and resources can be focused where they will have the greatest impact.
Frameworks such as the GHG Protocol or the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) support this approach:
Non-significant emissions can be estimated!
Accuracy – Applied With Purpose
This does not mean that accuracy is unimportant.
It becomes relevant when it’s clear that a category represents a significant share of total emissions, or when better data would enable more specific and impactful measures.
In those cases, it’s worth investing in more detailed data collection – targeted, and with a clear purpose.
Conclusion: Perfectionism Is Not a Climate Strategy
Sometimes, “estimated” = good enough.
Experienced experts can estimate emissions roughly but reliably – without months of data collection.
Accuracy can then be pursued in later years, if and when it truly supports the development of meaningful actions.
Do you want to build your carbon footprint in a pragmatic, complete, and impact-oriented way?
I help you focus your efforts where they matter most – so you can act faster and achieve real impact.
