How can FM and procurement teams obtain reliable Scope 3 carbon data from suppliers?
Reliable Scope 3 carbon data cannot be created simply by asking every supplier for a figure and adding the responses together. Organisations need to understand what each figure covers, how it was calculated and whether it is sufficiently complete and relevant. They then need a consistent method for organising the information and connecting it with procurement and reporting systems.
For facilities management and procurement teams, this is becoming an increasingly important challenge. Customers, tender documents and carbon reduction plans are placing greater emphasis on supply-chain emissions. Yet the information required can sit across hundreds of suppliers and thousands of products, often in different formats and calculated using different approaches.
At Janitorial Express, our work with more than 400 suppliers has shown us that the real challenge is not simply obtaining carbon information. It is turning complex and sometimes incomplete data into something credible, comparable and useful.
Why is Scope 3 carbon measurement so difficult?
Scope 3 covers indirect emissions that arise across an organisation’s value chain. For an FM provider, purchased goods and services can include cleaning chemicals, paper products, refuse sacks, dispensers, machinery, equipment and many other everyday supplies.
Unlike energy use in a building or fuel consumed by a company vehicle, these emissions often sit outside the organisation’s direct control. Measuring them depends on information from manufacturers, distributors and other supply-chain partners.
This creates several practical problems:
· Suppliers may use different calculation methods or reporting boundaries.
· One figure may represent an individual product, while another relates to a material, product range or entire organisation.
· Some calculations use supplier-specific activity data, while others rely on recognised secondary estimates or expenditure.
· Information may cover different stages of a product’s life cycle.
· The age, completeness and geographic relevance of the underlying data can vary.
· Smaller suppliers may not yet have product-level carbon information available.
The result is a mixture of figures that may appear precise but are not necessarily comparable. A number without a clear methodology, boundary and source can create false confidence rather than useful insight.
What should procurement teams ask suppliers about carbon data?
The first step is to ask what sits behind the figure. Useful questions include:
1. What does the figure cover? Is it an organisational footprint, a product carbon footprint or an estimate for a particular material?
2. What is the reporting boundary? For example, does it cover production up to the factory gate, delivery, use and end-of-life, or only selected stages?
3. Which calculation methodology was used? Has the supplier followed a recognised greenhouse-gas accounting or life-cycle assessment approach?
4. What data supports the calculation? Is it based on primary operational information, recognised emission factors, industry averages, expenditure or a combination of sources?
5. Which period does it relate to? Carbon information should be dated so users can judge whether it remains representative.
6. Has it been independently reviewed or verified? If so, what was reviewed, by whom and against which standard?
7. What assumptions or exclusions were made? Material gaps should be visible rather than hidden behind a single headline number.
These questions do not mean that information without product-level independent verification has no value. They allow procurement teams to understand what the information can—and cannot—reasonably be used for.
Does supplier-specific data automatically mean better data?
No. Information supplied directly by a manufacturer may be valuable, but it should not automatically be treated as more accurate simply because it is primary data.
Its quality depends on factors including completeness, methodology, reporting boundary, age and relevance to the products being purchased. A transparent estimate based on an appropriate recognised methodology can sometimes provide a more consistent starting point than a supplier figure with an unclear basis.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Scope 3 Standard distinguishes corporate value-chain accounting from product-level accounting and provides guidance on supplier engagement and data quality. The aim is to use the best information reasonably available, disclose its limitations and improve quality over time.
For procurement teams, the practical question is therefore not simply, “Do we have supplier data?” It is, “Is this information suitable for the decision or report in which we intend to use it?”
How Janitorial Express is bringing structure to supply-chain carbon information
Janitorial Express manages thousands of cleaning and hygiene products sourced from more than 400 suppliers. Working with Neutral Carbon Zone, we have begun creating a more structured approach to this complex information.
Thousands of products have been organised into seven material groups. This creates a consistent framework for managing relevant carbon information across a large and varied product range.
The information supplied to us is assessed for relevance, completeness and data quality before being incorporated into our reporting. Through our work with NCZ, recognised calculation methodologies and reporting standards are applied, helping us develop a more robust picture of supply-chain emissions.
We have also connected the relevant information with our enterprise resource planning data and Power BI reporting. This is important because carbon information becomes more useful when it can be considered alongside the products and materials customers actually purchase.
The objective is not to present every figure as equally precise. It is to build a consistent and transparent evidence base that can be refined as supplier engagement and data quality improve.
How should businesses deal with missing supplier carbon data?
Missing information is normal when an organisation begins measuring Scope 3 emissions. Waiting for every supplier to produce a complete product carbon footprint can prevent useful work from starting.
A more practical approach is to:
· Identify the most material purchasing categories.
· Establish a baseline using the best available information and recognised methodologies.
· Record where estimates, assumptions or secondary data have been used.
· Prioritise suppliers and product categories where improved data would make the greatest difference.
· Introduce consistent supplier data requests.
· Review and improve data quality each year.
NCZ’s published certification framework describes this as a progressive process: supplier information is assessed for relevance, completeness and quality, and supplier-specific data is used where it is sufficiently robust. This avoids assuming that all primary data is automatically better while creating a route towards stronger Scope 3 insight.
How can carbon data become useful to FM customers?
Collecting carbon information is only the beginning. To support customers, it needs to be organised so that it can contribute to procurement decisions, carbon reporting and ongoing reduction activity.
Connecting carbon information with purchasing data can help organisations:
· Understand which materials or purchasing categories may have the greatest carbon impact.
· Identify gaps where better supplier information is required.
· Compare purchasing patterns over time.
· Ask more informed questions during supplier reviews.
· Support customer Scope 3 reporting with clearer supply-chain information.
· Identify practical opportunities to reduce emissions through product selection, consolidation or supplier engagement.
The value lies not in producing the largest possible database of carbon figures. It lies in making the information understandable, appropriately qualified and relevant to a customer’s decisions.
Can better supplier carbon information support tenders?
Potentially. FM and procurement teams are increasingly asked to explain how they measure emissions, engage their supply chains and support customers’ environmental objectives.
A supplier that can describe its methodology, data-quality process and improvement plan may be able to provide more meaningful evidence than one offering an unsupported headline claim. However, carbon information should always be presented with appropriate boundaries and qualifications. It should not be described as independently verified unless the relevant calculation or report has genuinely undergone that verification.
Credibility comes from being clear about what is known, what has been estimated and what still needs to improve.
Carbon measurement is a process, not a one-off exercise
Our work with NCZ has reinforced an important lesson: there is no single moment at which supply-chain carbon data becomes permanently complete.
Products change, suppliers improve their reporting, recognised emission factors are updated and customer requirements develop. A credible approach therefore needs governance, specialist expertise and systems capable of being updated over time.
For FM and procurement teams, progress begins with five practical principles:
1. Start with the customer or reporting question. Be clear about what the data needs to support.
2. Understand the basis of every material figure. Record its boundary, methodology, source and reporting period.
3. Assess quality before use. Do not assume that supplier-specific information is automatically reliable.
4. Be transparent about estimates and gaps. Credible reporting acknowledges uncertainty.
5. Create a plan for improvement. Prioritise the suppliers and categories where better information will have the greatest value.
Measuring Scope 3 emissions across a complex supply chain will never be as simple as collecting a spreadsheet of numbers. But with consistent methods, stronger supplier engagement and systems that connect carbon information with purchasing activity, businesses can turn complexity into practical insight.
That is the direction Janitorial Express is taking: building a more robust evidence base, improving it over time and making supply-chain carbon information more useful to our customers.
Frequently asked questions
What is Scope 3 carbon data?
Scope 3 data covers indirect greenhouse-gas emissions across an organisation’s value chain. It can include emissions associated with purchased goods and services, transport, waste, business travel, employee commuting and the use or disposal of sold products.
What is supplier-specific emissions data?
Supplier-specific data is information obtained directly from a supplier about its operations, products or services. Its usefulness depends on the calculation method, boundary, completeness and supporting evidence.
Must every product have an independently verified carbon footprint?
No. Product-level verified information may not be available across an entire supply chain. Organisations can use appropriate recognised estimation methods where necessary, provided the basis and limitations are understood and reported transparently.
How can a business improve Scope 3 data quality?
Businesses can improve quality by prioritising material categories, introducing consistent supplier requests, assessing the information received, documenting assumptions and replacing estimates with sufficiently robust supplier-specific data over time.
Why connect carbon information with procurement data?
Connecting the two helps organisations relate emissions information to actual purchasing activity. This can reveal priority materials and suppliers, support customer reporting and inform practical reduction decisions.
