Service companies sit at the heart of global supply chains, yet their emissions are routinely overlooked. If organizations are serious about decarbonizing Scope 3, this blind spot has to be addressed.
While Scope 3 strategies have traditionally focused on physical goods, emissions from services are becoming increasingly material. These emissions are indirect, driven by factors such as travel, energy consumption, and IT infrastructure. Because services are intangible and don’t fit neatly into product-based accounting methods, they are often poorly defined, estimated at a high level, or deprioritized altogether.
The result? Procurement and sustainability teams lack the data they need to prioritize action, engage service suppliers meaningfully, and track real progress against decarbonization targets.
In this webinar, the Green Project team explored how Service Carbon Footprints (SCFs) can close this gap, providing consistent, transparent, and actionable emissions data for services across the value chain. We’ll examine practical considerations for measuring service emissions and show how robust SCFs can be used to drive real decarbonization outcomes.
We discussed:
Why service emissions are different
How these differences create gaps in Scope 3 decarbonization planning and delivery
What Service Carbon Footprints are
Key principles for robust SCFs, focused on consistency, transparency, and usability
How SCFs support decarbonization action
Green Project’s approach to SCFs
FAQs
1. How can SCFs be used when internal reference unit (RU) data is incomplete?
If Service Carbon Footprints (SCFs) are intended to roll up into a corporate carbon footprint, they should be designed to remain compatible with spend-based baselines while enabling more granular inputs where possible.
Best practices include:
Allowing hybrid inputs SCFs should support multiple reference units, such as spend, FTEs, hours, or transactions, with clear documentation of which RU was used for each calculation.
Prioritizing consistency over perfection When only spend data is available, SCFs can still serve as a controlled proxy. This is an improvement over generic industry-average EIO factors.
Requiring metadata and confidence scoring Each SCF should include:
RU type used
Data completeness (actual vs. estimated)
Vintage, including year, boundary, and methodology
Enabling traceability back to spend This allows emissions to be reconciled and audited when integrated into Scope 3 reporting.
Why this works: Even with incomplete RU data, SCFs improve accuracy by narrowing system boundaries and supplier specificity, without disrupting downstream reporting workflows.
2. What are best practices when reference units are based on time spent (hours)?
Estimation is acceptable, and often unavoidable, when hours are used as a reference unit.
Best practices include:
Using standardized estimation rules, such as:
Average hours per engagement type
Percentage allocation of staff time by role
Benchmarked utilization rates
Being conservative and consistent Over time, consistency is more important than hyper-precision.
Documenting assumptions explicitly Each estimate should clearly state:
The method used
The source of the assumption
Whether hours are tracked, modeled, or inferred
Improving over time Treat time-based RUs as part of a maturity journey, not a one-time calculation.
This approach aligns with GHG Protocol guidance on using reasonable estimates when primary data is unavailable.
3. How should emissions be calculated when a law firm provides activity-based data but does not disclose revenue?
If a law firm provides complete activity-based emissions data, revenue is not required.
Recommended approach:
Use absolute emissions rather than intensity metrics The firm’s total footprint can be allocated directly to services delivered.
Allocate emissions by activity, not spend or revenue For example:
Percentage of staff time
Number of matters
Billable hours by client or engagement type
Avoid EIO factors entirely When emissions are calculated using primary activity data, spend-to-emissions conversion is unnecessary.
Key point: EIO is a fallback method, not a requirement. Primary data always takes precedence.
4. When switching from spend-based methods to SCFs, do prior years need to be restated?
No, restatement is not required, but it is often recommended.
Common options include:
Option A: No restatement
Keep prior years on spend-based methods
Clearly disclose the methodology change
Expect a visible step change in emissions
Option B: Partial restatement
Recalculate prior years for material categories only
Improves trend comparability with limited effort
Option C: Full restatement (best practice)
Apply SCFs retroactively using historical spend or activity data
Produces a clean, defensible time series
Most mature programs aim for Option B or C once SCFs are stable.
