Blind spots in carbon footprint calculations

2026-02-10 16:44 Sector Deep Dive

Carbon footprinting is quickly becoming a standard part of corporate management — whether driven by regulation, customer pressure or investors. Yet in practice, we often see that carbon footprint calculations deliver little to no real value for companies.

Let’s take a look at the most common mistakes we encounter — and what changes when carbon footprinting is set up properly.

Measuring without a clear objective

One of the most fundamental mistakes is starting to measure a carbon footprint without clearly defining its purpose.

There is a real difference between aiming to:

meet regulatory requirements (e.g. CSRD),
prepare for an audit,
or create a basis for managing costs, investments and the supply chain.

As Vojtěch Čemus, Senior Environmental Strategist at Flagship, also points out in his article Carbon footprint management, the first step should always be to define the organisation’s objectives, including an assessment of risks, opportunities, and the regulatory context. Without this step, the carbon footprint becomes an isolated number that no one knows how to use.

How to do it right:

From the outset, link carbon footprint data to concrete management decisions — such as investments, procurement changes or strategic goals — and treat it as a regular input into business management.

Trying to be as accurate as possible from day one

Companies often approach Scope 3 by trying to calculate all categories with the same level of detail and accuracy. In practice, this is unsustainable.

Scope 3 includes dozens of categories — from purchased materials and transport to the use of products by customers. Not all of them have the same impact, and not all are equally controllable.

What’s missing is prioritisation based on materiality:

which areas account for the largest share of emissions,
where the company has real influence,
and where it makes sense to invest time and resources.

How to do it right:

Focus first on the most emission-intensive and business-critical parts of Scope 3, and tailor the level of detail accordingly. Not all categories need the same depth of data to be useful for decision-making.

Unclear ownership of Scope 3

Scope 3 is a classic example of an area that “belongs to everyone” — and therefore to no one. In practice, responsibility is often fragmented across ESG teams, procurement, finance and operations.

Without clearly defined roles (who collects the data, who validates it, and who is accountable for its quality), Scope 3 cannot be managed effectively in the long term.

How to do it right:

Clearly define roles and responsibilities for Scope 3 across the organisation, and establish a consistent process for data collection, review and approval that is repeated every year.

Unrealistic expectations of suppliers

Scope 3 is heavily dependent on the supply chain. Companies therefore often assume that suppliers will simply provide accurate, auditable data.

The reality is different:

many suppliers do not have the data,
or lack the capacity to provide it regularly,
or operate outside the EU without regulatory pressure.

The result is often formal questionnaires, rough estimates and data that technically exists but offers little real insight.

How to do it right:

Segment suppliers by significance and risk, and apply different data-collection approaches accordingly — with detailed data only where it has a real impact.

Scope 3 disconnected from the business

Carbon footprint results often end up in an ESG report but never make it into day-to-day business management:

procurement,
investment planning,
strategic decision-making.

The calculation then exists alongside the business, rather than being part of it.

How to do it right:

Integrate carbon footprint results into key business processes — especially procurement, investments and strategic planning — and treat them as a standard management input.

Data collection in spreadsheets without long-term control

Many companies start collecting carbon footprint data in Excel or shared spreadsheets. This is understandable in the first year, but as Scope 3 grows, spreadsheets quickly become a bottleneck:

multiple file versions and unclear “final” versions,
manual copying and re-entry of data,
lack of an audit trail,
difficult consistency checks between years.

The result is not only higher workload, but also reduced data credibility.

How to do it right:

Once carbon footprinting becomes a recurring process involving multiple people, departments or suppliers, it’s time to move from spreadsheets to a tool that:

centralises data in one place,
enables clear roles and approval workflows,
preserves change history and an audit trail,
ensures methodological consistency over time.

“When working with companies, we repeatedly see that the calculation itself is not the biggest challenge. The hardest part is maintaining data collection that is consistent, transparent and auditable over the long term. That’s why we decided to develop a digital platform that helps companies manage the entire process — not just calculate the numbers,” explains Vojtěch Čemus.

A digital platform therefore doesn’t just solve the calculation — it primarily supports the management of the entire data collection and data usage process.

Without a system that holds this process together, carbon footprinting becomes unsustainably complex — and its value for management is lost.

Where real value is created

A well-designed carbon footprint calculation — especially for Scope 3 — enables companies to:

identify the most significant emission and cost drivers,
manage procurement and relationships with key suppliers more effectively,
support investment decision-making,
set realistic and defensible emissions reduction targets,
reduce the risk of greenwashing.

Carbon footprinting is not a one-off project, but a long-term process. The goal is not to have everything perfectly calculated from the start, but to set objectives, methodology and data collection in a way that allows for consistent expansion and refinement over time. Companies should start with what they can realistically measure and gradually broaden their scope as their capabilities and data availability improve.

A carbon footprint alone will not change a company. Change only happens when the results are meaningfully integrated into real business management.