A relevance assessment helps an organization identify value-chain activities, set a transparent inventory boundary, and prioritize data collection and emissions-reduction work. Interpret the requirements by distinguishing the final standard from historical drafts and from methods an organization adopts for its own management.
1. Purpose and position
Scope 3 consists of 15 categories of activities, but not every company actually performs activities in every category. For example, a company with no franchise operations may have no Category 14 emissions. “Not applicable” is a different determination from excluding an activity that exists.
Final Standard §6.2 requires accounting for all Scope 3 emissions defined by the Standard and disclosure and justification of any exclusions. Section 6.3 further requires that exclusions not undermine the relevance of the inventory, particularly by omitting activities expected to contribute significantly to total Scope 3 emissions.
Completeness does not mean estimating emissions for activities that do not exist, nor selecting only categories for which data are easy to obtain. A sound approach is: identify all 15 categories → determine minimum boundaries and applicability → quantify emissions → explain non-applicability or exclusions → improve data quality.
The US EPA’s Scope 3 inventory guidance can inform practical implementation. Formal conformance should still be assessed against the boundary and disclosure requirements in the GHG Protocol Standard itself.
Sources: GHG Protocol final standard, official FAQ on minimum and optional boundaries, EPA inventory guidance.
2. Official sources and version distinctions
| Version / section | Subject | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 final Standard §6.2 | Boundary requirements | Requirements for the boundary of all Scope 3 emissions and disclosure of exclusions |
| 2011 final Standard §6.3 and Table 6.1 | Disclosing and justifying exclusions; relevance criteria | Assess whether an exclusion is justified and consider the seven relevance criteria |
| 2011 final Standard Box 6.2 | Influence | Distinguish emissions attribution from influence over reductions |
| 2011 final Standard §7.1 | Prioritizing data collection | Prioritize activities through initial estimates and other criteria |
| November 2009 draft §§5.2, 5.3 and 5.3.1 | Size, other relevance criteria and influence | Historical comparison only; these are not current section numbers or thresholds in the final Standard |
The November 2009 draft proposed accounting for major sources that collectively represented at least 80% of expected Scope 3 emissions, and noted that the threshold was subject to confirmation after field testing. The final Standard did not retain this as a universal number. It is therefore incorrect to conclude that covering 80% alone demonstrates conformance.
Sources: 2011 final Standard, historical November 2009 draft.
3. Relevance criteria
Seven criteria and comparison with the historical draft
| Criterion | 2009 draft | 2011 final Standard, Table 6.1 | Practical assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Size | §5.2 discussed a provisional cumulative 80% threshold | Whether the activity contributes significantly to expected total Scope 3 emissions | Use estimates to identify high-emission activities; the final Standard has no universal 80% exclusion threshold |
| Influence | Potential reductions the company could implement or influence | Retained as a criterion | Can procurement, design, contracts or supply-chain management enable reductions? |
| Risk | Financial, regulatory, supply-chain, litigation and reputational risks | Retained as a criterion | Could the activity affect cost, compliance, customers, supply or reputation? |
| Stakeholders | Importance to key stakeholders | Retained as a criterion | Consider customer, supplier, investor and civil-society concerns |
| Outsourcing | Activities commonly performed in-house in the industry but outsourced by the company | Retained as a criterion | Did outsourcing change the reported boundary even though the activity remains closely connected to the business? |
| Sector guidance | Could be part of additional company or sector criteria | Listed separately | Activities identified as important by applicable sector guidance |
| Other | Additional criteria set by the company or sector | Retained as a criterion | Explain the company-specific criteria, evidence and consistent application |
Data availability is not a separate eighth criterion in Table 6.1. It affects the collection method and improvement plan; difficulty obtaining data alone is not a sufficient reason to deem a significant activity irrelevant.
The version history means that the draft’s single percentage cannot replace the final Standard’s completeness, minimum-boundary and multiple-criteria requirements. Any interpretation of the policy trade-off behind the change should be presented as analysis, not as an officially confirmed reason for drafting decisions.
Source: Final Standard, Table 6.1 and Chapters 6–7.
4. The influence principle: look beyond emissions volume
Historical draft §5.3.1 explicitly discussed prioritizing activities where a company could exert influence and achieve reductions, even if they fell below the draft’s size threshold.
The final Standard addresses influence and prioritization through Table 6.1, Box 6.2 and §7.1. Lack of operational control does not make emissions irrelevant to the company. Conversely, limited influence is not, by itself, sufficient justification for excluding emissions.
Turning influence into action
| Activity | Possible actions (practical examples) |
|---|---|
| Purchased goods and services: supplier operations | Work with suppliers on efficiency, assess lower-carbon suppliers, and set reduction and data requirements in contracts |
| Purchased goods and services: upstream life cycle | Substitute high-carbon materials and ask Tier 1 suppliers to collect data further upstream |
| Transportation and distribution | Assess local sourcing, transport-mode changes, load factors and route efficiency |
| Waste generated in operations | Prevent waste, reuse and recycle appropriately, and assess emissions from actual treatment methods |
| Employee commuting | Encourage public transit, provide shuttles, promote carpooling and consider suitable remote-work arrangements |
When planning actions, check whether emissions could shift to another part of the value chain. For example, remote work may reduce commuting emissions but may also change energy use in employees’ homes.
Source: Final Standard, Box 6.2 and Table 9.7.
5. Implementation: identify, estimate and improve
The following three steps are a practical workflow summary, not a replacement for the Standard.
| Step | Work | Records to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1: Identify and assess | Review all 15 categories, minimum boundaries and seven criteria across departments; estimate size where needed | Activity list; applicability; inclusion, non-applicability or exclusion decision and rationale |
| Step 2: Estimate and quantify | Select methods by category, such as fuel, distance, weight, spend or supplier-specific data | Activity data, emission factors, year, assumptions, method and uncertainty |
| Step 3: Review and improve | Periodically review new activities, boundary changes and data quality; prioritize significant hotspots | Gap list, owner, improvement timeline and any recalculation plan |
Initial estimates may use industry averages, EEIO, proxy data or reasonable approximations to prioritize data collection. A formal inventory may also use suitable secondary data; not every data point must be upgraded to direct measurement. The key is an appropriate method, transparent quality and continued improvement of significant hotspots.
Do not treat “expand from 5 to 12 categories” as a fixed progress target. The category count depends on actual activities. All 15 categories should be reviewed from the first inventory year; known significant emissions should not be arbitrarily deferred to later years.
Sources: Final Standard §§7.1, 7.3 and 7.6, EPA inventory guidance.
6. Common implementation errors
- Using the number of categories as proof of completeness. Explain actual activities and boundaries category by category. Do not estimate emissions for non-existent activities, but do not omit existing emissions merely because data collection is inconvenient.
- Looking only at size and ignoring other criteria. Lower-emission activities may warrant priority if risks, stakeholder concern or reduction opportunities are significant.
- Treating outsourced emissions as if they disappeared. Outsourcing may change scope attribution; relevant Scope 3 categories still need to be checked.
- Making the assessment once and never revisiting it. New products, acquisitions, outsourcing, supply-chain changes and better data can affect the assessment and base-year comparability.
- Treating spend-based data as the only basis—or assuming it can never be used in a formal inventory. Spend-based methods can support screening and are valid methods for some categories; consider prices, currencies, factor representativeness and intended use.
- Treating the historical 80% figure or a 67% target-coverage figure as an inventory threshold. These figures come from different documents and serve different purposes.
7. Practical recommendations for Taiwan
1. Hotspot prioritization is not exclusion
An organization may use “improve data for sources representing the cumulative 80% of estimated emissions first” as an internal resource-allocation example. Label it as an internal method, then continue to assess remaining activities, minimum boundaries and all seven criteria. Do not call it a current GHG Protocol threshold.
2. Document the assessment
Maintain a working paper covering “15 categories × seven criteria × decision × exclusion rationale,” with estimates and supporting evidence.
| Working-paper field | Suggested information |
|---|---|
| Category and activity | Category number, activity description and upstream/downstream position |
| Organizational and minimum boundary | Consolidation approach, control and required or optional emissions |
| Seven criteria | Evidence and rationale for each criterion; avoid checkboxes without explanation |
| Initial size estimate | Estimated emissions, share, method and uncertainty |
| Decision | Included, not applicable or excluded, with separate rationale |
| Data and improvement | Data source, factor version, owner and improvement schedule |
| Review | Review date, approver and annual change record |
3. Confirm SBTi target boundaries separately
Under Corporate Near-Term Criteria V5.3.1, Scope 3 emissions representing 40% or more of total emissions trigger the requirement to include Scope 3 in near-term targets; the combined target must cover at least 67% of Scope 3 emissions, subject to the criteria for exclusions. This is a target-setting rule, not a substitute for a complete inventory. Confirm the applicable criteria version and sector requirements when applying.
Source: SBTi criteria.
4. Link influence to emissions-reduction governance
Assign procurement, research and development, and operational responsibilities to categories where the company has management leverage. Manufacturers may first examine C1 purchased goods and, where applicable, C11 use of sold products, but should confirm hotspots using company-specific data rather than industry assumptions.