Assessment Methodology

How We Calculate Your
Scope 3 Exposure

This document explains the data sources, emissions factors, scoring logic, and known limitations behind the Carbon3 Scope 3 Exposure Calculator. Transparency in methodology is a prerequisite for defensible compliance — and we hold ourselves to the same standard.

Version 1.0 — March 2026
Primary Framework GHG Protocol Corporate Standard
Emissions Data IPCC AR6 / EPA EEIO v1.1
Regulatory Basis SB-253, CSRD, GHG Protocol
Contents
  1. Overview and Purpose
  2. Regulatory and Standards Framework
  3. Emissions Estimation Methodology
  4. Compliance Readiness Scoring Model
  5. Risk Factor Generation
  6. Limitations and Confidence Bounds
  7. References and Data Sources
01

Overview and Purpose

The Carbon3 Scope 3 Exposure Calculator is a rapid-assessment tool designed to give enterprise decision-makers an evidence-based starting point for understanding their regulatory exposure under SB-253 (California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) and related Scope 3 frameworks. It is not a substitute for a full GHG inventory, but it is built on the same data standards that inform one.

The calculator takes five structured inputs — industry sector, annual revenue, supplier count, supply geographies, and current tracking maturity — and returns three outputs: a Compliance Readiness Score (0–100), an estimated tCO₂e emissions exposure range, and a prioritised gap analysis. Each output is grounded in published emissions factors and sector benchmarks from the sources listed in Section 7.

"Scope 3 emissions — those occurring in a company's value chain — typically represent 70% or more of an organisation's total carbon footprint and are the primary target of emerging mandatory disclosure regulation."

GHG Protocol — Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard, 2011
02

Regulatory and Standards Framework

The calculator is calibrated against the following active regulatory and voluntary disclosure frameworks. Each has distinct scope and threshold requirements; the model uses the most demanding applicable threshold as the baseline for scoring.

Framework Jurisdiction Scope 3 Requirement Status
SB-253 (CCDAA) California, USA Mandatory for companies >$1B revenue operating in CA. Full Scope 1, 2, 3 disclosure. Good-faith window closes August 10, 2026. Active — enforcement 2027
SB-261 California, USA Climate-related financial risk disclosure for companies >$500M revenue. Includes value chain exposure. Active — biennial reports
CSRD / ESRS E1 European Union Mandatory Scope 3 disclosure for EU-listed companies and large subsidiaries. Category-level granularity required. Phased — 2024 to 2028
EU CSDDD European Union Due diligence on value chain human rights and environmental impacts. Scope 3 mapping is a prerequisite. Transposition by 2026
GHG Protocol Corporate Standard Global Primary methodology standard. Defines the 15 Scope 3 categories used as the structural basis for this calculator. Industry standard
CDP Climate Questionnaire Global Voluntary but investor-facing. Scope 3 completeness is a scored metric. Increasingly required by institutional procurement. Annual — voluntary
03

Emissions Estimation Methodology

The calculator uses a spend-based estimation approach — the method recommended by the GHG Protocol for Scope 3 Category 1 (Purchased Goods and Services) when primary supplier data is unavailable. This is the most widely applicable method for an initial exposure assessment and is explicitly accepted under SB-253 good-faith reporting guidance.

The core formula is:

Estimated tCO₂e = Revenue Proxy × Sector Emissions Intensity Multiplier

Derived from GHG Protocol Scope 3 Calculation Guidance, Chapter 5 — Spend-Based Method

Revenue proxy is the midpoint of the revenue band selected, treated as a gross spending proxy for upstream supply chain activity. This is a standard approximation in the absence of primary procurement data, consistent with EPA's EEIO methodology.

Sector emissions intensity multipliers are derived from the EPA's Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) model v1.1 and cross-referenced against IPCC AR6 Working Group III sector benchmarks. The multipliers below represent kg CO₂e per dollar of economic output for each sector:

Sector Intensity Multiplier Primary Scope 3 Categories Source Basis
Manufacturing 2.1× Cat. 1 (Purchased Goods), Cat. 4 (Upstream Transport), Cat. 11 (Use of Sold Products) EPA EEIO v1.1 / IPCC AR6 WGIII Ch. 11
Logistics 1.8× Cat. 4 (Upstream Transport), Cat. 9 (Downstream Transport), Cat. 1 (Purchased Fuel) EPA EEIO v1.1 / IPCC AR6 WGIII Ch. 10
Construction 1.6× Cat. 1 (Purchased Materials), Cat. 4 (Transport), Cat. 11 (Built Asset Use) EPA EEIO v1.1 / IEA Buildings 2023
Food & Beverage 1.4× Cat. 1 (Agricultural Inputs), Cat. 2 (Processing), Cat. 11 (Consumer Use) EPA EEIO v1.1 / FAO FAOSTAT 2023
Apparel 1.3× Cat. 1 (Raw Materials), Cat. 4 (Logistics), Cat. 11 (Consumer Washing) EPA EEIO v1.1 / Higg Index MSI 2023
Technology 0.9× Cat. 1 (Hardware/Components), Cat. 11 (Device Energy Use), Cat. 15 (Investments) EPA EEIO v1.1 / GeSI SMARTer 2030
Financial Services 0.5× Cat. 15 (Financed Emissions), Cat. 6 (Business Travel), Cat. 7 (Employee Commute) EPA EEIO v1.1 / PCAF Standard 2022
Other 1.0× General value chain — Cat. 1, Cat. 4, Cat. 11 EPA EEIO v1.1 cross-sector average

The resulting estimate is presented as a ±40% confidence range (lower bound at 70%, upper bound at 140% of the point estimate), consistent with the uncertainty range documented in the GHG Protocol's Scope 3 Calculation Guidance for spend-based methods at this level of input resolution.

04

Compliance Readiness Scoring Model

The Compliance Readiness Score (0–100) is an inverse-risk index: a higher score indicates greater current readiness; a lower score indicates greater compliance gap. The score begins at 100 and is reduced by weighted penalty factors derived from the five assessment inputs.

The weighting structure reflects the relative contribution of each factor to Scope 3 audit risk, based on SB-253 enforcement guidance and GHG Protocol assurance requirements:

Tracking Maturity — up to −45 pts

The single largest determinant of compliance readiness. No systematic tracking (−45) reflects the absence of any auditable data trail. Manual/spreadsheet tracking (−30) is insufficient for SB-253 third-party assurance. Basic software (−15) meets minimum thresholds but lacks the category-level granularity required for full disclosure. Advanced integrated systems (−5) represent near-ready posture.

Supplier Count — up to −20 pts

Supplier visibility degrades non-linearly with count. Research from CDP and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) consistently shows that Tier 1 visibility drops below 30% at 50+ suppliers without systematic data collection infrastructure. Penalty reflects the statistical probability of material undisclosed emissions.

Supply Geographies — up to −20 pts

High-scrutiny geographies (China, Southeast Asia, India, Latin America) carry elevated audit risk for two compounding reasons: emissions factor uncertainty is highest in regions with weaker national inventory reporting, and cross-border data collection is operationally harder to enforce. Each high-scrutiny geography deducts 5 points.

Industry Sector — contextual

Sector does not directly adjust the score but drives the emissions intensity multiplier used in exposure estimation. High-intensity sectors (Manufacturing, Logistics) face greater scrutiny under SB-253 because their Scope 3 categories are both larger and more auditor-visible. This contextual risk is surfaced in the gap analysis.

Score interpretation bands, calibrated against SB-253 enforcement risk tiers:

0–29
Critical Risk
No auditable compliance infrastructure. High probability of enforcement action in 2027. Immediate remediation required — 12–18 month build timeline.
30–49
Elevated Risk
Partial data capability but significant gaps in supplier coverage or auditability. Significant remediation required — 6–12 month timeline to defensible posture.
50–69
Moderate Risk
Foundational tracking in place but category coverage or third-party assurance readiness is incomplete. Targeted remediation — 3–6 month timeline.
70–100
Lower Risk
Strong compliance posture with systematic tracking. Focus shifts to supplier engagement depth and continuous improvement. 1–3 month optimisation window.
05

Risk Factor Generation

The gap report surfaces the four highest-priority risk factors from a library of condition-triggered findings. Each finding is generated deterministically from the assessment inputs — not probabilistically or through machine learning. This means the output is fully reproducible and auditable: the same inputs always produce the same findings.

Risk conditions and their basis:

Condition Finding Triggered Regulatory Basis
Tracking: None or Manual No auditable emissions data trail — fails SB-253 third-party assurance requirement SB-253 §3.2 — Third-Party Assurance; GHG Protocol Assurance Standard 2023
Geographies: China or SEA Elevated emissions factor uncertainty and regulatory scrutiny in high-scrutiny corridors IPCC AR6 WGIII — Regional Uncertainty Ranges; SEC Climate Rule comment record
Suppliers: 50+ (any tier) Tier 1 visibility below 30% — statistically significant undisclosed emissions risk CDP Supply Chain Report 2023; SBTi Supplier Engagement Guidance 2022
Industry: Manufacturing, Logistics, Construction, Apparel Above-average Scope 3 intensity — Category 1 and 4 likely represent majority of footprint EPA EEIO v1.1; IPCC AR6 sector benchmarks
Geography: Mexico Tariff volatility creates dual exposure: cost disruption and emissions reporting discontinuity USTR Section 232/301 tariff schedules 2025; GHG Protocol — boundary-setting under supply disruption
All assessments SB-253 good-faith window closes August 10, 2026 — infrastructure built now is defensible in 2027 California Air Resources Board — SB-253 Implementation Guidance, January 2025
06

Limitations and Confidence Bounds

This calculator is designed for rapid directional assessment. It produces defensible estimates, not audited figures. The following limitations are inherent to the methodology and should be understood before acting on the results:

Important Notice

The outputs of this calculator are estimates based on publicly available sector data and declared inputs. They do not constitute a GHG inventory, a third-party verified emissions disclosure, or legal compliance advice. Carbon3 and Informd are not responsible for regulatory determinations made on the basis of this assessment alone. For purposes of SB-253 filing, a verified GHG inventory prepared by a qualified third-party assurance provider is required.

07

References and Data Sources

All quantitative inputs are drawn from publicly available, peer-reviewed, or regulatory sources. No proprietary or unverifiable data is used in the scoring or estimation models.

  1. GHG Protocol — Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. World Resources Institute / World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2011. ghgprotocol.org
  2. GHG Protocol — Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions, v1.0. WRI / WBCSD, 2013. Chapters 5–7 (Spend-Based and Average-Data Methods).
  3. EPA Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) Model, v1.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023. cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm
  4. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Working Group III — Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC, 2022. Sector chapters: Industry (Ch. 11), Transport (Ch. 10), Buildings (Ch. 9), AFOLU (Ch. 7).
  5. California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB-253). California Legislature, 2023. Implementation Guidance: California Air Resources Board, January 2025.
  6. California Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB-261). California Legislature, 2023.
  7. CDP Global Supply Chain Report 2023. CDP Worldwide. Supplier engagement and Tier 1 visibility benchmarks.
  8. Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) — Supplier Engagement Guidance. SBTi, 2022. sciencebasedtargets.org
  9. EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) — ESRS E1 Climate Standard. European Commission, 2023.
  10. EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). European Parliament, 2024.
  11. Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) — Global GHG Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Financial Industry, 2nd Ed. PCAF, 2022. carbonaccountingfinancials.com
  12. Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) — Apparel sector emissions benchmarks. Cascale (Sustainable Apparel Coalition), 2023.
  13. IEA — Tracking Buildings 2023. International Energy Agency, 2023. iea.org
  14. FAO FAOSTAT — Food and Agriculture Emissions Data. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2023. fao.org/faostat
  15. GeSI SMARTer 2030 — ICT Solutions for 21st Century Challenges. Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2015. Sector emissions intensity benchmarks for technology.