Packaging Scope 3 Emissions FAQ
Are packaging emissions scope 3 or scope 1?
Mostly scope 3. A brand does not burn the fuel that makes its board, resin, or corrugated cases, so packaging emissions land upstream and downstream of the company rather than in its own operations. The largest share usually sits in category 1, purchased goods and services, with smaller amounts in upstream transport, waste generated in operations, downstream transport, and end-of-life of sold products. Treat packaging as a supply-chain inventory rather than a facilities number, and fix the boundary once so every SKU is comparable. Sources: ISO standards catalogue, European Commission packaging and plastics policy.
What data do you need to calculate packaging scope 3 emissions?
Three inputs per pack: the material mass by component, an emission factor for each material and conversion process, and an allocation rule for the converter's shared energy and scrap. Start with mass times a published factor, then replace the factors that carry the most spend with supplier-specific data. Document the factor source and the allocation method, because the number is only as trustworthy as the method behind it. Add inbound and outbound transport distances so category 4 and category 9 do not go missing from the total.
When should a brand switch from modelled to supplier packaging data?
When the spend or the claimed reduction is material. Modelled factors are adequate for a screening baseline across hundreds of SKUs, but a supplier-specific factor should replace them wherever a target, a customer report, or a published claim depends on the result. Prioritize by mass and spend, request verified figures per unit from the converters that matter, and keep the modelled value as a documented fallback for tail SKUs. Never blend two factor tiers inside a single comparison and report the gap as a saving.
Why does converter allocation change the result?
A converter runs many products on the same line, so its energy and scrap must be split across them. A mass-based split is common, but it can under-charge an energy-intensive product if the rule ignores machine time, and a reduction claim built on a changed allocation rule is not a reduction at all. Ask the converter which rule it used, keep the rule constant across periods you compare, and disclose any change as a restatement rather than folding it into the trend. Sources: TAPPI paper and packaging technical resources, ISO standards catalogue.
What data quality should a packaging inventory disclose?
Four disclosures: the factor tier behind each SKU or tranche, the emission factor source and vintage, the base year and boundary, and the allocation rule for each shared line. A mixed dataset is acceptable when its tiers are visible and unacceptable when they are blended silently. Label tail SKUs that still use proxy factors, and keep the supplier declarations that produced each Tier 1 figure, because a reviewer needs to re-derive the number from the method rather than accept the total on trust.
How do you prepare a packaging carbon number for assurance?
Freeze the factor set, base year, and boundary before calculating, and version every change. Keep the bill of materials and supplier declarations behind each mass figure, record the allocation rule for every converter that shares a line, and label each SKU with its factor tier. If the method changes, restate the baseline once and disclose the restatement rather than blending periods. Publish the method alongside the number, because a figure that cannot be re-derived will not survive a third-party review. Sources: ISO standards catalogue, TAPPI packaging resources, U.S. FTC truth-in-advertising guidance.