.svg)
For many companies, getting started with a climate accounting can feel like a jungle.
Should you start in Excel or invest in a system? Do you need to include the entire scope 3 from the beginning, or is it enough with scopes 1 and 2? And what happens if one chooses the wrong method in the base year?
It is precisely in the early years that the strategic and practical choices are most important. If you start crooked, it can have consequences for many years to come, because the base year becomes the reference point against which you measure all future results.
What is the purpose?
Before getting started, one should ask oneself the question: why do we make a climate accounting?
- Is it to meet customer requirements or new regulations like CSRD?
- Is it to set Science Based Targets (SBTi) and be able to document real reductions?
- Or is it to create transparency and strengthen the brand?
The purpose determines the level of ambition — and thus how detailed and robust the data base should be.
Method and scope — where do you start?
Once the purpose is clear, the next question comes: how do we approach it?
Some companies start broadly with scopes 1, 2 and 3, while others choose to focus on individual categories in scope 3 to get started. Neither approach is wrong, but the choice should reflect resources and purpose.
The same applies to method. Spend-based calculations can be a quick route to getting a first overview, but they are rarely accurate enough to drive reductions. Therefore, it may be wise to combine with activity data that provide a more robust picture of emissions.
The first year is learning
The first climate accounting does not have to be perfect. It is a mapping that reveals where data is strong and where there is a lack of structure. Many companies discover, for example, in scope 3 that they lack detailed product data or have fragmented systems that make it difficult to gather reliable information.
First years should be seen as a learning process. The goal is to understand the data limitations and provide a basis for improvement over time.
A robust base year is key
A key question is how robust the base year is. If you later change your methodology or improve your data base, you risk being left with a base year that cannot be compared with new figures. In doing so, you lose the opportunity to document the reductions that have actually been achieved.
Companies should therefore think ahead from the outset: should data be able to support reduction targets, compliance, or both?
Strategy and resources
Method selection is not only about precision, but also about resources. Some categories in scope 3 take up so little space that it makes no sense to spend energy on enumerating them in detail. It may be more valuable to focus efforts where emissions are greatest or where the company actually has a say.
Another strategic choice is whether the work should be done in-house or outsourced. Many people find that data is only available late, creating time pressure leading up to reporting. Here, external specialists can help streamline data collection and ensure methodological consistency so that the company can internally devote its resources to the reduction work.
Round-up: Getting off to a good start
The first climate accounting need not be perfect, but it must be well thought out. With a clear purpose, a realistic prioritization of resources and a robust base year, the company gets a foundation that will last for many years to come.
In this way, climate accounting becomes not just an exercise in compliance, but a management tool that can drive real reductions and create long-term value.
.jpg)
