EDUKATE SINGAPORE · GOLD STANDARD PRACTICAL CASE STUDIES · CASE 158
A smaller emissions figure for company-owned vans does not automatically describe every outsourced delivery.
A fictional educational publisher reports emissions from five company vans but leaves purchased courier services out of a claim about all product deliveries. This Gold Standard case distinguishes Scope 1 and Scope 3, reporting boundaries, appropriate allocation and honest sustainability statements.
Every business, shipment, vehicle and emissions quantity is fictional. GHG Protocol sources provide actual accounting-category definitions, but no figure here is a verified corporate inventory, regulatory conclusion or external climate certification.
Chapter index
- 1. A green delivery-emissions chart omits most of the work
- 2. Scope 1 and Scope 3 are not alternative names for the same activity
- 3. The arithmetic reveals why a scope boundary matters
- 4. GHG Protocol explains purchased transportation as a value-chain category
- 5. Five company vans and twelve contractor vans are not comparable activity units
- 6. A target can be met for one scope and missed for a broader claim
- 7. The immediate correction is a boundary disclosure, not a made-up carbon number
- 8. The logistics contract should supply the data needed for reporting
- 9. Measure the entire chosen service without double counting
- 10. Practice: a smaller Scope 1 total after outsourcing
1. A green delivery-emissions chart omits most of the work
A fictional educational publisher prints and dispatches learning materials to schools. It owns five delivery vans, records fuel use for their routes and prepares an annual sustainability report. Its internal calculation for those vehicles is forty tonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions under the chosen illustrative boundary. The board compares this with its own-fleet performance goal and celebrates an improvement.
To manage seasonal demand, the company also contracts twelve vans through outside logistics providers. Those partners deliver many of the same educational products during the same reporting period. The environmental report nevertheless announces ‘all delivery emissions: 40 tonnes CO2e’ without describing that the purchased transportation service was left outside the stated number.
The owned-vehicle calculation can be internally correct while the larger public claim is incomplete. The Gold Standard problem is a reporting boundary that follows the company’s vehicle ownership records rather than the actual distribution service described to readers. What belongs in a specific emissions scope requires the applicable accounting method, but the company cannot call one narrow subset ‘all deliveries’ without evidence.
2. Scope 1 and Scope 3 are not alternative names for the same activity
The invented publisher directly owns and operates its five vans, so relevant direct fuel-combustion emissions normally belong to the reporting organisation’s Scope 1 under a properly applied GHG Protocol inventory. Purchased transportation services carried out by companies outside its owned or controlled operations can create relevant Scope 3 emissions, with the exact category depending on the transaction and transport arrangement.
The company’s records include D1, its accepted organisational and reporting boundaries; D2, fuel and vehicle data for its own operations; D3, contracts and activity data for outsourced deliveries; D4, the appropriate emissions calculation and factor choices; and D5, the public statement that readers are invited to trust.
D2 can support the owned-vehicle subset within its checked assumptions. It cannot independently establish that D3 has zero emissions or that the outsourced activity is irrelevant. Conversely, an outside carrier’s entire corporate footprint cannot automatically be assigned to one customer without suitable allocation.
GS-R01 defines the reported purpose, GS-R02 the actual accounting conditions, and GS-R08 requires each number to identify what it includes and excludes.
3. The arithmetic reveals why a scope boundary matters
For a controlled teaching example, suppose the company’s properly calculated own-van combustion emissions are 40 tonnes CO2e in one year. A separate, appropriately chosen synthetic allocation method estimates 55 tonnes CO2e attributable to the purchased delivery services used by the same company and period. Under these assumptions, the combined selected delivery-related total is 40 + 55 = 95 tonnes CO2e.
The owned-van component is 40/95, or approximately 42.1%, of that combined illustrative amount. The outsourced component is 55/95, approximately 57.9%. The 55-tonne figure is invented for the exercise, not an observed fleet result or a general conversion factor for twelve vans.
The resulting 95 tonnes should not be relabelled Scope 1. Its components retain their proper scope classifications and calculation assumptions. Nor can it automatically be described as the publisher’s complete corporate footprint, because other activities may exist outside delivery.
The legitimate conclusion is narrower: a statement describing only 40 tonnes as ‘all delivery emissions’ omits a material part of the selected distribution activity under the fictional estimates. The number becomes trustworthy when its organisational and activity boundaries travel with it.
4. GHG Protocol explains purchased transportation as a value-chain category
The GHG Protocol Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions, Category 4 explains that transportation services purchased by a reporting company—including outbound logistics of sold products in third-party vehicles—can be included in Scope 3 Category 4. It explicitly distinguishes transport performed by the company’s own vehicles, which is ordinarily classified under Scope 1 or 2 according to the energy involved.
The same guidance distinguishes Category 9 downstream transportation for appropriate distribution of sold products that is not purchased by the reporting company. The choice between categories depends on who purchases the service, the ownership or control of the vehicles and the relevant reporting method; simply calling a route ‘outbound’ does not settle the classification.
The GHG Protocol’s Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard provides the broader reporting principles for value-chain activities and identifies the importance of complete, consistent, transparent boundaries. These are accounting standards, not a certification that the fictional numbers represent actual emissions.
The Gold Standard management question is whether the company selected the proper category and evidence for every material delivery arrangement before making its public claim.
5. Five company vans and twelve contractor vans are not comparable activity units
A manager tries to estimate outsourced emissions by multiplying the owned-fleet total by twelve divided by five. That would assume every vehicle has the same distance, fuel use, capacity, energy source, load factor and share of the publisher’s deliveries. Those assumptions are not established by a simple vehicle count.
An outsourced courier may carry goods for many customers on the same route. The publisher needs appropriate activity and allocation data under the selected method rather than taking the carrier’s entire fleet fuel bill as its own distribution footprint. An electric van may have relevant electricity-related emissions determined differently from a fuel-burning vehicle.
The correct calculation can use suitable fuel-based, distance-based or other legitimate methods depending on data quality and the adopted standard. The organisation should record the method, source, emission factors, allocation and uncertainty instead of publishing a number generated by an arbitrary vehicle-count ratio.
GS-R04 requires competence in the accounting decision. A tidy spreadsheet is not evidence of a sound emissions inventory unless the underlying quantities and categories make sense.
6. A target can be met for one scope and missed for a broader claim
The publisher’s original internal goal might have been to reduce fuel-combustion emissions from its directly operated vans. The 40-tonne figure may appropriately measure performance toward that explicitly defined target. The problem appears when the sustainability report turns ‘owned delivery fleet’ into ‘all our deliveries’ without adding the separate purchased-service boundary.
Management should preserve legitimate improvement in its owned vehicles if supported by comparable records. It should also recognise that outsourcing can change the distribution of activities across scopes. A company must not represent an apparent decline in directly operated fleet emissions as proof that overall delivery-related emissions fell if the same work moved to third-party carriers.
Conversely, a rise in reported Scope 3 after better data collection does not automatically prove the real-world service became less efficient. Changes in estimates, organisational boundaries and activity levels can affect reported totals. A responsible year-on-year comparison distinguishes those mechanisms.
The Gold Standard guards against a favourable performance narrative being created by changing what is counted.
7. The immediate correction is a boundary disclosure, not a made-up carbon number
The sustainability owner preserves the owned-fleet calculation and the original report, then identifies all relevant contracts and distribution routes during the reporting year. The competent accounting team evaluates which services belong in the selected scopes and how their emissions should be estimated from suitable evidence.
If reliable outsourced activity data are not yet available, management should not invent a precise 55-tonne number for the real report simply because the teaching example uses it. An honest interim description can state that the published 40-tonne metric covers the company’s own delivery vehicles and does not include the outsourced logistics activities that are under assessment.
The organisation can correct its broad ‘all deliveries’ headline before claiming that an environmental target for the complete distribution service was achieved. It should also avoid presenting the omitted partner emissions as misconduct by the carriers. The problem concerns the publisher’s selected reporting boundary and communication.
GS-R09 demands a bounded correction and a real owner for completing the missing work.
8. The logistics contract should supply the data needed for reporting
The distribution team originally purchased routes based on delivery performance and cost. Its contract record identifies shipments, destinations and service fees, but the environmental reporting team has no agreed pathway for obtaining appropriate fuel, distance, mode or load information. Procurement can therefore close a delivery invoice while emissions reporting remains incomplete.
The company need not demand a courier’s unrestricted operating records or private customer data. A legitimate contract or engagement method can request suitable aggregated activity, allocation assumptions or other evidence under the selected calculation method. Different suppliers may have different capabilities, requiring proportionate approaches to estimation and uncertainty.
The environmental owner must also understand which deliveries the publisher purchased and which may have been arranged independently by customers or another party. The same vehicle might serve several firms; without a good boundary decision, the publisher could miss emissions or count the entire shared route as its own.
GS-R07 links procurement to the environmental inventory; GS-R11 protects that data route beyond the single reporting year.
9. Measure the entire chosen service without double counting
The revised dashboard distinguishes directly controlled vehicles, purchased transportation and any relevant other downstream distribution categories under the actual accounting standard. It records which parts of the physical delivery activity fall into each scope and where estimates remain unresolved.
A shipment should not be assigned to both Scope 3 Category 4 and Category 9 for the same reporting company’s accounting solely because it travels from a warehouse to a customer. The category depends on how the company participates in and purchases the service. Likewise, emissions from shared carriers should be appropriately allocated rather than counted in full for every customer.
Useful reporting can show owned-fleet efficiency, outsourced logistics performance and the combined chosen delivery-related perspective, each with correct labels and caveats. A reader should know what was measured, for which year and against which target.
GS-R08 is the accounting boundary in practical form: numbers earn trust when the activity identity and exclusions remain visible.
10. Practice: a smaller Scope 1 total after outsourcing
Exercise. A fictional publisher operates five vans with 40 tonnes CO2e of direct fuel emissions under its adopted method. It also purchases distribution services from outside carriers, with a synthetic allocated estimate of 55 tonnes CO2e under a properly specified Scope 3 Category 4 method. The company claims that all delivery emissions total 40 tonnes. Calculate the combined selected amount and explain the boundary.
A reasoned answer is: ‘Within the stated illustrative assumptions, the combined delivery-related amount is 95 tonnes CO2e: 40 in the owned-vehicle component and 55 in purchased logistics. Owned activity is about 42.1% and outsourced activity about 57.9% of that combined quantity. The combined total is not one Scope 1 figure, and other company activities remain outside this limited example.’
The next acceptance test should identify contracted and owned transport under the current reporting boundary, apply suitable activity and allocation methods and prevent a subset target from being described as complete environmental performance. The Gold Standard lesson is that outsourcing a service does not make the related activity disappear from a value-chain claim.
GHG Protocol sources and connected Gold Standard reading
- GHG Protocol · Scope 3 Category 4 Transportation Calculation Guidance
- GHG Protocol · Scope 3 Calculation Guidance, Category 9
- GHG Protocol · Corporate Value Chain Scope 3 Standard
- GHG Protocol · Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard
- The Gold Standard of Supply Chain Management
- Gold Standard · Evidence, Claims and Verification
- Gold Standard · Core Requirements and Evidence
- Case 39 · Raw Energy Reduction and Misleading Causal Claim
- Case 137 · Renewable Certificates with a Vintage Mismatch
- Case 152 · Supplier Audit Omitted Subcontracted Workers
- Gold Standard Casebook
Actual emissions classification, factors and environmental claims require the operative reporting standards and competent inventory review. GS-R01–GS-R12 is eduKate’s educational management framework, not independent emissions assurance.