Why scope 3 emissions are often missed
Most shipping companies are underestimating the biggest source of their emissions.
Not because they’re ignoring it, but because it’s hard to measure, easy to overlook, and rarely visible in day-to-day operations.
When shipping firms calculate their carbon footprint, most focus on what is easiest to measure: the fuel burned by their vessels and the energy used on land. These are Scope 1 and 2 emissions, direct and indirect emissions tied to the company’s own operations.
What is often overlooked, however, is Scope 3: the emissions embedded in the goods and services a firm procures.
Build a transparent, compliant supply chain
Meet evolving regulations and make informed procurement decisions with confidence.
In shipping, Scope 3 emissions span a vast range of activities: spare parts and consumables, international freight, the travel of crew and superintendents, the list goes on.
Scope 3 can account for as much as 60% of total emissions. Yet most shipping companies have little visibility into any of it, in part because it is often fiendishly difficult to track.
The same item, say, a screwdriver, might have a completely different emissions profile depending on where it was manufactured, how it was shipped, and how it’s ultimately disposed of. An item flown in by air freight generates far higher emissions than one delivered by sea. Even the method of disposal matters: a part that ends up in landfill has a different lifecycle impact than one that’s recycled.
The problem with spend-based estimates
To get around the complexity, many shipping companies rely on spend-based methods to estimate Scope 3 emissions. These apply a standard emissions factor to spending in a given category. For example, $100,000 on spares might be reported as 50 tonnes of CO₂.
This is better than nothing, but not by much. Spend-based models assume emissions intensity is the same across all products in a category. A screwdriver flown from China might have triple the footprint of one delivered by sea from Europe, yet both are treated the same.
That inaccuracy has consequences. For companies facing carbon pricing or emissions-linked financing, inflated figures could mean higher bills or missed opportunities to source more sustainably.
Regulation and finance are raising the stakes
Scope 3 reporting isn’t mandatory. But regulations are moving steadily in that direction.
In April 2025, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) reached a landmark agreement to implement the first-ever global greenhouse gas emissions pricing for shipping.
Starting in 2027, ships exceeding set emissions thresholds will incur a fee of $100 per tonne of CO₂, with stricter limits and higher penalties phased in by 2028 .
This initiative aims to generate up to $13 billion annually to fund cleaner shipping technologies, reward low-emission vessels, and support developing nations in the transition to sustainable maritime practices.
While this measure primarily targets Scope 1 emissions, it underscores the increasing regulatory focus on comprehensive emissions accountability.
As financial institutions and regulatory bodies intensify scrutiny across all emission scopes, the demand for accurate, auditable Scope 3 data is set to rise.
Companies that proactively enhance their emissions tracking and reporting capabilities will be better positioned to navigate this evolving landscape.
Moving towards greater transparency
More sophisticated methods of measuring scope 3 emissions do exist.
The “cradle-to-grave” model accounts for emissions across an item’s full lifecycle, from raw material to manufacture, shipping, use, and disposal. The “cradle-to-gate” variant stops at the point where the goods leave the supplier’s premises.
Cradle-to-gate is emerging as the most practical way forward, detailed enough to be meaningful, but not so complex as to become overwhelming. Yet implementing it at scale requires something that’s often missing; structured, reliable data.
The data challenge
Many shipping firms still rely on manual systems, siloed spreadsheets, and inconsistent product catalogues. Supplier records vary from buyer to buyer. Delivery data often lives outside procurement systems. And emissions factors are often applied generically, without context, if they are applied at all.
Without digital tools to collect and manage this data, even well-intentioned teams will struggle to move beyond rough estimates. The challenge is as much structural as it is technical. Without shared data models and consistent expectations, the burden on suppliers grows and the value to buyers declines.
The dilemma for suppliers
For suppliers, Scope 3 raises difficult questions. Many lack the tools to calculate emissions. Some resort to consultants; others make do with assumptions. The lack of a common framework means even the best efforts can go unrewarded.
There is also concern about cost. If calculating emissions requires additional staff, and if submitting data makes suppliers less competitive on price, what incentive do they have to comply?
Industry-led initiatives, such as IMPA’s IMEF working group, are seeking to standardise reporting. But what is missing is the infrastructure to make compliance simple, low-cost and scalable.
How digital platforms can help
Digital procurement platforms like ShipServ are helping close the Scope 3 data gap by embedding emissions visibility into everyday buying and selling processes.
On ShipServ, suppliers would be able to include emissions estimates directly within their quotes. Where data isn’t provided, the platform can suggest a default estimate based on known factors such as product category, region of manufacture, and delivery method.
These estimates appear alongside pricing, lead times, and availability, enabling procurement teams to consider emissions without disrupting their normal workflows. The data ll will also be available via API, so buyers can integrate it into their sustainability dashboards or ESG reporting systems with minimal friction.
This isn’t about perfection. It’s about progress. ShipServ is actively working with partners to improve the quality of default emissions factors, ensure the methodology behind them is visible, and promote consistency across buyers and suppliers. The goal is to give all parties a shared foundation from which to build.
Over time, this data can also support emissions-aware sourcing. If a supplier consistently provides lower-emissions options in a given category, that signal becomes visible to buyers, opening the door to smarter, greener decisions based on real-world behaviour.
By surfacing Scope 3 insights at the point of transaction, platforms like ShipServ are helping the maritime industry move beyond high-level estimates and toward more meaningful, actionable data.
What Needs to Happen Next
Scope 3 won’t be solved overnight. But across the value chain, small steps can deliver meaningful impact.
Buyers can begin by making emissions part of the procurement conversation, adding optional Scope 3 fields to RFQs, using emissions data in supplier evaluations, and offering consistent templates.
Suppliers can start with estimates and refine over time. What matters most is engaging with the process.
Platforms can continue to lower the barrier to entry by simplifying data input, suggesting intelligent defaults, and promoting consistency across buyers and regions
A shared challenge, and a shared opportunity
Scope 3 may be the hardest part of the maritime decarbonisation puzzle. But it’s also one of the most collaborative. Unlike vessel retrofits or alternative fuels, Scope 3 reductions can begin with smarter decisions, shared standards, and better information.
No one is expecting perfect data. But without a starting point, it’s hard to move forward. Participation matters more than precision. And those who begin now will be best placed both to shape and benefit from what comes next.
See It in Action
See how smarter procurement can drive compliance and sustainability.
