The Steelmaker's Scope 3 Trap
A European steel manufacturer emits 4.2 Mt CO2e per year from its own furnaces (Scope 1) and 1.1 Mt from purchased electricity (Scope 2, location-based). Its purchased iron ore, coal, and transport add 2.8 Mt (Scope 3 upstream). However, 61% of its revenue comes from selling steel to automakers who then stamp it into vehicles: the downstream processing and end-of-life of that steel is estimated at 9.5 Mt. The company has committed to a science-based target covering Scope 1 and 2 only, and reports a 'total footprint' of 8.1 Mt in its annual report. An investor asks why the company's headline number is so much lower than the 17.6 Mt a full value-chain assessment would show. Management argues downstream emissions are 'not their responsibility' because they don't control how customers use the steel.
1. Which boundary should the company use for its science-based target, and why does the choice matter for credibility?
Read the worked answer
A credible SBT must cover at minimum 95% of Scope 1+2 and, where Scope 3 is material (typically >40% of total), at least 67% of Scope 3. Here Scope 3 is material: 2.8 Mt upstream + 9.5 Mt downstream = 12.3 Mt vs 5.3 Mt Scope 1+2. So Scope 3 is ~70% of the total - far above the materiality threshold. A Scope 1+2-only target would cover just 30% of the value chain and would fail validation. The company should set a target covering Scope 1+2 plus the material Scope 3 categories (purchased goods and downstream processing of sold products). The 'we don't control it' argument is a control-boundary view; SBTs use an equity/attribution logic where the company is accountable for emissions it causes through its value chain, regardless of operational control.
2. The company reports 8.1 Mt as its 'total footprint.' Reconstruct what that number likely includes and explain the reporting risk.
Read the worked answer
8.1 Mt ≈ 4.2 (Scope 1) + 1.1 (Scope 2) + 2.8 (Scope 3 upstream) = 8.1. So the headline number excludes the 9.5 Mt downstream. This is technically permissible under GHG Protocol if the company discloses which Scope 3 categories are included and excluded - but calling it a 'total footprint' is misleading because it presents a partial inventory as complete. Reporting risk: (1) Greenwashing/regulatory risk - under CSRD/ESRS E1 and the EU Green Claims Directive, omitting a material category while labelling the figure 'total' could be challenged; (2) Investor trust - a sophisticated investor will recompute and find the gap, damaging credibility; (3) Target integrity - a target set against an understated baseline is easier to 'achieve,' which is exactly the gaming regulators are targeting. Best practice: label it 'Scope 1, 2 and selected upstream Scope 3' and disclose the excluded downstream estimate.
3. A customer asks the steelmaker to supply 'green steel' with a lower embodied carbon figure. How should the company handle allocation and avoided-emissions claims?
Read the worked answer
Two issues. (1) Allocation: if the company produces both conventional and low-carbon steel (e.g., via hydrogen DRI or scrap-EAF), it must allocate emissions using a defensible method - mass, economic value, or the system-expansion/avoided-emissions approach. Physical mass allocation is common but can understate the benefit of a low-carbon route; economic allocation shifts burden to premium products. The company should disclose the method and be consistent. (2) Avoided emissions: claiming credit for a customer's downstream reduction (e.g., 'our steel saves 2 t CO2 per car') is an avoided-emissions claim, which must be reported outside the inventory, separately from scope 1/2/3, and only with a transparent counterfactual baseline. It cannot be netted against the company's own footprint. The company should provide product-level carbon footprints (PCF) per EN 15804/ISO 14067 with declared system boundaries, and avoid netting.