The base year that flatters the target
Veltrix Chemicals reports Scope 1 and 2 emissions against a 2019 base year of 100,000 tCO2e. During 2025 it outsourced its smallest plant to a contract manufacturer and replaced default grid emission factors with supplier-specific factors for two sites. Recalculated on a consistent perimeter and methodology, the 2019 base would be 94,000 tCO2e; 2025 emissions are 68,000 tCO2e. Management wants to keep 100,000 as the base 'because the 32% reduction is our headline commitment' and to describe the outsourcing as an efficiency gain. The only Scope 3 category currently reported is business travel.
1. What do GRI 305's requirements demand on base year, recalculation and disclosure?
Read the worked answer
305-1 (and 305-2 for energy indirect emissions) requires the chosen base year, the rationale for choosing it, the emissions in that base year, and the context for any significant change that triggered a recalculation of base-year emissions. The standard sets no numerical significance threshold - the organization defines one, applies it consistently, and discloses the base year and the effect of any recalculation. A documented recalculation policy is the practical way to meet this consistently, and it is normally described in 3-3 for the climate topic.
Where restated figures have previously been published, 2-4 requires disclosure of the restatement and the reason. The governing principles are comparability (like-for-like over time) and accuracy. Note also what 305-1 does not permit: a base year that silently tracks the current organizational perimeter makes the trend line meaningless, and no disclosure wording cures that.
2. Should Veltrix recalculate the base year? Quantify the effect and say how it should be presented.
Read the worked answer
Yes. Two of the recognized triggers are present: a structural change (the plant and its emissions have moved outside the boundary to a contract manufacturer) and a methodology change (supplier-specific factors replacing defaults).
Presentation:
- Base year 2019 restated from 100,000 to 94,000 tCO2e; 2025 emissions 68,000 tCO2e; reduction 27.7%, not 32%.
- Disclose the size and nature of the change, the reason, and its effect on the targets set out under 3-3 - a target expressed against an unrecalculated base is not measurable.
- Explain the direction: outsourcing does not remove the emissions from the value chain, it relocates them.
Keeping 100,000 would overstate progress by 6,000 tCO2e in perpetuity and would breach accuracy and balance. Management's discomfort is the point of the disclosure: the recalculated figure is the honest one, and the accompanying narrative can explain the strategy without rewriting the baseline.
3. How should Scope 3 be treated after the outsourcing, and what are the risks?
Read the worked answer
305-3 requires gross other indirect emissions and disclosure of the categories included. Outsourced production moves those emissions into Category 1 (purchased goods and services); they must not disappear from the report. Reporting only business travel means the largest consequence of the 2025 decision would be invisible - the outsourcing would look like a 6,000 tCO2e cut when the atmosphere sees the same tonnes.
Risks to manage:
- Double counting - remove the plant from Scope 1/2 and add the purchased volume once, in Category 1.
- Completeness - screen all 15 categories, report those that are relevant and significant, and if a category is excluded give the reason and the plan. Veltrix cannot rely on 'not calculated' indefinitely.
- Consistency with 305-5 - any claimed reduction must reconcile to the restated base and to the value-chain total.
If Scope 3 data are genuinely unavailable, the reason and steps taken belong in the content index; the omission belongs in the narrative, not the footnotes.