Collect peer data from CDP disclosures, CSRD reports and SBTi targets, then pick a small peer group with a similar business model, size and supply chain geography. Compare intensity ratios, such as tonnes CO2e per million euros of revenue, category by category. Before drawing conclusions, check which categories and methods each peer used.
Measuring your own scope 3 carbon footprint is already a significant undertaking. But once you have the numbers, a natural question follows: how do they stack up? Knowing that your supply chain emissions total a certain number of tonnes is useful, but understanding whether that figure is high, low, or typical for your sector is where the real strategic value kicks in. That’s exactly what scope 3 benchmarking helps you figure out.
The challenge is that scope 3 benchmarking is genuinely tricky. Unlike scope 1 and 2 emissions, which follow relatively standardized measurement approaches, scope 3 data varies enormously in quality, boundary definitions, and methodology across organizations. That doesn’t make benchmarking impossible, it just means you need to be thoughtful about how you do it. Here’s a practical guide to doing it well.
What scope 3 data sources make benchmarking possible
Before you can compare your numbers to anyone else’s, you need to know where reliable peer data actually lives. The good news is that public disclosure has grown substantially, giving you more to work with than ever before.
- CDP disclosures: CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project) collects detailed emissions data from thousands of companies globally each year. Many organizations disclose their full scope 3 category breakdown, making it one of the richest sources for sector-level comparison.
- CSRD-mandated reports: With the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive now in force across the EU, large companies are required to publish detailed sustainability data, including scope 3 emissions, in their annual reports. This creates a growing pool of standardized, audited figures to draw from.
- SBTi target disclosures: Companies that have set Science Based Targets often publish their baseline emissions and reduction trajectories. These figures can give you a useful sense of where peers are starting from and where they’re headed.
- Sector-specific databases and industry associations: Many trade bodies and research organizations publish aggregate emissions intensity data for their sectors, which can serve as a useful baseline even when company-level data isn’t available.
Together, these sources give you a patchwork of data that, when used carefully, can paint a reasonably clear picture of where your sector sits. The key word there is “carefully,” because the quality and completeness of disclosed scope 3 data still varies a lot. Some companies report all 15 GHG Protocol categories; others report only the ones most material to their business. Keeping that in mind will matter a lot when you get to the comparison stage.
How to select the right peer group for comparison
Comparing your scope 3 carbon footprint to the wrong peer group is worse than not benchmarking at all. It can lead you to false conclusions about your performance and misallocate your reduction efforts.
The most important factor is business model similarity, not just industry classification. Two companies in the same sector can have wildly different scope 3 profiles if one manufactures its products in-house and the other outsources entirely. Similarly, a retailer with a heavy own-brand product range will look very different from a marketplace model, even if they sit in the same industry category.
When defining your peer group, consider:
- Revenue size: Absolute emissions figures are much more comparable between companies of similar scale. Comparing a €50 million business to a €5 billion one without normalizing for size will tell you very little.
- Geographic footprint: Supply chain emissions are heavily influenced by where production happens. A company sourcing predominantly from Europe will often show different emissions intensities than one with a primarily Asian supply chain, even for identical products.
- Reporting maturity: A company in its first year of scope 3 reporting will almost certainly show lower figures than one that has spent years refining its data collection. That gap reflects measurement quality as much as actual emissions performance.
A well-defined peer group might be smaller than you’d expect, and that’s fine. Five genuinely comparable companies will give you more useful insight than twenty loosely similar ones. The goal is meaningful comparison, not a large sample size for its own sake.
Key metrics and ratios used in scope 3 benchmarking
Raw emissions totals are rarely the right metric for comparison. What you really want are normalized figures that account for differences in company size and output.
Emissions intensity ratios are the standard approach here. The most common ones include emissions per unit of revenue (tonnes CO2e per million euros of turnover), emissions per unit of product (tonnes CO2e per tonne produced, per item sold, or per service delivered), and emissions per employee for service-based businesses where headcount is a more meaningful denominator than revenue.
Beyond intensity ratios, it’s worth looking at category-level comparisons rather than just totals. Scope 3 covers 15 distinct categories under the GHG Protocol, from purchased goods and services to the use of sold products to end-of-life treatment. Understanding which categories drive your peers’ emissions, and how your own category breakdown compares, tells you far more than a single aggregate number. For a food manufacturer, for instance, agriculture in the supply chain typically dominates. If your upstream agricultural emissions are significantly higher per unit of output than a peer’s, that’s a specific and actionable finding.
Common pitfalls that distort scope 3 comparisons
Even with good data and a sensible peer group, scope 3 benchmarking has some well-known traps worth knowing about before you draw any conclusions.
- Different category coverage: If you report 12 scope 3 categories and a peer reports only 6, their total will almost certainly look lower. Always check which categories each company includes before comparing totals.
- Spend-based vs. activity-based methods: Companies using spend-based emissions factors (which estimate emissions from financial spend) often produce very different figures than those using activity-based data (which measure actual physical quantities). The two approaches can diverge significantly, and mixing them in a comparison distorts the picture.
- Boundary inconsistencies: Some companies include subsidiaries and joint ventures in their scope 3 reporting; others don’t. Some apply an operational control boundary; others use equity share. These structural differences can shift total figures considerably.
- Restatements and base year changes: Companies frequently restate historical emissions as their data quality improves. A year-on-year reduction might reflect genuine progress, or it might reflect a methodology change. Always check the footnotes.
What these pitfalls have in common is that they’re all about methodology rather than actual emissions performance. The most disciplined benchmarkers treat disclosed figures as a starting point for investigation, not a final verdict. When a peer’s numbers look surprisingly good, it’s worth asking whether that reflects operational excellence or reporting scope.
Turning benchmark insights into reduction priorities
Benchmarking only earns its keep when it actually changes what you do. The goal isn’t to produce a comparison for its own sake; it’s to identify where your emissions are genuinely out of line with what’s achievable and focus your reduction efforts accordingly.
Start with the categories where your intensity ratios are highest relative to peers. If your purchased goods and services emissions are significantly above sector norms, that points toward supplier engagement and procurement practices as priority areas. If your use-of-sold-products emissions are the outlier, the focus shifts to product design and efficiency. The benchmark essentially helps you triage.
It’s also worth paying attention to what leading performers in your peer group are doing differently. Companies that have set SBTi targets and are ahead of their reduction trajectories often share methodology notes in their CDP disclosures or CSRD reports. Those disclosures can give you a concrete sense of which interventions are actually moving the needle in your sector, rather than relying on generic best-practice advice.
Finally, use the benchmark to set realistic but ambitious internal targets. Knowing that the top quartile of your peer group operates at a certain emissions intensity gives you a credible reference point for where you could realistically get to, and a way to communicate that ambition to stakeholders without pulling numbers out of thin air.
Ready to put your benchmark to work?
Scope 3 benchmarking is genuinely valuable, but it’s also detailed, methodology-heavy work. Getting it right requires both strong data skills and a solid understanding of how your sector operates, which is why many organizations find it helpful to bring in specialized support for this kind of analysis.
At Dazzle, we connect organizations with pre-screened sustainability freelancers who specialize in exactly this kind of work, whether that’s scope 3 emissions reduction consultants, sustainability reporting experts, or LCA specialists depending on what your project needs. Our matching process is built around your specific challenge, not a one-size-fits-all approach, and you can be working with the right expert within 48 hours. If you’re ready to move from raw emissions data to real reduction priorities, we’d love to help you get there.
Building your first Scope 3 baseline?
Scope 3 in 100 Days is a free checklist in 4 phases, from spend data to a baseline you can defend. Reviewed by an independent Scope 3 expert.
