“In some assessments, the boldest way for companies to address climate change is to look beyond their operations and cut emissions across their value chain. That means eliminating emissions from their suppliers as well as how their customers use their products. There’s just one big problem: companies don’t control the operations of their suppliers. And suppliers—often smaller companies—have fewer reasons to act.” – Time Magazine (October 2024)
Tracking Scope 3 emissions—indirect emissions from a company’s value chain—remains a significant challenge for many organizations. Recent studies highlight the extent of this struggle:
- IBM Report (2023): Only 38% of businesses are currently measuring their Scope 3 emissions, indicating that a majority are not yet tracking these emissions. supplychaindive.com
- Boston Consulting Group Survey (2022): While 53% of companies report at least partial Scope 3 emissions, a mere 10% comprehensively measure and report all Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, showing limited progress in full emissions reporting. esgtoday.com
These findings underscore the complexities organizations face in accurately tracking Scope 3 emissions, often due to challenges in data collection, supplier engagement, and the lack of standardized reporting frameworks.
So, there you have it, cause and effect.
REMINDS ME OF GOVERNMENT RFP SYSTEMS
In a conversation I had earlier – I will elaborate on the highlights of the hour-long talk at the end of this post; one of the first things that came to my mind when the discussion turned to the challenges with tracking and influencing Scope 3 emissions was the early days of governments automating the RFP process.
To make a long story short, having suppliers register with a government portal to set up a profile to be notified when their products or services are required seemed like a great idea. The problem is that most suppliers were now receiving automated notifications and invites to submit an RFP that needed more work with very minimal returns. With most government initiatives like this, the 80/20 rule in which 20 percent of the bidders received 80 percent of the business was a typical result. Interest in responding to RFPs began to dwindle as suppliers, especially smaller ones, redirected their time and resources toward more promising opportunities.
One of the few exceptions was Virginia’s eVA initiative, which you can access through the following link: Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 1).
Automation alone is not enough. Suppliers must see tangible returns; otherwise, a well-intentioned initiative has little chance of success. Tracking and influencing Scope 3 Emissions is no different.
AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION
Over the coming weeks, I will investigate a solution provider that offers a unique solution for tracking and influencing Scope 3 Emissions in extended supply chains. The experience and expertise behind this solution’s creation appear to address the core compliance challenges that buyers and suppliers are now facing.
The Relationship Between Ontology, Strand Commonality, And Scope 3
The concept of strand commonality, introduced by Jon Hansen in the late 1990s, posits that seemingly unrelated data streams possess interconnected attributes, which, when identified, can collectively influence desired outcomes. This theory emphasizes the importance of recognizing and analyzing these hidden connections to enhance decision-making and strategic planning.
Ontology, in the context of information science, refers to a structured framework that categorizes and defines the relationships between concepts within a particular domain. Ontologies facilitate a shared understanding of information by establishing standardized vocabularies and relationships, thereby enabling effective data integration and interoperability.
The relationship between ontology and strand commonality lies in their mutual focus on identifying and formalizing connections within data:
- Identification of Hidden Relationships: Strand commonality seeks to uncover subtle, often overlooked connections between disparate data streams. Ontologies support this endeavor by providing a structured representation of knowledge, making it easier to detect and analyze these hidden relationships.
- Standardization and Integration: Ontologies offer standardized vocabularies and frameworks that facilitate the integration of diverse data sources. This standardization is crucial for applying strand commonality, as it ensures that the interconnected attributes identified are consistently defined and understood across different systems.
- Enhanced Data Interoperability: By employing ontological structures, organizations can achieve semantic interoperability between systems, allowing for seamless data exchange and analysis. This interoperability is essential for effectively leveraging strand commonality, as it enables the synthesis of information from various sources to inform strategic decisions.
In summary, ontology provides the structural foundation necessary to identify, analyze, and leverage the interconnected attributes emphasized by strand commonality. Together, they enable organizations to uncover hidden patterns within data, leading to more informed and effective decision-making.
Stay tuned for future updates.
30
Procurement Insights
Why Tracking And Influencing Scope 3 Emissions Could Be Much Easier For Procurment in 2026
Posted on February 24, 2025
0
“In some assessments, the boldest way for companies to address climate change is to look beyond their operations and cut emissions across their value chain. That means eliminating emissions from their suppliers as well as how their customers use their products. There’s just one big problem: companies don’t control the operations of their suppliers. And suppliers—often smaller companies—have fewer reasons to act.” – Time Magazine (October 2024)
Tracking Scope 3 emissions—indirect emissions from a company’s value chain—remains a significant challenge for many organizations. Recent studies highlight the extent of this struggle:
These findings underscore the complexities organizations face in accurately tracking Scope 3 emissions, often due to challenges in data collection, supplier engagement, and the lack of standardized reporting frameworks.
So, there you have it, cause and effect.
REMINDS ME OF GOVERNMENT RFP SYSTEMS
In a conversation I had earlier – I will elaborate on the highlights of the hour-long talk at the end of this post; one of the first things that came to my mind when the discussion turned to the challenges with tracking and influencing Scope 3 emissions was the early days of governments automating the RFP process.
To make a long story short, having suppliers register with a government portal to set up a profile to be notified when their products or services are required seemed like a great idea. The problem is that most suppliers were now receiving automated notifications and invites to submit an RFP that needed more work with very minimal returns. With most government initiatives like this, the 80/20 rule in which 20 percent of the bidders received 80 percent of the business was a typical result. Interest in responding to RFPs began to dwindle as suppliers, especially smaller ones, redirected their time and resources toward more promising opportunities.
One of the few exceptions was Virginia’s eVA initiative, which you can access through the following link: Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 1).
Automation alone is not enough. Suppliers must see tangible returns; otherwise, a well-intentioned initiative has little chance of success. Tracking and influencing Scope 3 Emissions is no different.
AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION
Over the coming weeks, I will investigate a solution provider that offers a unique solution for tracking and influencing Scope 3 Emissions in extended supply chains. The experience and expertise behind this solution’s creation appear to address the core compliance challenges that buyers and suppliers are now facing.
The Relationship Between Ontology, Strand Commonality, And Scope 3
The concept of strand commonality, introduced by Jon Hansen in the late 1990s, posits that seemingly unrelated data streams possess interconnected attributes, which, when identified, can collectively influence desired outcomes. This theory emphasizes the importance of recognizing and analyzing these hidden connections to enhance decision-making and strategic planning.
Ontology, in the context of information science, refers to a structured framework that categorizes and defines the relationships between concepts within a particular domain. Ontologies facilitate a shared understanding of information by establishing standardized vocabularies and relationships, thereby enabling effective data integration and interoperability.
The relationship between ontology and strand commonality lies in their mutual focus on identifying and formalizing connections within data:
In summary, ontology provides the structural foundation necessary to identify, analyze, and leverage the interconnected attributes emphasized by strand commonality. Together, they enable organizations to uncover hidden patterns within data, leading to more informed and effective decision-making.
Stay tuned for future updates.
30
Share this:
Related