Here you will find frequently asked questions with answers aboutCO2 from cubemos.
Yes, in the form of a so-called rough spend-based approach: average emission factors per euro of expenditure are applied to total sales or purchasing volumes. This provides initial orientation values - especially when data is incomplete.
Important: The informative value is limited because there is no differentiation between CO₂ and CO₂ product groups. Our recommendation: Introduce at least a rough classification of product groups in order to identify relevant emission hotspots and derive targeted measures.
There is currently no uniformly prescribed calculation methodology, e.g. for vehicle fleet emissions. However, it is expected that better data bases, standardization (GHG Protocol, ESRS) and technological development will lead to the establishment of more uniform methods in the coming years. Until then, the following applies: transparency of the method is crucial, and the more precise the data, the better the control effect.
For IT services such as webinars or Office365, usage data (e.g. number of users, data volume, runtime) can be recorded and multiplied by suitable emission factors. There are factors for data transmission, cloud server operation or video conferencing, for example. Office365 usually runs.usually runs under Scope 3, own servers possibly under Scope 2 (power consumption).
Yes - this is part of established practice under the GHG Protocol, particularly in Scope 3. In reality, primary data is not available for all supply chains or activities. Therefore, many companies combine expenditure-based and activity-based approaches to create an emissions inventory that is as complete and robust as possible.
Different recording methods mean that the corporate carbon footprint (CCF) is only comparable between companies to a limited extent - especially in Scope 3. Nevertheless, more detailed, activity-based data enables significantly better internal management, for example for reduction targets or in communication with stakeholders.
Transparency about the method used is key here.
No - according to CSRD and ESRS E1, the greenhouse gas inventory must be complete and include all relevant emissions, including Scope 3. The double materiality analysis does not serve to exclude categories in advance, but helps to focus on material emission sources and control the depth of data collection and reporting.
Scope 3 categories with little influence must also be taken into account - at least on an estimated basis (e.g. using the spend-based method) in order to ensure completeness, transparency and comparability. Only if a category is demonstrably irrelevant can it be excluded with justification. Potentially CO₂ areas in particular should never be omitted without good reason.
If the company itself is not the contractual partner for the energy supply - e.g. electricity or heat is purchased from the landlord via the utility bill - these emissions are included in Scope 3.8.
Only if the company concludes the energy contract itself does the energy consumption fall under Scope 2.
The Corporate Carbon Footprint (CCF) maps the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire company - across all activities, locations and processes. The Product Carbon Footprint (PCF), on the other hand, focuses on the emissions of an individual product over its entire life cycle.
Both perspectives are interlinked, but are based on different system boundaries and questions. The PCF can reflect parts of the CCF (e.g. material consumption, transportation), but the CCF also covers company-wide emissions that are not included in any specific product - for example from administration, business travel or IT infrastructure. Therefore, the sum of all PCFs does not automatically result in the CCF.
The CCF is mandatory under ESRS E1, for example, while the PCF is not. However, a central database (e.g. material, energy, logistics data) that can be used for both CCF and PCF is ideal.
