Responsible Investor’s “Are investors rethinking Scope 3 emissions?”* focuses on the debate over the feasibility and reliability of Scope 3 targets using Intrepid Travel’s recent decision to withdraw from its Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Scope 3 commitment as a case study. In its release, Intrepid cited the difficulty of controlling emissions generated across its value chain—including flights, ground transport and accommodation—which account for the vast majority of its footprint. Investors interviewed in the article acknowledge that Scope 3 emissions are inherently harder to measure than Scope 1 and 2 because they are calculated largely through estimates and supplier engagement, often involving thousands of counterparties and significant methodological assumptions. Some question whether current frameworks sufficiently account for these practical limitations, particularly where companies have limited influence over upstream or downstream actors.
The article also explores concerns about unreliable data and “double counting,” where the same emissions may be attributed to multiple entities across a value chain. In response, alternative approaches such as the newly launched Carbon Measures initiative propose a ledger-based accounting system intended to track the carbon footprint of products across transactions and reduce duplication. While many investors continue to view Scope 3 as critical to understanding climate risk, some report a recalibration of expectations, with increased focus on material categories and flexibility in target-setting. SBTi’s latest draft corporate net-zero framework, for example, contemplates a more “focused and flexible” approach to Scope 3, including allowances where companies have limited influence.