Spoiler: There is no one size fits all solution. The one you need will likely change with your size, stakeholder requirements and potentially regulation. Your initial “best” solution will depend on your resources, your complexity, and how much control you want over the process. Let’s walk through the main options.
- Spreadsheets and elbow grease
- Custom system
- Platform (SaaS)
- Done by consultant
The DIY Route: Spreadsheets and Elbow Grease
This is where most people start. You download some carbon calculators, grab the GHG Protocol guidance documents (all 200+ pages of them), get the latest conversion factors from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and crack on with Excel.
Pros of DIY
- Costs nothing except time
- Builds excellent knowledge and understanding
- Completely flexible to customise for you and develop over time
- No vendor lock in
Cons of DIY
- It’s potentially a lot of time
- High error risk
- Low confidence “have I done this right?”
- It can feel like you’re re-learning it year on year
- Scope 3 can discombobulate people
- If the spreadsheet author leaves you might be back to square one
When to DIY
If you’re small or your operations are very simple, and you have a motivated person who wants to build it. It’s also great for building carbon and sustainability knowledge and making you an intelligent buyer of future solutions if / when required.
Build Your Own System: The Custom Solution
The favoured approach of systems geeks (guilty as charged). Often an integration layer on top of existing systems, or additional fields in existing systems.
Pros of build your own
- No data collection / manipulation needed
- Upgradable by you as and when required.
- No ongoing subscription
- Vehicle for system improvement
Cons of build your own
- Significant technical ability required
- Potentially significant upfront investment
- You’ll have to update conversion factors every year
- Longer time to build / deploy
- Will have to do DIY first (to inform the data model)
- Changes / upgrades to other systems can “break” it
- If the system developer leaves you could be back to square one.
When to build your own
Any or any combination of the following.
You’re a larger organisation with specific carbon data requirements that off-the-shelf tools can’t handle. You’re technically savvy and have a straight forward footprint. Sustainability and carbon management are strategically important to your business model and you want to be self reliant.
Platform (SaaS)
You are spoilt for choice. The software handles all the calculations, stores the data and spits out the reports you need. Some require you to add all the data, others will integrate with your systems. Cost and quality vary enormously – some amazingly good, others properly rough and ready.
Pros of platform
- Rapid deployment
- No stress / hassle with finding conversion factors
- Often have reports already compliant with common standards and frameworks (SBTi, CDP etc.)
- Data governance built in (though never bullet proof!)
- Usually some training and support included
- Less internal expertise needed
- Less dependent on key personnel
Cons of platform
- Ongoing subscription costs (from hundreds to tens of thousands)
- Limited customisation
- Data requirements may mean you need to do some manipulation at your end
- Vendor dependency (if they go bust, you have a problem)
- Can be a significant learning curve to use
- Can be overkill
When to use a platform
Any or any combination of the following.
You don’t want to build a carbon footprint model from scratch. You don’t want to be dependent on an internal “expert”. You want speed and auditability. You’re happy to pay for it year on year.
Done by consultant
Clearly our favourite but potentially not a good fit for you! Education on the approach protocols etc. Guidance and support for data collection. Analysis done for you and a report fit for your interested stakeholders created for you.
Pros of consultant
- Minimises internal resource requirement
- Speed
- Credibility for stakeholders and auditors
- Strategic recommendations to evolve reporting and improve footprint
- No internal expert dependence.
Cons of consultant
- Can be expensive (depending on complexity / scope)
- Less internal knowledge development
- Less knowledge and understanding of process
- Annual cost if you stay in this lane
When to use consultant
Appreciate you may read this section with a degree of cynicism. We have tried to be neutral!
You’re under time pressure (tender response, investor due diligence, first annual report). You lack internal resources full stop, willing or confident internal resources. You want a stepping stone to DIY or platform. You want advice on the tricky bits e.g. Scope 3 categories off the beaten track.
If you’re yet to start
Most successful approaches to carbon footprinting and reduction planning are hybrid and do evolve. A frequent path we see (note we only see it because there is a consultant element!):
- Start DIY with consultant support or having had someone trained appropriately.
- Decide long term strategy – any route depending on how easy you found DIY.
- Build your own data source model or map, and have at least two people own it.
- Choose route year on year depending on resources until you reach best value solution for you.
Somewhere between spreadsheet hell and massive overspend on platforms is the right solution for you. We’re always happy to have a free of charge conversation about where to start / go next.