You're viewing sample data. This is a live preview of the workspace, populated with a fictional organisation so you can see how it works. Create an account to start your own.
Northwind Foods (sample)
Medium-High risk — Material impact concentrated in several hotspots, or significant data gaps. Reduction and data work are both needed.
- Total footprint
- 8.4 ktCO2e
- Per employee
- 35.1 tCO2e
- Per €M revenue
- 118.6 tCO2e
- Reporting period
- 2026
Scope 2 is reported both market-based (641 tCO2e) and location-based (812 tCO2e). The total above uses the market-based figure, per the GHG Protocol dual-reporting requirement.
Purchased goods, services and inbound logistics.
Drivers: Purchased packaging, Inbound freight, Contract manufacturing
Direct site energy, refrigerants and vehicle fleet.
Drivers: Site electricity, Delivery fleet diesel
Distribution, product use and end-of-life.
Drivers: Outbound distribution, Packaging end-of-life
Pressure on water, land and biodiversity beyond carbon.
Drivers: Water withdrawal at inland site
Scope 1 and 2 are metered monthly; Scope 3 rests on spend-based factors for around 60% of categories.
Withdrawal is metered at all three sites, and none sits in a high-stress basin.
Scores lowest purely because no site-level ecological baseline exists yet — a measurement gap, not evidence of harm.
Diversion rate is measured but not externally audited.
Tier 1 suppliers are mapped; tier 2 is largely unknown.
Packaging reduction is implemented; reuse pilots are planned but not yet running.
Board-level accountability is documented and a CSRD gap analysis is underway.
- Purchased goods & services (54% of total footprint)
- Inbound freight from two overseas suppliers
- Packaging end-of-life
- Tier 2 supplier emissions are estimated from spend, not measured.
- No site-level biodiversity baseline.
- Refrigerant leakage rates assumed from sector defaults.
Concentrate on purchased goods and inbound freight — together they are roughly three-quarters of the footprint, while operational energy, where most internal attention has gone, is 19%.
Hotspot analysis
- Purchased goods & servicesAt 4,551 tCO2e this is 54% of the total footprint.Root cause: Packaging and contract-manufactured inputs, priced from spend rather than measured per supplier.
- Freight & distribution1,382 tCO2e, with air freight responsible for a disproportionate share.Root cause: Two overseas suppliers ship by air on standing orders that do not require that lead time.
- Land and biodiversityLowest-scoring category at 47%.Root cause: No site-level ecological baseline has been established, so the category cannot score well regardless of actual performance.
Immediate internal actions (within 90 days)
- Collect supplier-specific emissions data for the top 20 inputs by spendReplaces spend-based estimates across roughly 60% of Scope 3, the single largest source of uncertainty in this inventory.Effort: mediumImpact: highAddresses: Purchased goods & services
- Move non-urgent inbound freight from air to seaThe two affected suppliers ship air on standing orders where lead time allows sea.Effort: mediumImpact: highAddresses: Freight & distribution
- Put the inland site on a renewable electricity contractAddresses most of the remaining market-based Scope 2.Effort: lowImpact: mediumAddresses: Purchased electricity
Medium-term operational improvements
- Establish a site-level ecological baselineUnlocks the land and biodiversity category, which currently scores 47% purely for lack of data.Horizon: 6-12 monthsAddresses: Land and biodiversity
- Extend supplier mapping to tier 2Tier 1 is mapped; tier 2 is largely unknown and is where the residual supply-chain risk sits.Horizon: 12-18 monthsAddresses: Supply chain risk
Data improvements that would raise confidence
- Replace spend-based factors with supplier-specific data for the top 20 inputs.
- Introduce refrigerant leak testing rather than relying on sector-default leakage rates.
- Commission a site-level biodiversity baseline at all three sites.
- Seek external assurance on the waste diversion rate.
External support — alongside reduction, not instead of it
Sourcing regions overlap with coastal ecosystems under measurable pressure, so contribution is best directed where the company already has a physical footprint rather than to unrelated offsets.
Weight contribution toward projects in sourcing regions, and report it as contribution rather than as a reduction against this inventory.
Reporting guidance
- Disclose Scope 3 alongside its uncertainty rather than as a single point figure.Evidence: 60% of Scope 3 rests on spend-based factors.
- Report Scope 2 on both market and location basis.Evidence: Market-based 640.8 tCO2e versus location-based 812.4 tCO2e.
- State that the biodiversity score reflects missing data, not measured harm.Evidence: No ecological baseline exists at any site.
Defensible language you can use
“None of these actions is an offset. They reduce measured pressure, so any external claim should be phrased as a reduction against a stated baseline — never as neutrality.”
Ranked from the OCIS registry against your hotspots, region and stated priorities. Funding a project is contribution, not an offset — see the claim ladder below.
- Sits in a region the company already sources from.
- Addresses coastal ecosystem pressure identified in the value-chain analysis.
- Marine habitat restoration with quarterly verified reporting.
- Reports ecosystem function rather than durable removal, which matches what this inventory can honestly claim.
Claims are ordered from weakest to strongest. OCIS will not describe project funding as an offset, because contribution and compensation are different things.
- Internal reductionSupportedEmissions and resource use you have actually eliminated inside your own operations and value chain. This is the only category that reduces your footprint.
- Mitigation through project supportSupportedFunding regenerative projects. Reportable as environmental action and expenditure — not as a reduction of your own footprint.
- Offsetting claimNot supportedRequires retired, third-party-verified carbon credits under a recognised standard. OCIS does not issue credits and cannot support this claim.
- Verified environmental outcomeNot supportedRequires independent verification of the project outcome. dMRV reports are monitoring evidence, not third-party verification.
- Early-stage impact supportSupportedBacking projects before outcomes exist. Report as contribution to innovation and capacity, with no quantified impact attached.
| Framework | Disclosure | This supplies | Still needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSRD | ESRS E1 (climate) and E3 (water) | Scope 1, 2 and 3 inventory plus metered water withdrawal for all three sites. | ESRS E4 requires a site-level biodiversity baseline, which does not exist yet. |
| GRI | GRI 305 (emissions) | 305-1 and 305-2 from metered data. | 305-3 is supportable but must carry its spend-based uncertainty. |
| ISSB | IFRS S2 climate disclosures | Gross Scope 1, 2 and 3 with method and data-quality flags per line. | Scenario analysis and transition-plan detail are out of scope for this assessment. |
| TNFD | LEAP nature assessment | A first-pass value-chain pressure map covering water, land and biodiversity. | Location-level nature assessment has not been started. |
Executive summary
Northwind Foods reports 8,420 tCO2e for 2026 with an overall readiness score of 62/100 (Medium risk).
Scope 3 is 78% of the total and is the least certain part of the inventory — 60% of it rests on spend-based factors. The headline number is therefore directionally sound but should be presented with its uncertainty stated.
Where the pressure actually sits
Purchased goods and inbound freight together account for roughly three-quarters of the footprint. Operational energy, which is where most internal attention has gone, is 19%.
Honest limitations
This assessment cannot support a neutrality or offset claim. Biodiversity scores lowest (50/100) purely because no baseline exists — that is a measurement gap, not evidence of poor performance.
This is a screening-level estimate built from self-reported activity data and published average emission factors. It is not a verified greenhouse gas inventory and does not constitute assurance under any reporting standard.
- Spend-based factors used where supplier-specific data was unavailable.
- Market-based method used for purchased electricity.