EN 
DE 
Webinar Recap: Collecting Data Is Not Enough
How do scattered activity data become traceable greenhouse gas disclosures? That question was at the centre of the webinar “From Data to Disclosure: Streamlining GHG Reporting” on 15 October 2026.
The SIERA Impact Series session addressed a challenge familiar to many organisations: information on electricity, fuel, transport and purchased goods sits across different teams, sites, files and systems. Before that information can support a disclosure, it needs to be brought together, checked and calculated using a consistent method.
The session’s central message was clear: good GHG reporting starts well before the final report. It requires clear ownership, defined reporting boundaries, traceable source data and documented calculations. Digital tools can support this work. They cannot replace professional judgement or resolve incomplete and inconsistent information on their own.
Why Emissions Data Matters Beyond Disclosure
A greenhouse gas inventory is not only an output for reporting. It can also reveal where emissions arise and which potential changes deserve closer investigation.
The webinar illustrated this with a facility example. If one site has unusually high emissions associated with electricity use, facilities and finance teams can examine consumption, operating hours and costs together. They can then assess whether an operational adjustment or investment would be worthwhile.
The same principle applies to transport and procurement. Better visibility can point to avoidable fuel use or purchasing categories that make a substantial contribution to emissions. Data alone, however, guarantees neither emissions reductions nor cost savings. Its value is in helping teams compare options and support decisions with evidence.
Four Challenges Between Data and Disclosure
The session grouped common GHG reporting difficulties into four connected areas:
| Challenge | What happens during reporting | Approach discussed in the webinar |
| Fragmented data | Information sits across departments, sites, emails and spreadsheets | Collect it in a shared, structured environment |
| Extensive manual work | Teams transfer figures, check formulas and reconcile files | Automate repeatable calculations and checks where appropriate |
| Inconsistent inputs | Units, assumptions and emission factors vary | Define formats, methods and responsibilities |
| Missing evidence | The origin of a figure is difficult to reconstruct later | Document supporting records, assumptions and approvals during data collection |
Scope 3 emissions can be especially demanding. Organisations often depend on information from suppliers, and data does not always arrive at the same time or with the same level of quality. Credible reporting needs to make those gaps visible rather than conceal them.
Define the Reporting Boundary Before Going Digital
One of the practical lessons from the Q&A concerned implementation order. A platform cannot decide missing definitions on an organisation’s behalf. Before transferring information from spreadsheets into a digital system, teams should agree on:
- Which sites and activities are within the reporting boundary.
- Who provides each data point and who reviews it.
- Which units and reporting periods apply.
- How emissions will be calculated.
- Which sources and versions of emission factors will be used.
- How estimates and data gaps will be identified.
The webinar recommended a phased start: test the process with a few facilities, identify gaps and then extend it. That can be more useful than introducing a new system across every business unit at once while basic questions remain unanswered.
What a Central Data Platform Can Support
The webinar demonstrated a software platform referred to as Core Impact as an example of a centralised reporting process. The demonstration showed how Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 data could be collected in a structured environment and used for calculations and dashboards.
Features discussed included standardised data entry, validation checks, shared calculation logic, dashboards and the ability to attach supporting evidence. Such functions can help teams identify missing information earlier and trace figures back to their sources.
The webinar offered a practical example: when multiple facilities submit monthly electricity and fuel data, different units, outdated templates or invoices without entered figures can create substantial follow-up work. Consistent input fields and checks make these differences visible sooner. That leaves more time to interpret results instead of cleaning files just before a reporting deadline.
Software does not automatically make a disclosure ready for assurance. Meeting applicable requirements still depends on data quality, documented methods, appropriate controls and professional review.
Scope 3: Start with an Honest Baseline
How should organisations report when supplier data is missing? The Q&A answer was to start with the best available information, explain its limitations and improve data quality deliberately.
The speaker used an illustrative example involving 20 steel suppliers. If only five provide their own emissions data in the first reporting year, suitable estimates could be used for the remaining purchased quantities. The quantities, factors and assumptions should be documented, and estimated results should not be presented as precise supplier data.
The organisation can then prioritise suppliers responsible for the largest share of purchases. Standardised data requests and checks for missing values or inconsistent units can improve the baseline in subsequent reporting years.
The aim is not an apparently perfect number in year one. It is a defensible inventory whose limitations are understood and whose quality can improve.
A Consistent Method Does Not Mean One Emission Factor
Another question concerned organisations operating across different regions. Electricity supply, and therefore relevant emission factors, can differ between locations.
Consistency does not mean applying the same factor everywhere. It means using a consistent selection method to choose an appropriate factor for each site and reporting period, while recording its source, version and approval. This preserves regional differences without losing traceability or comparability.
Capture Evidence from the Start
Teams should not begin preparing for review only after the report is complete. The webinar recommended gathering evidence when the underlying data is entered.
For vehicle fleet fuel emissions, for example, the calculated emissions total is only part of the record. The fuel quantity, applied emission factor and supporting documents should also remain accessible.
Building that link from source to disclosed figure early makes later questions easier to address. Documentation, review and approval are therefore not last-minute additions; they are part of a reliable reporting process.
Moving from Reporting to Improvement
The session closed by returning to the wider purpose of the exercise: what happens after disclosure?
When data is consistent across reporting periods, teams can identify trends, investigate emissions hotspots and assess possible interventions. They can also consider emissions information alongside operational and cost data. A GHG inventory and a financial statement still serve different purposes, but each can inform the same decision from a different perspective.
The webinar’s practical lessons can be summarised as a sequence:
- Define reporting boundaries and ownership.
- Gather available data and assess its quality.
- Document methods, units and emission factors.
- Estimate missing data transparently and prioritise improvements.
- Build evidence and review into the ongoing process.
- Use the findings to investigate potential emissions-reduction measures.
This turns a recurring reporting task into a progressively stronger information base—for traceable disclosures and better-informed operational decisions.
CTA
Want to bring more structure to your GHG data, from initial collection through to disclosure? Connect with SIERA to discuss reporting boundaries, data quality, digital workflows and a phased approach to GHG reporting.
Engineering for a Better Tomorrow
