The Scope 3 Risk: How Indirect Emissions Can Undermine Brand Trust

Scope 3 emissions are fast becoming one of the biggest brand risks in sustainability. The brands that win trust will be the ones who can explain them clearly, not just calculate them.

Why Scope 3 Is So Difficult – And So Important

For most companies, Scope 3 represents the majority of their climate footprint, often accounting for an estimated 70–90% of total emissions once supply chain, logistics, product use, and end-of-life are included. This makes it the largest blind spot in many sustainability strategies and reports. When it is under-measured or poorly explained, it quickly becomes a regulatory and reputational vulnerability.

The challenge is structural. Supply chains are complex and global, data quality is inconsistent, and many suppliers sit outside traditional reporting processes. Meanwhile, customers, investors, and regulators increasingly expect clarity on full value chain impact, not just direct operations.

The Risk of Ignoring Scope 3

Treating Scope 3 as an afterthought carries three major risks. Brands may overstate their progress if they only highlight Scope 1 and 2 reductions while ignoring the bulk of their footprint. They open themselves up to greenwashing accusations if bold climate claims are made without robust Scope 3 evidence behind them. And they miss chances to cut emissions in the parts of the value chain where improvements can have the greatest real-world impact.

Scope 3 is technically complex, but the risk is ultimately about trust. When stakeholders can’t see the underlying data or understand how it’s being handled, they start to question the credibility of the overall sustainability story.

Turning Complexity Into Clear Proof

Scope 3 may be complicated, but your messaging doesn’t have to be. The goal is not to hide behind caveats, but to explain the boundaries, methods, and limitations in language people can understand.

At Earthmark, this starts with quantifying Scope 3 as robustly as possible and benchmarking it against sector peers so performance has context, not just raw numbers. That data is then structured into clear, customer-safe proof points that can surface in product journeys, search, and AI experiences, instead of being trapped in dense annexes. Finally, the complexity is translated into accessible language that stakeholders can understand, without stripping out the legal and technical substance needed for regulators and auditors.

Scope 3 as a Trust Test

The new brand risk is not just failing to act on Scope 3, but failing to explain it clearly. Companies that communicate honestly about what they know, what they’re improving, and where gaps remain will be better placed to build long-term credibility.

Your Scope 3 disclosures should reduce risk and build trust, not create more questions than answers. The opportunity now is to turn indirect emissions from a blind spot into a transparent part of your climate performance story.