Scope 3.1 Data Collection: How to Prioritise Suppliers?

If you're struggling to scale Scope 3.1 data collection across a complex supplier network, you're not alone.

According to CDP, only 41% of suppliers globally report any carbon data, and of that, even less is usable. For companies aiming for science-based targets, climate disclosures, or CSRD/SFDR compliance, this data gap is more than an inconvenience—it's a risk.

But collecting carbon data from every supplier is not feasible. That’s why prioritising who to engage first—and how—is key to success. Done right, this approach lets you move fast, stay compliant, and create value from carbon data, rather than chasing it.

In this post, we’ll outline effective strategies to prioritise your supplier base for Scope 3.1 carbon emissions data collection. You’ll walk away with a practical, scalable roadmap for smarter, more accurate supplier engagement.

Why Supplier Prioritisation is Critical in Scope 3.1?

Scope 3.1—emissions from purchased goods and services—makes up the majority of carbon emissions for most product-based companies. Yet most suppliers are unprepared or unaware of how to report this data. 

Here’s why that matters: 

• Up to 80% of emissions sit in the supply chain (McKinsey). 
• Manual outreach to 500+ suppliers takes months and yields limited usable data. 
• Most climate frameworks (SBTi, CDP, CSRD) demand traceable, supplier-specific data. 

Rather than attempting to collect data from everyone, leading companies use smart segmentation and data-driven prioritisation. 

Common Challenges, Process, Do’s and Don’ts  

As organisations scale their data collection efforts for Scope 3.1 emissions, prioritising the supplier base is crucial to ensure accurate, efficient, and actionable data. Here are several strategies to streamline the process:

• Procurement Spend:
  Start by analysing your supplier base based on procurement spend. Suppliers that account for the largest share of your purchasing budget are often the most significant contributors to your carbon footprint. Focusing on these suppliers ensures you are capturing data from the most impactful sources.
  
• Emissions Intensity:
  Prioritise suppliers based on the carbon intensity of the goods or services they provide. High-emission products or services should be prioritised, as they have the potential to significantly impact your Scope 3.1 emissions profile. This can often be determined through industry benchmarks or emissions factors associated with specific materials or processes.
  
• Tiered Data Collection Approach:
  Start by engaging Tier 1 suppliers (direct suppliers) who are easier to reach and often have the greatest impact on emissions. Then, progressively extend the data collection process to Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers, who may contribute to emissions but are more challenging to engage.
  
• Supplier Segmentation:
  Segment suppliers based on size, geographical location, and carbon intensity of the products or services provided. This helps to focus resources on suppliers that are most likely to have a high emissions impact, ensuring that the most critical data is collected first.
  
• Risk Profile:
  Suppliers that pose higher reputational, financial, or operational risks should be prioritised for data collection. Identifying potential supply chain risks related to emissions and sustainability can help mitigate future disruptions, particularly for high-risk suppliers with limited transparency.
  
• Strategic Importance:  Beyond just spend and emissions, consider the strategic importance of suppliers. Suppliers critical to your business operations or those in key regions may be prioritised, even if their emissions profile is smaller. Ensuring data accuracy from these suppliers helps build resilience in your supply chain reporting and hence for your organisation.

What a Tiered Supplier Engagement Model Looks Like?

Implementing a practical and scalable data collection model means applying the strategies above using a structured, tiered approach. Here’s what that typically looks like:

Step 1: Define Supplier Segments

Use procurement data, spend, product types, and emissions proxies to group your supplier base into:

• High-impact (20% of suppliers = 80% of emissions)

• Medium-impact

• Low-impact

This forms the basis for workload planning.

Step 2: Match Engagement Method to Segment

• High-impact suppliers: Provide tailored support, product-level templates, and dedicated onboarding.

• Mid-impact suppliers: Use scalable tools like Mavarick to collect facility-level or input-level data with guided workflows.

• Low-impact suppliers: Use modeled estimates based on industry averages or ask for self-reported summary data.

Step 3: Automate and Track

Automate reminders, deadlines, and validation using a carbon data platform. Mavarick, for example, allows companies to:

• Trigger data requests at contract renewal

• Auto-fill emission factors

• Validate inputs in real-time

Track completion rates by supplier cluster

Want to simplify Scope 3.1 supplier reporting?

Next Steps

If you're scaling Scope 3.1 data collection, your next move should be clear:

• Use spend + emissions intensity to segment your suppliers
  
• Engage high-impact suppliers with templates and tools
  
• Use automation to scale your outreach

You don’t need every supplier to report perfect carbon data today, but you do need a plan. By prioritising your supplier base based on spend, emissions, and strategic value, you create a data strategy that scales with your climate ambition. Scope 3.1 data collection doesn’t have to be chaotic. With the right structure and tools, it becomes a growth lever, not a burden.
Ready to lead the way on Scope 3.1? Start where it matters most, with the right suppliers.

FAQs

Q: How many suppliers should I prioritise first?
A: Start with the top 20% of suppliers by spend or emissions potential. These typically drive 80% of Scope 3.1 impact.

Q: What if my suppliers don’t have any carbon data yet?
A: Use modeled emissions based on industry averages while building their capacity through training and tools.

Q: How do I balance data quality vs. coverage?
A: High-coverage is ideal, but depth from high-priority suppliers provides the strongest ROI on early-stage efforts.

‍

‍

‍