We want the supplier data in the Secaro to be useful and accurate. This article explains the automated guardrails within the Secaro platform and details guidelines to help you analyse your data.
Anomalous data may be unexpectedly high, unexpectedly low, or significantly different compared to a trend. Anomalous data does not mean erroneous data. It means data that requires further investigation to determine the root cause of the anomaly.
Secaro’s role is to facilitate the flow and exchange of data. We also support data quality with automated guardrails (see below), which are subject to ongoing evaluation and refinement. Suppliers are responsible for the accuracy of data they supply. Buyers are responsible for following up with suppliers if they have queries about the accuracy of data.
1. Automated guardrails
Secaro provides suppliers with automated guardrails to help maintain the quality of data entered in the platform, including:
- Warnings alert suppliers if they are entering data outside typical plausibility ranges. For extremely high values, suppliers are prevented from saving data without a review from Secaro. We will assess the plausibility of the number by communicating with the supplier, seeking clarity and supporting evidence.
- Inability to complete a submission with an empty energy consumption value.
- Trend checks on reported energy, water, and waste, including warnings every time a measurement changes by more than 20% compared to the previous year.
- A warning in our Reduction Plan function to alert suppliers if they are inputting estimated reductions savings outside typical plausibility ranges.
2. Suggested manual data review
Automated guardrails do not capture all potential data anomalies. Here are some other steps you can take to analyse your supplier Scope 1, 2 & 3 data and identify suspected anomalies. We encourage you to discuss any anomalies with suppliers directly.
2.1 Scope 1 and 2 data
Apart from anomalously high values entered for energy, mobile combustion, process or refrigerant emissions, which would be flagged by our automated system, the following anomalies could also impact on the accuracy of reported Scope 1 & 2 emissions:
Explainer: Supplier Scope 1 & 2 emissions are attributed to their customers based on the reported ratio of their sales that can be attributed to each buyer. This ratio (%) is commercially sensitive and therefore isn't visible to buyers, who only see the resultant allocated Scope 1 & 2 GHG.
As it is a mandatory data entry field, when suppliers do not provide this data, their submission is considered incomplete. However, data they report elsewhere is still visible to buyers on their dashboards, as incomplete submissions can contain useable data (e.g. proportion of renewables, organizational commitments, etc).
Where ratios are not provided, the SECARO platform automatically provides a proxy ratio, based first on whether an allocation percentage has been provided historically for a particular buyer, and if not, using a system of buyer-specific averages which are suitable for apportioning facility-level data.
Where no allocation ratios have been previously provided for a buyer AND where suppliers report corporate-level data, rather than facility-level data, this can result in over-allocation or over-reporting of Scope 1 & 2 emissions to their buyers.
Method: If you notice that the allocated Scope 1 & 2 emissions from a supplier look unexpectedly high based on your knowledge of the supplier, this could be an underlying reason. Ask the supplier for confirmation.
Explainer: Process emissions refer to non-energy related emissions from physical or chemical processes. It is unusual for the Scope 1 & 2 emissions of most manufacturing suppliers to comprise more than 25% process emissions. While it is expected for specific industries, such as agriculture (especially involving livestock and poultry), waste processing, and manufacture of chemicals, cement, steel & aluminium, we have found that this data point is sometimes over-reported due to a misunderstanding of terminology.
Method: Search for process emissions that contribute more than 25% to a facility’s total Scope 1 & 2 emissions. Consider the type of industrial activity and whether high outputs of non-related process emissions are plausible or not.
Explainer: Anomalously low energy consumption inputs can be as material as anomalously high inputs, but can be more difficult to identify with certainty.
Method: Total energy consumption per facility is protected data, and therefore not visible to buyers. However, if you notice that the allocated Scope 1 & 2 emissions from a supplier look unexpectedly low based on your knowledge of the supplier, this could be an underlying reason. Note that when suppliers do not report any energy in the platform, these submissions are identified as incomplete.
2.2 Scope 3 data
To estimate supplier upstream Scope 3 emissions, Secaro uses a default spend-based database, based on Exiobase, which provides indicative estimates for upstream Scope 3 emissions. As a global analysis, it makes many assumptions about the representative technologies, economic activities, and emissions intensities of industries in different countries and regions that may not be representative of individual supplier circumstances.
If alternative, more reliable data is available, Secaro encourages suppliers to use their own estimates of their upstream emissions (e.g. from their own Scope 3 inventory, life cycle assessment, or product carbon footprint). Secaro undertakes basic checks on this information to ensure completeness or prevent double-counting of emissions before integrating into the platform.
Explainer: For most manufacturers, Scope 3 emissions are greater than Scope 1 & 2 emissions. This will not be the case for primary suppliers such as agriculture or extractive industries. Since most suppliers on the platform are Tier 1 suppliers, however, it is expected that most would have more Scope 3 emissions than Scope 1 & 2 emissions.
Method: Compare facility-level Scope 1 & 2 emissions, to identify those with Scope 3 less than Scope 1 & 2.
Explainer: While it is expected for Scope 3 emissions to be greater than Scope 1 & 2 emissions, if a facility’s estimated upstream Scope 3 contributes >99% to total cradle-to-gate emissions, it could indicate that suppliers have either under-reported energy for their Scope 1 & 2 calculations, or that they have made an error in the input data for the Scope 3 calculations. Consistency with units of measure in data entry fields sometimes causes erroneous results on the platform. However, certain activities are associated with very high upstream emissions, such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals, minerals, livestock, poultry and dairy.
Method: Compare facility-level Scope 1 & 2 emissions to Scope 3 emissions, to identify those with Scope 3 amounting to > 99% of total emissions. If you engage with suppliers on high Scope 3 results, we suggest checking both the units of measure against their data entry points, as well as the emission factor this is applied, and encourage submission of their own to Secaro, if they have them.