Why you should ask supply chain partners for location-specific emission data in 2026

Why you should ask supply chain partners for location-specific primary emission data in 2026.

This is a sensitive topic. A supplier with multiple production sites will not be thrilled when you ask for emission data per location. It makes performance visible, and visible means comparable, and comparable means pressure. So, should you ask supply chain partners for location-specific primary emission data?

My answer: yes, and you should start in 2026. Not because you love “more data”, but because without it you cannot enforce serious reductions in practice, cannot make credible choices, and will end up with an assurance challenge you cannot resolve.

Why location-specific primary data is your only real lever

If your Scope 3 is primarily in Category 1 (purchased goods and services), then the uncomfortable truth is: you are purchasing your emissions. And “average data” is essentially a way to numb your own decision-making.

• With average emission factors you can report, but you cannot steer.
• With supplier averages you can compare, but you cannot pinpoint hotspots.
• With location-specific primary data you can finally have the conversation that matters: which location, which process, which investment, which timing, which costs, which impact.

That precision is exactly why suppliers are reluctant. But it is also exactly why you need to ask.

How to ask without damaging your relationship

The mistake I often see: companies request “all data”, without purpose, without protection, and without offering anything in return. Then it feels like an audit, not a collaboration.

A better approach:

• Ask with purpose: only for materially relevant streams, not for everything at once. The market approach is: first map the supply chain, then collect data on material topics, acknowledging that data quality may vary.
• Offer data protection: NDAs, data-use agreements, and reporting on intensity (per tonne of product) rather than “all raw energy bills”.
• Accept a stepwise approach: start with emission data per product group, then per location, then verification.
• Make clear it is not naming-and-shaming: the goal is reduction, not rankings. If you do intend to rank, be transparent about it.

From conversation to results: five concrete instruments

The conversation ultimately comes down to pain points and costs of emission reduction. If one location has less budget or less technical capacity, it becomes difficult. That is precisely why you want location-level insight: otherwise you are talking past each other.

Here is a spectrum that works in practice:

1. Embed it in the procurement contract
   Include: minimum data requirements (for example annual emission information per product group and location attribution where relevant), a reduction timeline, and an improvement plan. Make it measurable and verifiable, otherwise it remains an intention.
2. Allocate internal capacity for genuine supplier engagement
   Without an owner, without procurement, without finance, without operations, it remains a spreadsheet exercise.
3. Make it financially and operationally attractive
   Consider preferred supplier status, multi-year volume commitments, or co-financing of measurements and quick wins (energy efficiency, fuel switching, process optimisation). This is the core: you are asking for something sensitive, so you need to offer something in return.
4. Standardise the data request and make exchange scalable
   Use one template, one set of definitions, one control logic. If you ask professionally and predictably, it becomes less “custom stress” and more routine for suppliers.
5. Set up an “assurance-ready” track, even if you are not yet required to
   Peers are already signalling that you should do a dry run a year in advance to test data flows end-to-end.
   That is not bureaucracy. That is preventing the discovery in 2026 that nobody can explain where the figures come from.

The professional but sharp conclusion

In 2026, asking for location-specific primary emission data is not “ambitious”. It is baseline mature supply chain management. If you do not ask, you are implicitly choosing to steer on averages. And steering on averages is fine for filling a report, but insufficient to actually bring emissions down.

If you want your Scope 3 procurement categories in 2026 to be more than an accounting estimate, the real work starts with one uncomfortable question to your supplier: which location corresponds to which emissions, and what are we going to do about it?