-
Discover why land use change is the biggest driver of Scope 3 emissions and learn how targeted monitoring and actionable insights empower your business to identify hotspots and, support sustainable sourcing.
-
Understand how fragmented Scope 3 reporting creates blind spots for compliance, and exposes your organization to regulatory and reputational risk.
-
Explore the tangible benefits of aligning Scope 3, EUDR, and other climate frameworks through a single, auditable platform.
-
Dive into a real-world case study: See how Lindt achieves compliance while safeguarding forests by combining Satelligence’s geospatial deforestation alerts with supplier-level Scope 3 emissions reporting.
Scope 3 emissions explained: Practical guide to measure, manage, and simplify sustainability monitoring
Scope 3 emissions typically represent 80-95% of a company’s climate impact and land use change (LUC) is one of its biggest, hardest-to-measure components. They are often measured in silos: one dataset for emissions reporting, another for CSRD, EUDR due diligence, and yet another for voluntary frameworks. This fragmented approach increases costs, creates inconsistencies, and leaves organisations exposed to compliance and reputational risk.
It is now vital for businesses to understand why fragmented approaches to Scope 3 and deforestation reporting are no longer fit for purpose, and how companies can build a unified, auditable data foundation for climate and regulatory compliance.
LUC emissions are a business priority
Land use change emissions occur at the raw material stage, but their impact is felt through the entire value chain. In key commodities, LUC can account for:
- 60–70% of emissions in cocoa
- 40–80% in palm oil
- 50–65% in soy regions
Frameworks such as GHG Protocol, SBTi FLAG, CSRD, CDP, and the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) are raising expectations around accuracy, transparency, and auditability beyond what fragmented or open data sources can reliably support.
Climate and deforestation frameworks are aligning
FLAG targets are now mandatory for SBTi-committed companies with land-sector exposure, while EUDR requires plot-level geolocation and verifiable proof of deforestation-free sourcing.
As these requirements converge, LUC emissions, removals, and deforestation compliance can no longer be treated separately. Companies need a single source of truth that supports climate reporting, regulatory compliance, and credible target-setting simultaneously.
%20and%20LUC%20emissions.png?width=2000&height=1192&name=Aceh%20Tamiang%20Deforestation%20(2015-2023)%20and%20LUC%20emissions.png "Aceh Tamiang Deforestation (2015-2023) and LUC emissions")
Deforestation (2015–2023) and associated LUC emissions in Aceh Tamiang, Indonesia — integrated monitoring. Source: Satelligence platform.
Data quality underpins credible Scope 3 reporting
Reliable LUC emissions reporting depends on a high-quality forest baseline. Without it, emissions estimates, carbon stock calculations, and deforestation assessments risk becoming inconsistent and unreliable.
Robust LUC data must enable the following:
- High-resolution, validated change detection
- Forest class differentiation for accurate carbon factors
- Tracking of both emissions and removals
- Precise geolocation linking change events to source plots
This level of precision is especially useful for downstream companies facing EUDR obligations and limited traceability.
One dataset, one unified approach
Aligning LUC data across Scope 3 reporting, EUDR due diligence, and climate and nature frameworks reduces duplication, improves consistency, and strengthens the credibility of disclosures.
The following whitepaper outlines how a unified data approach (built on an independently validated forest baseline and precise geolocation) can support emissions accounting, deforestation-free compliance, and future regulatory convergence from one single, auditable source.