For Executives: Key Takeaways

For executives evaluating this change, it boils down to a few key points:

Why Make a Change from the Status Quo?

Because current methods (especially spend-based estimates) can be significantly inaccurate and non-actionable. They often overestimate emissions (leading to misplaced efforts or unjustified claims of reduction difficulty) and hide the real drivers (so the business learns little about how to improve). Moreover, with increased scrutiny, the old way could fail an audit or erode stakeholder trust if numbers can't be substantiated.

What Bardo Delivers Differently

A managed Carbon Footprint Inventory that is grounded in reality, each line of the footprint corresponds to something tangible in the business. It's not just a black-box number; it's a dataset that reflects what the company actually does. This managed ledger is kept up-to-date and aligned with financials, so it becomes a reliable part of corporate reporting (like a carbon sub-ledger). Essentially, Bardo provides a single source of truth for Scope 3 emissions that the company can use with confidence for multiple purposes (reporting, decision-making, responding to questionnaires, etc.).

Enabling Better Decisions

With accurate, specific data, the company can do things like set science-based targets that are meaningful (no more padding or uncertainty that makes targets easy or impossible arbitrarily), or identify cost-saving opportunities (some emission reductions also save money, but you need detail to find them). It also enables engagement with suppliers on a factual basis, which is key to actually reducing Scope 3 (since most Scope 3 emissions are under suppliers' control). Without a granular inventory, conversations with suppliers would be generic ("please reduce your emissions" vs. "your product X has a hotspot in material Y, can we work on that?"). Additionally, being audit-ready from day one means no surprises when external assurance becomes mandator. Executives won't have to scramble or, worse, face a situation where reported numbers are found to be wrong.

Cost/Benefit

The cost of doing this thoroughly is not as high as one might think, especially relative to consulting or potential compliance penalties. If done as a service, it's predictable and likely lower than having a team try (and perhaps err) internally. Also consider the "cost" of decisions made on bad data, there could be inefficiencies or lost opportunities far exceeding the cost of improving the footprint analysis.