Date of Defense

4-24-2025

Date of Graduation

4-2025

Department

Marketing

First Advisor

Sime Curkovic

Second Advisor

Marcel Zondag

Abstract

This study analyzed organizations’ actions and perceptions concerning Scope 3 emissions measurement and the impact that regulations have on the measurement of these emissions. Specifically, this study investigated if organizations measure Scope 3 emissions and their reasons for doing so, the impacts of the proposal and eventual removal of the SEC Scope 3 reporting requirements on organizations, and supply chain professionals’ perceptions regarding if more regulation concerning Scope 3 emissions would be beneficial or detrimental. The goal of this study was to get an initial idea regarding the questions posed, and this study had a pilot-level scope. Therefore, this study was not intended to produce statistically significant results, and care should be taken when extrapolating these results to the larger population.

To gather data and information, a survey was created and disseminated through both direct contact and LinkedIn. This survey employed a combination of Likert scales, multiplechoice questions with an “other” option, and free response questions. To assist in analyzing the data, the free responses and the responses under the “other” category in the multiple-choice questions were classified into pre-defined categories, and the most popular categories were identified. Also, only responses where the individual was at least somewhat aware of Scope 3 emissions were selected for extensive analysis in order to preserve integrity in the results.

After analyzing the data, it was found that of those who were at least somewhat aware of what Scope 3 emissions were, 70% said that their organization has at least moderate measurement of Scope 3 emissions. Ultimately, significant benefits and drawbacks to Scope 3 emissions measurement were highlighted, which means that “efficient sustainability,” or sustainability with low costs to the organization, is required. Generally, the removal of Scope 3 reporting requirements did not have any real effect, and it seems that regulations need to come into effect for there to be an impact; otherwise, organizations continue to make decisions in line with stakeholder expectations. In regards to perceptions concerning more regulation of Scope 3 emissions, significant advantages and disadvantages of more regulation were cited, which further highlights the contradictory nature of Scope 3 emissions measurement and underscores the need for “efficient sustainability.” Therefore, the best solution to the problem of Scope 3 emissions may be what the SEC originally proposed: Only require larger organizations to report Scope 3 emissions in the way that they see best, including allowing them to estimate Scope 3 emissions (Eastwood, Fallon, Cray, Stebbins, Stellmach, & Thomas, 2022). Ultimately, this allows organizations to practice “efficient sustainability.” In regards to future research, this study should be conducted on a larger sample size with a more well-designed survey so that firm conclusions can be drawn. Also, future research on the individual topics of this study should be conducted, and more research should be done on what stakeholders and consumers expect in regards to Scope 3 emissions measurement. Finally, more research should be done regarding the best ways to measure Scope 3 emissions.

Access Setting

Honors Thesis-Open Access

Additional Files
Presentation.pdf (488 kB)
Defense Presentation
Download

Share

COinS