Procurement decisions shape a vessel’s carbon footprint long before it enters service. Here is how shipowners can collect verified PCF data from suppliers — and why it matters for regulatory reporting.
Scope 3 emissions are the hardest category to quantify in maritime sustainability reporting — and, for most shipowners, the largest gap in their lifecycle data. A significant share of a vessel’s total carbon footprint is embedded in the equipment and components procured during newbuilding or retrofit: engines, propulsion systems, steel, electrical components, coatings. Yet most shipowners still lack a structured process for collecting this data from their suppliers.
Regulatory pressure is accelerating. The EU Emissions Trading System now covers maritime, the Carbon Intensity Indicator benchmarks vessels annually, and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires documented Scope 3 data from large companies in scope. The question is no longer whether to engage suppliers on product carbon footprints — it is how to do it systematically and at scale.
Under the GHG Protocol, Scope 3 covers indirect emissions across the value chain. For shipowners, the most significant upstream category is purchased goods and services: the equipment and components installed on a vessel during its lifetime.
A single main engine, propulsion system, or HVAC unit can account for a substantial portion of a vessel’s embedded carbon footprint. Without a Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) from the supplier — calculated in accordance with ISO 14067 — that figure must either be estimated using industry averages or flagged as a data gap. Neither is acceptable for credible lifecycle assessments or third-party audited reports.
The core difficulty is structural: shipowners need the data, but suppliers hold it. Historically, there has been no standard format for requesting it, no shared methodology, and no infrastructure for systematic exchange.
This creates predictable problems in practice. Suppliers respond in inconsistent formats — some report in kg CO₂e per unit, others in energy consumption, others provide nothing at all. There is no straightforward way to verify whether a submission is methodologically sound. Large supply chains involve dozens of suppliers at different levels of maturity. Follow-up is manual and tracking is done in email threads and spreadsheets.
The result is an LCA with incomplete coverage, unreliable assumptions filling the gaps, and a data quality problem that compounds over time.
Closing the Scope 3 data gap in procurement is not primarily a technical problem — it is an organisational and process problem. Three things are required:
Standardised requests. Suppliers should receive a structured request specifying the required methodology (ISO 14067), the data fields to complete, and a clear deadline. Ambiguity in the request produces ambiguity in the response.
Traceability and verification. A PCF submission must be traceable: who provided it, on what methodological basis, and whether it has been reviewed. Data that cannot be audited cannot be used in a credible lifecycle assessment.
Integration with the vessel LCA. Supplier PCF data only has value if it feeds directly into the broader lifecycle assessment of the vessel. Data sitting in email attachments or separate spreadsheets does not contribute to regulatory reporting or carbon accounting.
ReFlow connects shipowners and their supply chains in a single platform, structured around ISO 14067 and aligned with vessel lifecycle assessment requirements.
Shipowners can issue structured PCF data requests to suppliers directly through the platform. Each request includes the required methodology, data fields, and format — so suppliers receive clear guidance rather than open-ended questions. Submission status is tracked in real time, and follow-up can be managed systematically rather than manually.
When a supplier submits PCF data, it is validated against the required standard and integrated directly into the relevant vessel LCA. The outcome is a complete, traceable record of embedded carbon from procured components — suitable for regulatory reports, third-party audits, or internal sustainability targets.
For suppliers, the process is no more burdensome than it needs to be. Rather than responding to ad hoc requests in varying formats, they submit once to a structured system and receive a reusable ISO 14067-aligned PCF declaration they can share with other customers.
If you are building or improving a Scope 3 procurement process, three steps make a practical starting point.
Identify the high-impact suppliers. Focus on the components that account for the largest share of embedded carbon — typically main engine, propulsion, and key electrical systems. Starting here gives the best return on engagement effort.
Align on a methodology. Require alignment with ISO 14067 in your data requests, so results are comparable across suppliers and reporting periods.
Move away from manual processes. Supplier engagement managed through email and spreadsheets does not scale. Purpose-built tooling that handles requests, submissions, and LCA integration is necessary for systematic coverage.
ReFlow supports all three steps. If you would like to see how supplier PCF collection works in practice, we are happy to walk through a scenario with your team.