In the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's second hybrid method example, why does the printed sum multiply 50,000 by 5.6 when the table lists 12,000 t-shirts?

The table gives 12,000 t-shirts and a factor of 5.6. The printed sum shows 50,000 times 5.6, which is 280,000, but the printed answer is 67,200, which is 12,000 times 5.6. So the table and answer agree and the stray figure is the 50,000. The total of 70,250 stands.

What this example does differently

In the guide's first hybrid example, supplier B gives full activity data. In this second one, supplier B can give only its allocated Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and its waste. The buyer fills the rest with a database factor for one t-shirt, 6 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from cradle to gate.

That factor still contains supplier B's own manufacture stage. The guide removes it, leaving 5.6, so supplier B's own energy and waste are not counted twice: once from its bills and once from the database. The guide says the manufacture stage was excluded because it represents the emissions of supplier B itself.

The three lines and the slip

Our reading is that 50,000 is a typing slip in the working line, because the table and the printed answer agree on 12,000. The guide does not comment on it.

1. Allocated Scope 1 and 2 from supplier B: (5,000 x 0.5) + (2,500 x 0.2) = 3,000 kilograms.
2. Waste to landfill: 100 x 0.5 = 50 kilograms.
3. All other upstream emissions: the guide prints (50,000 x 5.6) = 67,200. The table says 12,000 t-shirts, and 12,000 x 5.6 = 67,200. 50,000 x 5.6 would be 280,000.

A second thing the numbers show

The database factor of 6 less the 5.6 kept which, on our reading, means the 0.4 kilograms per shirt is the manufacture stage. For 12,000 shirts that is 4,800 kilograms. Supplier B's own allocated figures, 3,000 plus 50, come to 3,050. Replacing the database's manufacture stage with the supplier's data lowers the total by 1,750 kilograms compared with using 6 for the whole line (our arithmetic).

Do not compare it with the first hybrid example

In the guide, the first hybrid example prints 72,800 kilograms and this one prints 70,250 for the same supplier. They use different data, and the first has its own printed transport slip, covered on the t-shirt page here, so treat neither as a benchmark. Check your own sums.

The guide's second t-shirt example, line by line

• Scope 1 and 2: (5,000 x 0.5) + (2,500 x 0.2) = 2,500 + 500 = 3,000 kilograms CO2e
• Waste: 100 x 0.5 = 50 kilograms CO2e
• Other upstream: 12,000 x 5.6 = 67,200 kilograms CO2e, as printed
• Total: 3,000 + 50 + 67,200 = 70,250 kilograms CO2e
• With 6 instead of 5.6 the third line would be 12,000 x 6 = 72,000, which, on our reading, adds 4,800 for the database's manufacture stage on top of supplier B's own data

All figures are the guide's example numbers, which it says do not refer to actual data. Do not use them as factors.

What Senseible does here

Senseible reads fuel invoices and electricity bills into monthly records, which gives a supplier's own energy lines. It does not split them between buyers or supply the material and freight lines, so those come from your own records.

• Hybrid method t-shirt example, checked
• What the hybrid method needs from a supplier
• Which Category 1 method to use first
• Scope 3 supplier evidence

Sources: GHG Protocol Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions, Category 1 (Purchased goods and services)

Last reviewed 2026-11-06. The slip is in the 2013 guide's printed text; check the current edition if one is published.