Senseible

Can I mix a combustion factor from one source and a well-to-tank factor from another for Category 3?

Avoid it where you can. The GHG Protocol asks that, if possible, combustion and life cycle factors share the same period, technology and geography. If your source gives only a full life cycle factor, subtract that same source's combustion factor to get the upstream part, not a combustion factor taken from elsewhere.

What the guidance actually says

Why a mix goes wrong

A life cycle factor contains its own author's view of combustion. Take away somebody else's combustion figure and the gap between the two methods lands in your upstream line, where it looks like real supply chain emissions.

Your Scope 1 can keep its own factor

The rule is about the subtraction, not about forcing one factor set everywhere. Keep your Scope 1 on the combustion factors you already use, and take the Category 3 upstream value from a single source. In your method note, name the source and edition for each, and say how the upstream value was derived.

Worked example: 50,000 litres of diesel

The 3.20 and 2.70 values are examples, not from a real database. Use the figures in the source you name.

What Senseible does here

Senseible applies published combustion factors to the litres and kilograms it reads for Scope 1, for example 2.645 kg CO2 per litre of diesel from the IPCC 2006 carbon content. It does not apply upstream factors, so the quantities are ready to multiply by a well-to-tank value from one named source.

Sources: GHG Protocol, Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions, Category 3 (formulas 3.1 and 3.2), GHG Protocol, Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard

Last reviewed 2026-10-31.