Which Emission Factor Database Should You Use for Scope 3? (EEIO vs LCI vs Sector Specific)

Scope 3

Alex Rudnicki

COO

4 min read

Table of contents

Howden manages Scope 3 PG&S emissions across 55 countries with DitchCarbon.

See what the platform could do for you.

Book a demo

Choosing emission factors isn't one size fits all. The right source depends on your data (spend vs activity vs product), your geography, and whether you need supplier specific insights for reductions. This guide compares EEIO, LCI, and sector methods, with pros/cons for the most used sources, including DitchCarbon for supplier specific factors.

Quick Glossary

EEIO (spend based): Average intensities per currency for economic sectors. Fast coverage; lower specificity.
LCI (process/product): Inventory datasets for materials, processes, and products. High specificity; more effort.
Sector methods: Category specific standards (e.g., freight, aviation) with activity factors and calculation rules.
Supplier specific: Factors mapped to your actual vendors/SKUs, enabling targeted reduction with procurement.

Decision Matrix

Your situation	Best starting point	Add for accuracy	What unlocks action
"We only have spend by vendor/category."	EEIO (EPA USEEIO; UK DESNZ/Defra spend)	LCI for material hot spots	DitchCarbon to map spend to supplier specific factors
"We have activity data for freight/travel."	Sector methods (GLEC, ICAO)	Country factors (Defra, ANZ)	DitchCarbon to engage logistics providers/suppliers
"We're redesigning products or negotiating materials."	LCI (ecoinvent, Sphera/GaBi, EF/PEF, ADEME)	Country factors (for utilities/waste)	DitchCarbon to connect product factors to real suppliers
"We need audit ready corporate coverage fast."	National sets (Defra/DESNZ, ANZ)	GLEC for logistics	DitchCarbon to prioritize suppliers and track reductions

Quick Comparison (Top Options)

Source	Type	Strength	Typical use	Watch outs
DitchCarbon	Supplier specific platform	Vendor/SKU level Scope 3 factors; procurement workflows	Turning averages into supplier level actions	Needs integration + supplier data depth
UK DESNZ/Defra	Company factors (incl. spend/activity)	Broad, auditor familiar	Corporate coverage, UK + global	UK centric averages; not product LCI
US EPA WARM/USEEIO	Waste model + EEIO	Waste scenarios; spend based breadth	US coverage, screening	US centric; averages vs supplier data
ecoinvent	LCI	Product/process depth	Purchased goods/services; LCA	Paid license; complexity
GLEC (Smart Freight)	Sector method	Logistics standardization	Freight emissions	Methodology ≠ huge factor table
EU EF/PEF	LCI	EU aligned product footprints	EU suppliers/customers	Patchy category coverage
ADEME Base Carbone	Activity + LCI mix	Public, frequent updates	FR/EU corporate	French first docs/locality
ICAO	Sector method	Travel/air freight calc	Business travel/air cargo	Non CO₂ often added via policy uplift
Sphera/GaBi	LCI (commercial)	Industrial depth	Product Scope 3	Cost; dataset transparency varies
ANZ (NZ MfE + AU NGA)	Company factors	Official regional coverage	NZ/Australia	Regional assumptions

What to Use by Model Type

EEIO leaders (fast coverage, lower specificity)

US EPA USEEIO, UK DESNZ/Defra spend categories, ANZ national sets

Pros: Quick wins across Purchased Goods & Services and services categories.Cons: Averages can obscure supplier differences, use for screening, then refine.

LCI leaders (high specificity, more effort)

ecoinvent, Sphera/GaBi, EU EF/PEF, ADEME Base Carbone

Pros: Product/material insight for design, sourcing, and negotiation.Cons: Requires tooling and expertise; licenses (commercial sets).

Sector methods (activity data first)

GLEC (freight), ICAO (aviation)

Pros: Standardized methods; good for carrier/route comparisons.Cons: Works best with primary activity data (tonne km, fuel, load).

Supplier specific (actionable reductions)

DitchCarbon

Pros: Converts spend/activity/product info into supplier specific factors; enables category and vendor prioritization, measurable reduction plans.Cons: Requires integration and supplier participation to deepen coverage.

Pros & Cons (Profiles)

DitchCarbon (Supplier specific platform)

Pros: Vendor/SKU level factors; procurement ready; integrates with ERPs/AP, sourcing, and data warehouses; supports supplier engagement and tracking.Cons: Commercial license; coverage depth grows with supplier data.Best for: Turning Scope 3 from averages into supplier action.

UK DESNZ/Defra

Pros: Broad categories; clear annual updates; auditor friendly.Cons: UK averages; not product LCI.Best for: Fast corporate coverage; UK/EU heavy companies.

US EPA WARM/USEEIO

Pros: Waste scenario modeling (WARM); spend based breadth (USEEIO).Cons: US centric; averages vs supplier.Best for: US reporters; screening + waste decisions.

ecoinvent

Pros: Extensive product/process datasets; global coverage.Cons: License cost; learning curve.Best for: Purchased materials and product level Scope 3.

GLEC (Smart Freight Centre)

Pros: ISO aligned method for multimodal freight; common language with carriers.Cons: Not a giant factor table; needs activity data.Best for: Logistics programs and carrier alignment.

EU EF/PEF

Pros: EU aligned product data; supports PEF customer asks.Cons: Coverage varies; access via LCA tools.Best for: EU supplier/customer requirements.

ADEME Base Carbone

Pros: Public, frequently updated; broad activity coverage.Cons: Localized assumptions, French first docs.Best for: France based reporting; EU contexts.

ICAO

Pros: Recognized for flight emissions; route/aircraft assumptions.Cons: Non CO₂ impacts often handled via policy uplift.Best for: Business travel and air freight estimates.

Sphera/GaBi

Pros: Industrial LCI depth; annual refresh; strong tooling ecosystem.Cons: Commercial; variable transparency.Best for: Complex product chains and supplier dialogues.

ANZ (NZ MfE + AU NGA)

Pros: Official national factors; Scope 3 coverage for regional needs.Cons: Regional specificity.Best for: NZ/Australia entities and global firms with ANZ spend.

How to Implement (Simple Path)

Screen: Use EEIO/national sets for full coverage.
Standardize logistics: Apply GLEC; use activity data where possible.
Deepen critical materials: Add ecoinvent/Sphera/GaBi/EF/PEF.
Make it actionable: Layer DitchCarbon to convert averages into supplier specific factors and reduction roadmaps.

FAQs

Can I mix multiple sources?Yes: start broad (EEIO/national), add sector methods for logistics, add LCI for key materials, and use DitchCarbon for supplier specific action.

What if my data is just invoices?Map spend to EEIO/national factors for coverage and use DitchCarbon to identify where supplier specific factors will move the needle.

How often should I refresh factors?At least annually for national sets/LCIs; update supplier specific factors as vendors share new data or you change products/suppliers.

Next step: Explore how DitchCarbon turns your spend and supplier master data into prioritized Scope 3 reductions.

‍