1. The article discusses the importance of measuring and reporting corporate scope 3 carbon emissions, which are indirect emissions that occur in a company's value chain.
2. It highlights that while scope 1 and 2 emissions are relatively easier to measure and report, scope 3 emissions are more complex and harder to determine.
3. The article emphasizes the need for transparency and accurate measurement of scope 3 emissions to develop targeted reduction actions for supply chain decarbonization.
The article titled "Corporate scope 3 carbon emission reporting as an enabler of supply chain decarbonization: A systematic review and comprehensive research agenda" aims to synthesize the existing literature on corporate scope 3 carbon emission reporting and outline a comprehensive research agenda. While the article provides valuable insights into the topic, there are several potential biases and limitations that need to be considered.
One potential bias in the article is the focus on the importance of scope 3 emissions and the need for companies to measure and report them. The authors argue that scope 3 emissions make up a significant portion of a company's total carbon footprint, but they do not provide sufficient evidence or data to support this claim. Without concrete evidence, it is difficult to determine whether scope 3 emissions are indeed a major contributor to overall carbon emissions for most companies.
Additionally, the article highlights the voluntary nature of scope 3 emission reporting under global regulatory frameworks. While this may be true, it fails to acknowledge that many companies voluntarily choose to report their scope 3 emissions as part of their sustainability initiatives or in response to stakeholder pressure. By not acknowledging this aspect, the article may downplay the efforts of companies that are already taking steps towards measuring and reducing their scope 3 emissions.
Furthermore, the article presents a comprehensive research framework for carbon emission reporting but does not adequately address potential challenges or limitations associated with implementing such reporting systems. For example, there may be practical difficulties in collecting accurate data on scope 3 emissions from suppliers or in establishing standardized methodologies for calculating these emissions across different industries. These challenges should have been acknowledged and discussed in more detail.
Another limitation of the article is its narrow focus on academic literature specific to corporate scope 3 carbon emission reporting. While this approach allows for a thorough analysis of existing research, it may overlook valuable insights from industry reports, case studies, or other non-academic sources that could provide practical perspectives on supply chain decarbonization. By excluding these sources, the article may present a skewed view of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
Overall, while the article provides a comprehensive overview of corporate scope 3 carbon emission reporting and offers valuable insights for future research, it is important to critically evaluate its claims and consider potential biases and limitations. A more balanced approach that considers different perspectives, acknowledges challenges, and incorporates evidence from various sources would enhance the credibility and usefulness of the article.