How do modelled carbon figures compare to measured emissions in construction?

Question

Accepted Answer

Modelled Carbon Figures Lack the Verifiable Accuracy of Measured Emissions in Construction

In Malaysia's 2023 reporting cycle, only 11% of publicly listed companies disclosed Scope 3 emissions, a stark contrast to the 39% across the Asia-Pacific region. This significant gap highlights a prevailing reliance on modelled carbon figures within the Malaysian construction sector, which are not yet underpinned by robust, localised measurement frameworks. While modelled data can offer initial estimates, it lacks the verifiable accuracy and standardised methodology essential for credible sustainability reporting and effective emissions reduction strategies.
Current Malaysian Construction Reports Largely Rely on Modeled Data

The carbon figures presented in Malaysian construction sustainability reports are predominantly derived from models rather than direct measurements. This approach is partly due to the absence of a standardised, locally developed carbon accounting framework for the sector. While initiatives like CIDB's Embodied Carbon Inventory attempt to consolidate emission factors, its limited scope and reliance on international data where local information is scarce mean that the resulting figures are often estimates rather than precise calculations.
Scope 3 Emissions, Particularly On-Site Activities, Are Under-Quantified

Scope 3 emissions, which encompass embodied carbon in materials and emissions from logistics, represent a substantial portion of the construction industry's carbon footprint. However, the current methodologies in Malaysia do not adequately capture critical components like carbon released from on-site construction activities, such as fuel combustion from machinery and waste disposal. Globally, these on-site activities account for 37% of the industry's total carbon footprint, yet there is no standardised quantification mechanism for them in Malaysia.
Lack of Standardisation Leads to Inconsistent Reporting

The absence of a structured and standardised carbon reporting mechanism means that two construction firms with identical activities could report vastly different carbon figures and still be considered compliant. The National Sustainability Reporting Framework (NSRF) mandates disclosure but does not specify the emission factors, on-site activities, or methodologies that must be used for carbon calculations. This lack of uniformity undermines the comparability and reliability of reported data, making it difficult to track genuine progress towards emissions reduction goals.
Industry Platforms Offer Estimates Requiring Auditing

Platforms like Bursa Malaysia's Climate Change Sustainability Platform (CSI) provide tools for estimating Scope 3 emissions through modelled supplier engagement. While useful for companies starting their reporting journey, these estimates are explicitly identified as not absolving organisations from their fiduciary duty to have data audited. These platforms serve as a bridge rather than a final destination, and their current use by some major developers and contractors as a definitive source suggests a misunderstanding of their purpose and limitations.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How do modelled carbon figures compare to measured emissions in construction?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends