How will Malaysia’s construction firms quantify Scope 3 without local standards?

Question

Accepted Answer

Malaysia’s construction firms will quantify Scope 3 mainly through modelled estimates using existing inventories and supplier-engagement tools, because Malaysia lacks localised carbon accounting standards and on-site emissions protocols.

Malaysia’s public listed construction firms are publishing their first NSRF-aligned sustainability reports, and the carbon figures in those reports are described as “real” while the underlying methodology is not yet standardised locally. For Scope 3, firms typically rely on modelled approaches and available emission-factor databases, since there is no localised carbon accounting framework for construction, no standardised protocol for on-site emissions, and no mandate specifying how the numbers must be derived.
Most Scope 3 figures are modelled rather than fully measured
In Malaysia’s 2023 reporting cycle, only 11 per cent of publicly listed companies disclosed any Scope 3 emissions, compared with 39 per cent across Asia-Pacific. Where Scope 3 appears in Malaysian construction reporting, the figures are largely modelled and may be limitedly measured, reflecting gaps in how data is generated and verified.
CIDB’s Embodied Carbon Inventory drives emission factors, with local data as a priority but limited coverage
CIDB’s Embodied Carbon Inventory is presented as the construction sector’s primary reference, consolidating emission factors from local, regional, and international sources, including Environmental Product Declarations from Southeast Asia, Singapore’s BECC, SIRIM, and the UK’s Inventory of Carbon and Energy. Although its sourcing hierarchy prioritises local data first, the inventory covers about 600 material records, which is not enough to match the thousands of specifications across different site conditions, supply chains, and regional climates—so when local data is missing, international figures calibrated to overseas manufacturing conditions and energy mixes are used more often than the hierarchy alone would suggest.
On-site construction activity emissions are not covered by a standardised quantification mechanism
The larger omission is carbon released from construction activities on site, including fuel combustion from excavators, cranes, and generators, waste disposal, temporary works, transport, services, machinery, and other on-site activities. These items account for 37 per cent of the construction industry’s total carbon footprint, yet Malaysia is described as lacking a standardised quantification mechanism for them, and the NSRF requires disclosure without specifying which emission factors, which on-site activity categories, or which methodology governs the reported number.
Bursa Malaysia’s CSI platform helps produce estimates, but it does not replace audit-ready data
Bursa Malaysia’s CSI platform, used by over 130 companies, offers Scope 3 emissions estimates through modelled supplier engagement tools. The CSI FAQ states that the Scope 3 data generated is an estimate and does not absolve organisations from their obligation to have the data audited, meaning firms still rely on estimation tools until verifiable data and assurance processes are in place. From 2027, Scope 3 disclosure for Group 1 firms becomes mandatory, and the gap is framed as a data infrastructure problem rather than a communications problem.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How will Malaysia’s construction firms quantify Scope 3 without local standards?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends