Why do Malaysian construction firms rely on modelled Scope 3 numbers?

Question

Accepted Answer

Malaysian construction firms rely on modelled Scope 3 numbers because Malaysia lacks a standardised, locally quantifiable carbon accounting framework for construction emissions, leaving companies to use estimates and emission factors that may not fully reflect Malaysia-specific on-site activity and data.

This year, Malaysian public listed construction firms are set to publish their first NSRF-aligned sustainability reports, but the methodological foundation for the carbon figures is incomplete. There is no localised carbon accounting framework for construction, no standardised protocol for on-site emissions, and no mandate defining how emission figures must be derived, so Scope 3 numbers often end up being modelled rather than 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, reflecting how limited measured Scope 3 data remains.
There is no mandated method for deriving construction Scope 3 figures
The NSRF requires disclosure, but it does not specify which emission factors to use, which on-site activities must be included, or which methodology governs the figures reported. In practice, that means firms can produce numbers that are “compliant on paper” while still resting on methodological choices that differ across companies. Without a structured and standardised carbon reporting mechanism, two firms with the same scale and activity can report very different carbon figures and both still meet disclosure expectations.
Malaysia’s embodied carbon reference relies on incomplete local coverage
CIDB’s Embodied Carbon Inventory consolidates 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. While its sourcing hierarchy prioritises local data first, the inventory is based on roughly 600 material records, whereas construction uses thousands of specifications across varied site conditions, supply chains, and climates. When local data is missing, the inventory defaults to international figures calibrated to foreign manufacturing conditions and energy mixes, which pushes reported emissions toward modelling rather than Malaysia-specific measurement.
On-site construction emissions are not covered by the main inventory
A key limitation is that CIDB’s embodied carbon inventory does not attempt to cover carbon released from construction activities on site. Fuel combustion from excavators, cranes, and generators, waste disposal, and temporary works are described as part of the construction industry’s global carbon footprint share of 37 per cent, yet Malaysia does not have a standardised quantification mechanism for any of it. With no standardised way to quantify these on-site emissions, firms’ Scope 3 reporting frequently depends on modelled inputs for parts of the supply chain and related emissions rather than complete, directly quantified datasets.
The Bursa Malaysia CSI platform produces estimates, and some firms treat them as final
Bursa Malaysia’s CSI platform—used by over 130 companies—offers Scope 3 emissions estimates through modelled supplier engagement tools. Its FAQ is explicit that the Scope 3 data generated is an estimate and does not absolve an organisation from the fiduciary duty to get the data audited. Despite this, large listed developers and main contractors are using the CSI platform as a final solution rather than a bridge, which helps explain why modelled Scope 3 numbers persist in Malaysian reporting.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why do Malaysian construction firms rely on modelled Scope 3 numbers?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends