Why do Malaysia’s construction firms get different Scope 3 numbers yet stay compliant?

Question

Accepted Answer

Inconsistent Scope 3 Emissions Reporting Amidst Regulatory Gaps

Malaysian construction firms can report vastly different Scope 3 emissions figures while remaining compliant due to the absence of a localised carbon accounting framework, standardised on-site emissions protocols, and regulatory mandates on data derivation. The current reporting requirements, such as those aligned with the Sustainability Reporting Taskforce (NSRF), demand disclosure but do not specify which emission factors, on-site activities, or methodologies should be used, leading to discrepancies.
Lack of Standardised On-Site Emissions Calculation

A significant challenge in Malaysia's construction sector is the absence of a standardised protocol for calculating on-site emissions. Activities such as fuel combustion from machinery like excavators and cranes, waste disposal, and temporary works, which globally account for 37 per cent of the industry's carbon footprint, lack a consistent quantification mechanism in Malaysia. This means that emissions from these crucial on-site activities are often not measured uniformly, contributing to the variation in reported figures.
Limitations of Existing Embodied Carbon Data

While the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) provides an Embodied Carbon Inventory, it primarily functions as a model based on emission factors and databases. With approximately 600 material records, this inventory is insufficient to cover the vast array of specifications, site conditions, supply chains, and climatic variations across the entire industry. When local data is scarce, the inventory often defaults to international figures calibrated to foreign manufacturing conditions and energy mixes, leading to potential inconsistencies in estimations.
Ambiguity in Reporting Frameworks and Methodologies

The NSRF mandates disclosure of sustainability information, including Scope 3 emissions, but it does not dictate the specific emission factors, the scope of on-site activities to be included, or the methodology to be employed in deriving the reported numbers. Consequently, two construction companies of identical size and operational scope can arrive at significantly different carbon figures, yet both can be considered compliant with current regulations. This highlights a gap between simply requiring disclosure and ensuring the accuracy and comparability of the reported data.
The Shift Towards Verifiable Disclosure

Globally, and increasingly in the Asia-Pacific region, regulatory bodies are moving from merely requiring disclosure to demanding verifiable disclosure. For instance, Australia's corporate regulator has pursued penalties against companies for unsubstantiated sustainability claims, and Singapore has issued anti-greenwashing guidance. While Malaysia's enforcement posture has not yet reached this stage, the trend indicates that construction firms relying on estimated Scope 3 figures rather than verified measurements may face credibility issues, particularly as verification standards evolve.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why do Malaysia’s construction firms get different Scope 3 numbers yet stay compliant?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends