Scope 3 emissions are indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across a company’s value chain and typically account for the largest share of corporate carbon footprints. Yet they remain the least consistently reported. In their recent longitudinal study, Bauer et al. (2026) examine how Scope 3 reporting has developed among 469 global logistics companies between 2020 and 2023, using Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) data.
The logistics sector provides a particularly relevant empirical context. It is energy-intensive, deeply embedded in global supply chains, and characterized by complex upstream and downstream emission sources. These include purchased goods and services, fuel-related activities, and transportation across multimodal networks. Despite increased regulatory attention (e.g., CSRD, IFRS sustainability standards), Scope 3 reporting remains largely voluntary, leading to inconsistent disclosure practices.
The study applies a quantitative multi-year panel approach to assess both reporting trends and key determinants of reporting quality. Four central drivers are examined: company size, reporting frequency, adoption of emissions accounting standards (GHG Protocol or ISO 14064-1), and third-party verification.
Three major findings emerge
First, Scope 3 reporting participation increased substantially during the study period, with the number of reporting companies growing significantly. However, reporting remains dominated by large enterprises (LEs). Company size is positively associated with broader Scope 3 category coverage. Larger firms integrate more emissions categories, particularly in logistics “hotspot” areas such as purchased goods and upstream transportation. Yet size does not significantly influence emissions intensity, suggesting that larger firms emit more in absolute terms but not necessarily relative to revenue.
Second, reporting frequency matters. Firms that report consistently over multiple years expand their Scope 3 category coverage. This supports organizational learning theory: repeated reporting builds internal capabilities, improves data systems, and enhances emissions accounting practices. Among firms reporting across all four years, most increased the number of Scope 3 categories disclosed.
Third, the use of recognized accounting standards and third-party verification significantly improves reporting breadth but does not necessarily reduce emissions intensity. This suggests a structural decoupling: improvements in transparency and methodological rigor do not automatically translate into lower emissions. The authors also highlight potential “window-dressing” effects, in which companies report categories that are easier to measure (e.g., business travel) but less material in total emissions.
Overall, the study contributes to sustainability accounting literature by providing rare longitudinal evidence in a high-emission sector. It demonstrates that Scope 3 reporting is maturing in terms of participation and structure, yet gaps remain in completeness, SME engagement, and alignment between disclosure and decarbonization outcomes. For policymakers and practitioners, the findings underscore the need to move beyond transparency toward material reductions in emissions across logistics value chains.