Prepare a customer logistics emissions response with a defined service allocation
Two customers ask for emissions figures from a shared freight service. A third customer used the same service but requested no report. Removing that third customer from the calculation would pass its share to the two who asked. A response list and an allocation population perform different jobs.
This fictional case helps logistics account teams and reporting owners review a customer allocation before release. It follows one service group, a mistakenly filtered customer list and a later activity correction. The useful output is a defensible customer figure with a traceable denominator, rather than a company-wide total divided among whoever replies.
Define the service before selecting the recipients
Customers A and B each request their completed dry-freight movements from Depot D to Terminal R for 1–30 September 2026. The agreed request covers the road movement only. Loading, terminal handling, storage, onward delivery and unrelated routes are outside it. C used this same road service during September but has made no request.
The fictional method owner has approved group T32 and its consignment membership for this exercise. A, B and C are the only customers. Every included consignment belongs to exactly one of them, and every covered road movement appears once in the operating schedule. Request status is recorded in a separate account-team list.
Method note M1 allocates T32 by each customer’s tonne-kilometres divided by the group’s total, using one shortest-feasible-road-distance convention. This is a supplied, approved case assumption. GLEC Framework v3.2 discusses activity aggregation and intensities on pages 30–34; these calculations do not establish that M1 suits another service.
Statement E1 supplies 600 kg CO2e for T32’s September road operations, including their energy provision and related empty running. It excludes the non-road services named above. The fictional reviewer has accepted its coverage, factors and calculation basis. The 600 is an input, not an emission factor derived here.
Assume E1 was calculated from a complete operating-energy record, independently of the consignment activity export. All quantities and approvals are invented. Neither the arithmetic nor the presence of an internal reviewer demonstrates measurement accuracy or independent assurance. No real customer data is being assessed.
Keep the non-requesting customer in the first calculation
Activity export V1 gives A 5,000 tonne-km, B 3,000 tonne-km and C 2,000 tonne-km. For the first calculation, suppose these figures are accepted as complete and use M1 consistently. The denominator is 5,000 + 3,000 + 2,000 = 10,000 tonne-km.
A: 600 × 5,000 ÷ 10,000 = 300 kg CO2e.
B: 600 × 3,000 ÷ 10,000 = 180 kg CO2e.
C: 600 × 2,000 ÷ 10,000 = 120 kg CO2e, retained in the internal allocation schedule.
The three allocations reconcile: 300 + 180 + 120 = 600. The two requested responses contain only 300 + 180 = 480. Their subtotal is allowed to be smaller than E1 because they cover only A and B. C’s 120 is neither a missing emission nor permission to increase either response.
If the preparer filters the calculation to requesters first, the denominator falls to 8,000. A becomes 600 × 5,000 ÷ 8,000 = 375; B becomes 600 × 3,000 ÷ 8,000 = 225. These add to 600, yet overstate A by 75 and B by 45 relative to V1. A total check alone does not detect the wrong recipients of C’s share.
Calculate the complete T32 allocation before applying the response filter. Check customer membership as well as the sum. The account-team view may show A and B only, but it must read their values from the full calculation. Do not rebuild percentages within that filtered view.
Reopen the denominator when an omitted consignment appears
Before either response is released, dispatch identifies C17, a second C consignment absent from V1. Its loading and delivery references place it on a road movement already covered by E1. The activity import dropped the row because C17 used an older account code. A documented customer mapping links that code to C.
C17 contributes 10 tonnes × 200 km = 2,000 tonne-km under the same M1 distance convention. It is additional to C’s original 2,000, not a duplicate of that consignment. Export V2 therefore gives A 5,000, B 3,000 and C 4,000 tonne-km. The corrected denominator is 12,000.
The method owner confirms that E1 already contains the operation carrying C17, including its energy. No vehicle movement, fuel record, factor, service boundary or reporting period is added. E1 stays at 600 kg CO2e. This is an activity-export correction within the existing eligible population; the allocation method has not changed.
A: 600 × 5,000 ÷ 12,000 = 250 kg CO2e, a change of −50 from V1.
B: 600 × 3,000 ÷ 12,000 = 150 kg CO2e, a change of −30 from V1.
C: 600 × 4,000 ÷ 12,000 = 200 kg CO2e, a change of +80 from V1.
The changes balance: −50 − 30 + 80 = 0. The corrected allocations still sum to 250 + 150 + 200 = 600. A and B’s response subtotal is now 400; C’s retained share is 200. Their own activity values did not change, but another customer’s corrected activity changed the denominator shared by all three.
These are two versions of the same September record, not two operating periods. A’s decrease from 300 to 250 does not show that its freight became cleaner or that 50 kg was avoided. The revised figure explains a redistribution of the unchanged 600. Keep both versions so that the reason remains visible.
Stop if C17 also changes the emissions coverage
The unchanged-total conclusion depends on C17 being aboard an already covered movement. If its evidence instead identifies a previously omitted trip, investigate E1 as well as the activity export. If it belongs to another route, period or service group, resolve that membership before inserting it into T32. Do not preserve 600 merely to keep the arithmetic tidy.
Suppose C’s presence is known but its complete activity cannot yet be established. Neither 2,000 nor 4,000 tonne-km can then be treated as the final value. Both produce allocations that sum to 600, but A receives 300 in the first case and 250 in the second. Those totals cannot identify the missing activity.
Hold the final allocations until the method owner accepts complete inputs or a supported estimation treatment. Ask dispatch to reconcile the consignment population against the operating schedule, including old customer codes. A zero entry for C or a denominator containing only A and B would silently change the case being answered.
Prepare a response that survives its supporting schedule
GLEC’s reporting guidance, pages 58–61, addresses identified services, totals, intensities, calculation explanations, omissions and data quality. Keep primary, modelled and default inputs distinguishable. Apply the actual reporting requirements separately; the customer note below is an original illustration, not a complete GLEC report or conformity statement.
For this case, link the approved request to T32, M1, E1 and V2. Preserve V1 as superseded and attach C17’s record references, the old-code mapping and the reviewer’s decision. The response control should test that A reads 250 and B reads 150 after export. Neither draft may retain its earlier value.
An illustrative note for A could say: The enclosed September road-service schedule assigns 250 kg CO2e to your listed consignments. This replaces the draft figure of 300 after correction of another customer’s activity in the shared calculation. Your activity is unchanged. The group total remains 600. The supporting schedule defines the included service and its limitations.
That explanation does not require disclosing C’s name, orders, rates or shipment documents. Share only the authorised support needed for A’s result. Retain the fuller reconciliation internally. If a previous version has already been sent, the responsible owner should approve the amendment route and ensure the recipient can identify the replacement.
Ask a second reviewer to reproduce A’s 250 from E1 and V2, locate C17, and explain why A plus B does not equal 600. Then change only the request list: the internal allocations must stay unchanged. This checks both the calculation and the separation between customer eligibility and response selection.
Resolve the records before releasing the number
Use the subcontracted freight movement guide when the operation itself is uncertain, and the multi-drop tour guide when physical activity needs reconciliation. For help preparing a customer evidence handover, contact Nitium Advisory with a non-confidential description of the request and unresolved records.
Source and limits
Smart Freight Centre, GLEC Framework v3.2, October 2025: pages 30–34 and 58–61.
Primary source checked 14 October 2026. All organisations, records and results in this case are fictional. The article supplies no universal allocation weights, real-world emissions factor, corporate inventory, product footprint, independent assurance or standards-conformity conclusion.
Comments