Scope 3 screening and evidence worksheet
A screening worksheet is useful only while it reflects the business being assessed. A prior-year decision can become stale when a service business starts selling equipment, an agreement changes or a previously overlooked activity appears. This pack helps the team reopen the affected records without discarding the evidence behind the rest of the screen.
The eight-page download contains three reusable blank sheets and a four-page completed fictional case, with instructions. Use the editable Word file to maintain a category roster, detailed review cards and an activity-to-evidence map. The matching PDF is a static print copy. There are no formulas, emissions factors, rankings or automated applicability decisions.
Download the editable Scope 3 screening and evidence worksheet (DOCX).
Download the print Scope 3 screening and evidence worksheet (PDF).
Keep the roster and its evidence together
Reference: New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Measuring Emissions Catalogue 2026, section 1.6.
Before completing the roster, record the reporting entity, period, purpose, selected organisational boundary and applicable method edition. Add the exact category-boundary references the technical owner will use. The worked roster is a navigation example; it does not provide the detailed minimum coverage, calculation method or reporting requirements of a standard.
Create a roster entry for every category number. Link each to a review card or a dated disposition record. A category should not vanish from the next version simply because the new activity extract contains no matching account code. Maintain an earlier decision as superseded history when the underlying facts change, with a reference to its replacement.
Use separate fields for the observed activity position, technical relevance decision, evidence availability and calculation status. For example, an activity can be confirmed present while its precise category treatment remains under review. A complete contract can establish that a service exists without providing the quantities required for a calculation. Combining all of these into one green status hides the next action.
Start the fictional review with the changed fact
All organisations, records and decisions in the case are invented. Birch Data Services previously described itself as a services-only business. Screen S0, prepared before the reporting year, used that description to record no sold-device activity. During the year Birch introduced a resale line for finished electronic devices. The new sales register and product schedule expose the outdated assumption.
The preparer does not merely change the date on S0. Revision S1 records the new business-model evidence, links the affected activity to review cards C11 and C12, and retains S0 as superseded. Those cards address two different evidence questions: the use of the sold devices and their eventual treatment after use. A sales register proves neither set of calculation inputs by itself.
The supplied case facts also identify routine purchases, capital additions, purchased electricity, freight, waste, staff travel and commuting. Their records enter the roster with specific data questions. A screen that concentrated only on the newly discovered devices could still omit established activities. The full roster keeps both changed and unchanged topics visible.
Other facts support limited absence decisions. The case records no franchises, no assets leased out and no relevant investment activity for the stated entity and year. Those are stipulated owner-reviewed facts, not conclusions inferred from an empty invoice folder. A separate leased-in workspace remains unresolved because its treatment under the selected boundary has not been supplied.
Map an activity once, then identify its different questions
Give each activity a stable identifier. In the example, A9 identifies the sold-device population and links to both C11 and C12. This does not mean the same emissions are counted twice. It means that one underlying product population raises different lifecycle questions. Keep each question, calculation status and future method reference separate.
The activity-to-evidence map prevents a common handover failure: two teams requesting incompatible product populations from the same sales owner. The two card owners can share the agreed sales population while requesting different additional information. Neither should replace the product schedule with a supplier-wide total simply because that number is easy to obtain.
Conversely, sharing a source does not establish that two category treatments are compatible. The case freight record contains terms that need technical review. The roster keeps the category allocation question open rather than assigning all freight to whichever category was calculated first. When the method owner resolves the issue, update the affected cards together and preserve the decision reference.
For each record, capture the entity, period, activity, version and exact location relied on. State the limit beside the supported fact. A product list may identify models sold but omit customer use assumptions. An asset register may identify additions but omit supplier manufacturing information. The limit is a practical request specification, not a reason to erase the activity.
Make priorities and exclusions separate decisions
Use the action queue to decide who should resolve each gap and by when. Record why a task matters: an unsupported absence decision, a business-model change, a consequential boundary uncertainty or a missing input needed by several workstreams. The pack supplies no emissions-based priority score, because no category estimates have been calculated in the case.
A lower collection priority does not remove a category from the roster. If the owner proposes an inventory exclusion, use the dedicated field for its basis, applicable requirement, expected effect, approval reference and reporting consequence. The worked case proposes no exclusions. Its unresolved records stay visible in the next technical review.
Likewise, a completed screening review does not make every quantity calculation-ready. A reviewer can accept that the roster faithfully records known facts and open questions while declining any claim that the inventory is complete. Write the scope of the approval in the review field. Avoid a single signature that appears to certify data quality, method selection and final reporting simultaneously.
Run a change check before handing the screen over
The completed case includes three checks. First, remove the device sales record: the new activity loses its stated evidence, so the preparer must retrieve it rather than retain an unsupported conclusion. Second, add a device count: that improves one input but does not provide the separately requested inputs. Third, confirm that a workspace lease exists: existence alone does not resolve its boundary treatment.
Pass the roster, review cards, evidence map and open-action queue together. A downstream analyst needs to see why an activity was retained, what the records cover and which decisions remain pending. The original S0 version belongs in the history, not in the current calculation folder as an equally authoritative screen.
Reopen the screen when a new product, investment, leasing arrangement, operating model or relevant methodological requirement changes the facts used in a decision. Record the trigger and affected category cards before updating the summary. Retain the earlier version so the change can be explained without reconstructing it from emails months later.
Use the Scope 3 screening guide for the broader screening discussion, the supplier-data guide when requesting information and the inventory calculator only after inputs and methods are suitable. This worksheet provides the editable record and completed revision example behind those activities.
Version 1.0. Original Nitium Advisory worksheet and fictional example. No actual client data, emissions result, independent assurance, legal determination or certification is supplied. No source organisation endorses this pack. Apply the current requirements relevant to the intended inventory with appropriate technical review.
Comments