Trace subcontracted freight through the movements actually performed
A broker reports two purchased movements. One carrier reports an overlapping movement plus an extra delivery that the broker missed. Adding both files repeats part of the route; discarding the carrier file loses the final delivery. Reconstruct what actually moved before choosing which numbers to combine.
This guide helps logistics operations, carrier procurement and inventory teams connect subcontracted transport records to executed routes. Its fictional example follows two consignments through a split and an unplanned vehicle transfer. The output is a movement map, a record-coverage decision and a narrowly labelled subtotal.
Separate the operating carrier from the contracting party
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard applies a selected consolidation approach to organisational boundaries. Under operational control, authority to implement operating policies matters. An invoice payer, vehicle owner or logo alone does not settle the decision. Keep the approved boundary assessment beside the route map. Corporate Standard, chapter 3, printed pages 16–18.
GHG Protocol Category 4 guidance covers qualifying purchased transport services obtained directly or through intermediaries. Its distance-based guidance calls for collecting each transport leg separately. This supports looking beyond the broker’s invoice; the optional record design below is not a prescribed form. Category 4 guidance, printed pages 49–50 and 57.
For this case, Provider P’s approved operational-control assessment places its operated fleet inside its boundary and independent carriers C and D outside it. Broker B arranges purchases but operates no vehicle. These are stipulated findings, not conclusions inferred from who issued an invoice.
Rebuild the route from loading and unloading records
On one fictional day, P collects consignment K1, six tonnes for X, and K2, four tonnes for Y, at A. Both travel to transfer point H in P’s truck. P buys the onward services through B. All movement, transfer and delivery records below are assumed complete and mutually consistent.
M1: A to H, vehicle P1 operated by P, carries K1 and K2 together. Dispatch A01 and receipt H01 connect both consignments to that vehicle movement.
M2: H to X, vehicle C1 operated by Carrier C, carries K1 only. Loading record H02 and delivery X01 establish that the six tonnes reach X. B is the contracting intermediary, not the operating carrier.
M3: H to T, vehicle D1 operated by Carrier D, carries K2. The planned destination was Y, but a documented access problem changes the executed route. Receipt T01 confirms all four tonnes were unloaded at T.
M4: T to Y, a different vehicle D2 operated by the same Carrier D, carries K2. Loading T02 and delivery Y01 establish the onward movement. P authorised this additional purchase directly from D; B’s original service summary has not been updated.
K1’s supported path is A–H–X. K2’s is A–H–T–Y. M3 and M4 share a carrier, consignment and date, yet represent different vehicle movements. Removing one as a duplicate would break K2’s path. Conversely, B’s H-to-Y booking label does not prove that a vehicle travelled directly from H to Y.
Give every movement its actual endpoints, vehicle reference, operator, consignment membership and event times. Link the contractual order and invoice separately. Preserve the planned route as another field. The relationship between B and D explains procurement; T01 and T02 establish the physical transfer that changes the data request.
H and T also have handling events. Keep their operators and records on a separate open list. The four transport movements do not establish handling emissions. No distance, fuel consumption or handling quantity is inferred from the consignment weights.
Match returned results to the movements they contain
Now suppose reviewed calculation statements supply invented results in kg CO2e for the selected transport movements. For this arithmetic exercise only, they use the same operational-emissions definition, gas coverage, period and calculation basis. Allocations to these consignments are already supported and accepted in the fictional statements; this article neither derives nor recommends an allocation method.
P’s statement F1 contains M1 only: 36 kg CO2e. It covers the two consignments together, so its value is retained once.
B’s statement B1 contains M2 and M3: 78 kg CO2e. Its attached schedule identifies M2 as 48 and M3 as 30. The schedule explicitly excludes M4, despite the booking’s H-to-Y label.
D’s statement DS1 contains M3 and M4: 42 kg CO2e. Its attached schedule identifies M3 as the same 30 already passed to B, and M4 as 12. Matching calculation references establish that both occurrences of M3 use the same result version.
The coverage sets are therefore F1 = {M1}, B1 = {M2, M3} and DS1 = {M3, M4}. B1 and DS1 overlap at M3, but neither contains the other. Each also contributes something the other lacks. Preferencing one supplier’s entire file cannot solve this case.
Choose a complete set of nonoverlapping components
Adding the three received totals gives 36 + 78 + 42 = 156 kg CO2e. M3’s 30 is counted twice. Dropping DS1 entirely gives 36 + 78 = 114, but omits M4’s 12. Dropping B1 instead gives 36 + 42 = 78, omitting M2’s 48.
Use F1’s 36, B1’s supported M2 component of 48 and DS1’s 42: 36 + 48 + 42 = 126 kg CO2e. An equally complete selection is F1’s 36, B1’s 78 and DS1’s supported M4 component of 12: 36 + 78 + 12 = 126. Record the chosen version and component references.
A movement-by-movement check reproduces 36 + 48 + 30 + 12 = 126. Every one of M1–M4 appears exactly once. The result is the stipulated operational-emissions subtotal for those four movements. It excludes handling at H and T and energy provision; it is neither P’s corporate inventory total nor a complete logistics-service footprint.
Do not assign corporate scopes by copying the sender’s name onto each amount. The inventory owner must apply P’s approved boundary and the applicable category treatment to the underlying activities. The original corporate assessment remains separate from this record-selection calculation.
Leave the total pending when the overlap lacks a value
Change one assumption: B and D confirm their movement memberships but provide only the totals 78 and 42. Neither supports M3’s component value. The overlap is identifiable, but its amount is not. Request a component schedule or a replacement statement with explicit nonoverlapping coverage. Do not subtract an invented 30.
For example, both M2/M3/M4 assignments of 48/30/12 and 58/20/22 fit the supplied B1 and DS1 totals. Adding M1’s 36 gives 126 in the first case and 136 in the second. These are mathematical counterexamples, not alternative emissions estimates. Two overlapping totals cannot determine the missing split.
Likewise, matching movement IDs would not make differently defined emissions results compatible. If the stated method, emissions coverage or allocation remains unresolved, hold the combined subtotal. Keep the executed-route evidence: it still establishes that M4 occurred and identifies the party who can explain its record.
Hand over the route and the unresolved decisions together
The completed packet contains the two consignment paths, four movement records, separate handling questions, contractual links, calculation memberships and selected component versions. Ask a second reviewer to locate M4 without using B’s summary, then reconstruct the subtotal without summing all received files. These tests catch both the missing delivery and the partial overlap.
For the separate task of reconciling one vehicle’s fuel, distance and changing load, use the multi-drop tour activity guide. This case starts from an executed multi-operator route; it supplies no fleet-efficiency ratio or customer allocation formula.
For help preparing the logistics handover, contact Nitium Advisory. Describe the route records available and the supplier question that remains open, without sharing confidential documents.
All organisations, records, quantities and review findings are fictional. Primary sources checked 14 October 2026. This preparation exercise supplies no emission factors, legal interpretation, standards-conformity conclusion or independent assurance.
Comments