Comparative Carbon Accounting Using Distance-Based and Average Data Methods in Employee Commuting Emissions
従業員通勤排出量における距離ベース法と平均データ法を用いた比較炭素会計 (AI 翻訳)
Ajayi O, Ugwu J, Okonta ED
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、英国ミドルズブラ市議会を事例に、従業員通勤排出量の算定方法である距離ベース法と平均データ法を比較。100人の従業員調査の結果、距離ベース法は年間1,241 tCO₂e、平均データ法は811 tCO₂eと推定され、34%の差が生じた。距離ベース法は燃料種別や出勤頻度等を考慮し、より正確な排出量把握に有効であり、スコープ3報告の精度向上に貢献する。
English
This study compares two methods for calculating employee commuting emissions (Scope 3, Category 7) using a case study of Middlesbrough Council (UK). A survey of 100 employees found that the Distance-Based Method estimated 1,241 tCO₂e/year, while the Average Data Method estimated 811 tCO₂e/year, a 34% discrepancy. The Distance-Based Method, though more data-intensive, provides greater accuracy by accounting for fuel type, commuting frequency, and hybrid work patterns, and is recommended for robust Scope 3 reporting.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJ基準に基づくスコープ3（カテゴリ7）の算定が求められるようになり、算定方法の選択が報告値に大きな影響を与える可能性がある。本論文は距離ベース法の優位性を実証的に示しており、日本の自治体や企業が正確な排出量を把握する際の参考となる。
In the global GX context
With ISSB and CSRD requiring detailed Scope 3 disclosures, method choice critically affects reported emissions. This empirical comparison provides evidence that the Distance-Based Method yields more accurate results than reliance on default averages, supporting transparent and credible climate reporting globally.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides empirical evidence on the magnitude of discrepancy between two common commuting emission calculation methods, informing future methodological research.
🏢実務担当者:Recommends adopting the Distance-Based Method for more accurate Scope 3 Category 7 reporting, especially for organizations with hybrid work patterns.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need for guidance on method selection to ensure consistency and reliability in mandatory Scope 3 disclosures.
📄 Abstract（原文）
<title>Abstract</title> <p>Accurately quantifying employee commuting emissions remains a major challenge for local authorities due to inconsistencies in data quality and methodological approaches. Many organizations rely on simplified or national-average estimates that fail to capture local commuting behaviours, hybrid work patterns, and vehicle types, leading to significant uncertainty in Scope 3, Category 7 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting. This study compares two established methods for calculating commuting emissions—the Distance-Based Method and the Average Data Method—using Middlesbrough Council (UK) as a case study. A structured survey of 100 employees collected data on commuting distances, modes of travel, working arrangements, and fuel types. Emissions were calculated under both methods using the UK Government’s (DEFRA) 2024 conversion factors. Results show that 66% of employees work in hybrid arrangements and 78% commute alone by car, making private vehicle use the dominant source of emissions. The Distance-Based Method estimated 1,241.07 tCO₂e per year, compared to 811.47 tCO₂e from the Average Data Method, revealing a discrepancy of approximately 429.6 tCO₂e (34%). This difference reflects the Distance-Based Method’s superior granularity, accounting for variables such as fuel type, commuting frequency, and remote-working patterns. Although more data-intensive, the Distance-Based Method provides a more accurate representation of employee commuting emissions and is recommended for councils seeking robust and transparent Scope 3 reporting. This study—the first to empirically compare both methods in a UK local government context—offers a scalable framework to enhance carbon accounting precision and inform sustainable transport and climate policy globally.</p>
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10059637/v1first seen 2026-07-22 04:36:29
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。