Science + Data: The Real Missing Link in Sustainability Reporting

Most organisations still treat lifecycle assessment (LCA) and emissions reporting as parallel but unrelated systems.

• LCA provides a scientific model of a product or material, its inputs, energy use, waste, and environmental impacts across its full lifecycle.
• Emissions platforms track operational energy use and corporate carbon outputs, typically aligned with frameworks such as Scope 1, 2, and 3.

Both are important. But when they are developed independently, they inevitably diverge:

• boundaries and assumptions shift
• units and functional references differ
• impact methods and emission factors vary
• supplier data is collected with no shared structure

The result is a sustainability narrative that looks polished but lacks internal consistency. This misalignment makes it harder to identify real hotspots, compare scenarios, or demonstrate credible progress, particularly under tightening regulatory expectations.

Why lifecycle and emissions data often don’t align

In most organisations, lifecycle assessment (LCA) and emissions reporting sit in completely different parts of the business. They were built for different purposes, use different rules, and rely on different types of data. That separation is exactly why the numbers often don’t match, even when they describe the same activities.

LCA is designed to answer a scientific question:

“What is the environmental impact of this product or material across its full lifecycle?”

Corporate emissions reporting answers a different one:

“What carbon emissions did our operations and supply chain generate this year?”

Both are important. But the data behind them is rarely aligned. Here’s why.

1. The boundaries aren’t the same

LCA may look at everything from raw materials to end-of-life. Corporate reporting typically focuses on operational emissions, with upstream and downstream Scope 3 only partially captured. Two systems, two different views of the world, meaning they don’t naturally add up.

2. They measure impact in different ways

LCA uses functional units like per tonne of material or per kWh of battery.
Emissions reports use annual totals like tCO₂e per year. One is product-based, one is time-based. Without harmonisation, they can’t be compared directly.

3. Supplier data is collected for different reasons

LCA teams need detailed process data, energy mix, transport distances, yields, allocations. Emissions teams often collect aggregated activity data or generic supplier estimates. Both might claim “primary data,” but they’re talking about very different things.

4. Emission factors and methodologies don’t line up

Emissions systems rely on GHG Protocol factors and national averages.
LCA uses impact methods like EF 3.1, ILCD, and process-level background databases. Small methodological differences compound into large numerical gaps.

5. Allocation is handled inconsistently

LCA requires transparent allocation choices (mass, energy, economic, system expansion). Corporate reporting may skip allocation entirely. This alone can cause two datasets to diverge dramatically.

6. They describe different types of reality

LCA models a system over its full lifecycle. Emissions reports capture a moment in time , usually a single reporting year. It’s no surprise the outputs don’t line up.

Why this disconnect matters

When organisations can’t reconcile their product-level impacts with their corporate emissions, it becomes almost impossible to:

• identify real hotspots
• compare products or facilities
• demonstrate credible emissions reductions
• respond confidently to new regulations
• build trust with customers and investors

What looks like a simple data mismatch is actually a methodology mismatch.
Until the underlying rules are aligned, the numbers won’t agree, no matter how sophisticated the software on top.

What “data harmonisation” really means

In sustainability, harmonisation is not just about connecting datasets.
It is about aligning the science, the scope, and the standards behind the data.

True harmonisation requires:

• Common system boundaries and functional units
• Transparent provenance, clear documentation of where every value came from
• Consistent impact assessment methods (e.g., EF 3.1)
• Supplier data structured in a lifecycle-ready format
• A traceable link from operational data → product models → corporate reporting

This is the only way organisations can shift from collecting data to actually managing environmental performance.

It’s also the foundation for the next generation of compliance: EU Battery Regulation, CBAM, Digital Product Passports, and emerging product-level disclosures across global markets.

Lifecycle science defines credibility, and it must sit at the core of digital systems

Lifecycle assessment remains the most rigorous, transparent methodology for understanding environmental impact. Standards like ISO 14040/44, PEF, and industry-specific rules set a clear structure for:

• defining what is included
• modelling how materials behave and transform
• evaluating impacts consistently
• enabling third-party verification

When lifecycle data informs digital sustainability tools, it provides something corporate emissions systems cannot supply on their own: scientific accuracy, methodological clarity, and defensibility.

This demonstrates exactly why Minviro has been strengthening the link between lifecycle science and digital infrastructure. Our partnership with Clear Carbon in Australia exemplifies this method, combining Minviro’s extensive lifecycle and verification expertise with Clear Carbon’s corporate emissions platform. Together, we are assisting organisations in establishing data foundations that are both operationally practical and scientifically rigorous.

The opportunity ahead

The companies that succeed in the coming regulatory cycle will be those with:

• Trusted, verifiable data
• Traceability across complex supply chains
• Alignment between product-level impacts and corporate emissions reporting
• A harmonised data backbone that supports auditing, verification, and rapid scenario analysis

Lifecycle science is no longer a niche discipline.
It is becoming the backbone of credible sustainability reporting, the only way to ensure that data is defensible, comparable, and aligned with emerging global standards.

Minviro’s mission is to provide the lifecycle intelligence and digital infrastructure needed to make this possible. Through our software, verification systems, and scientific expertise, we are helping organisations turn fragmented data into a unified, trustworthy foundation for decision-making.

Learn more

Contact phoebe@minviro.com for more information on how LCA and our partnership with Clear Carbon can support your sustainability journey.