How do Belgian companies handle carbon accounting?

In the large and complex debate surrounding ESG and sustainability reporting, few data points are as important as a company’s carbon emissions. Unfortunately, calculating those emissions - better known as carbon accounting - is far from straightforward.

It’s no coincidence, then, that this topic was front and center at the very first ESG Round Table organized by TriFinance CFO Services at the end of March. The roundtable discussion, which brought together sustainability managers from companies across a wide range of sectors, took place in the stunning headquarters of construction expert Cordeel, towering high above the River Scheldt and the picturesque town of Temse.

Important for reporting

Cordeels example immediately highlights the importance of calculating the carbon footprint. The construction group, which consists of around thirty companies, has two main sustainability priorities: circularity and the energy transition. “These are the areas where we can make the biggest impact,” says Laurence Gacoin, CEO of subsidiary C-Innovation. “If we want to successfully navigate the energy transition, it’s crucial that we accurately map and calculate our carbon footprint. Sustainability isn’t just important for our clients and the banks, but also for ourselves. That’s why it’s essential for us to report data transparently.”

Scope 1, 2 and 3

When it comes to carbon emissions, scopes 1, 2, and 3 quickly come into play. scope 1 refers to direct emissions from production and operations - such as the emissions from a transport company’s vehicle fleet. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions, like the purchased energy needed to heat office buildings. Finally, scope 3 includes emissions produced by suppliers and customers.

During the roundtable discussion, some striking differences became apparent. For many companies, the majority of their CO₂ emissions come from scope 3. This is the case for Cordeel (around 90%) and also for fuel distributor Q8, where scope 3 accounts for an astonishing 99% of total emissions.

Indaver tells a very different story. “Because of the nature of our business, our carbon footprint is high,” explains Karl Vrancken, Chief Sustainability Officer at the recycling and waste management company. “We burn both fossil and biogenic fuels - the latter of which we also recycle. This results in scope 1 emissions of about one million tons of CO₂ per year, which makes up around 80 to 85% of our total emissions.”

Scope 3 is the hardest to calculate

Despite the percentages mentioned earlier, accurately calculating and tracking CO₂ emissions is anything but simple - largely due to the challenges of scope 3. “We can calculate our own emissions, but for those of our suppliers, we depend on their own monitoring,” explains Simon Maillet, Head of ESG at Cordeel. “For 2024, we were able to report a figure for our scope 3 emissions through extrapolations. Our goal now is to refine that figure year by year, which means reaching out to our suppliers one by one.”

Other participants in the roundtable shared similar challenges. For SD Worx, however, the difficulties commonly associated with scope 3 are felt in Scopes 1 and 2. Because the company primarily focuses on the “S” in ESG due to its identity as an HR partner, there has traditionally been less emphasis on the E. “While many of you deal with a large number of suppliers, we’re dealing with a large number of locations for which we now need to calculate emissions,” said ESG Manager Lesley Hellebuyck. “In this area, we’re still in the early stages.”

Tool

This also raises the question of how data from dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of sources can be collected and consolidated. A tool is essential - and fortunately, there are now plenty of measurement tools available. However, separating the wheat from the chaff is not easy, precisely because it’s still a relatively new field.

Cordeel, for example, uses a tool that generates templates for colleagues responsible for specific departments to fill in. But the construction group is more the exception than the rule. Many participants still collect all their data using Excel. “We combine it with PowerBI,” says Indaver CFO Werner Bosch. “We also work with Excel,” adds Lesley Hellebuyck from SD Worx. “But we’re aware that this method isn’t futureproof, and we’re still searching for the right tool.”

SBTi, the Science Based Targets Initiative

Calculating CO₂ emissions is clearly no easy task for any company, and setting realistic targets for CO₂ reduction presents its own set of challenges. Many companies align themselves with the European Commission’s goals (a 55% reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050) but of course, every company’s situation is different.

Demonstrating ambition is certainly important for potential clients and investors. They want to know what their prospective partners are aiming for - and ideally, they want to see concrete commitments.

That’s exactly why the topic of SBTi came up during our discussion. SBTi, or the Science Based Targets Initiative, helps companies set climate targets grounded in scientific evidence. In return, these companies publicly communicate their ambitions and are expected to track and report on their progress.

“The big question is whether you set CO₂ reduction goals based on your own assumptions, or you commit to a framework like that of SBTi,” says Filip Ceulemans, Client Partner at TriFinance. “SBTi, established in 2015 to help companies formulate reduction targets in line with climate science and the goals of the Paris Agreement, offers structure and credibility, but it also requires commitment and transparency. That choice influences how clients and investors position you.”

Companies are increasingly feeling the pressure to endorse this methodology, according to the participants in our discussion. However, none had yet taken the step - except for Indaver. That said, the organization itself appears to be going through a turbulent period. For the first time since its launch, the number of new company sign-ups seems to be declining. Some participants suggested this might be pushing the SBTi to become less strict in how it evaluates progress and targets. In other words, for those considering joining - waiting a bit might not be such a bad idea...

Carbon capture and scope 4

Whatever the case may be, those who want to drastically reduce their carbon footprint may not rely solely on ambitions and reduction efforts. A few other methods are essential. During the roundtable discussion, carbon capture was also mentioned. This involves storing CO₂ to prevent it from entering the atmosphere.

It seems like a miracle solution since it doesn't require a reduction in CO₂ production. However, miracles (for now) do not exist... “We’ve been studying the possibilities of carbon capture for some time,” says Werner Bosch. “Our conclusion is that it’s a very intensive and expensive process. For comparison, the cost of processing one ton of household waste is 100 euros. If we were to engage in carbon capture, that would add another 185 euros. The question is whether the public is willing to pay three times as much for their waste bags.”

Given the high CO₂ emissions, it’s not surprising that Indaver is looking into these solutions. It is also the only company at the table planning to calculate and report scope 4 emissions. Werner Bosch explains: “Scope 4 emissions are those that you avoid. For example, because the product you use has lower CO₂ emissions than the product that was initially used.”

It goes without saying that scope 4 offers an interesting framework for reducing total CO₂ emissions. However, according to the current CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) regulations, it is not possible to subtract this figure from your total emissions.

Carbon credits

One final element worth mentioning is carbon credits. In this case, a company doesn’t have a direct impact on its own CO₂ emissions or those of its suppliers, but it partially offsets its emissions through a trading mechanism. For example, by supporting projects that reduce emissions, such as strengthening tropical rainforests.

Cordeel uses carbon credits, for instance, to offset its scope 1 emissions. At SD Worx the topic is also on the table. ESG Coordinator Lisa Simons explains: “The most important thing is to first explore solutions to reduce our emissions. Only once all those solutions have been implemented can carbon credits come into play. For us, it’s a last resort.”

Omnibus

Carbon accounting remains a complex interplay of many elements. In addition to the different scopes, there are ways to reduce the total figure. However, these methods are sometimes still subject to debate. As is often the case in a field that is rapidly evolving, concrete standards are not yet sufficiently available.

On top of that, ESG reporting is set to undergo major reforms in 2025. The European Commission has decided that many companies will receive a postponement for reporting, and reporting under the CSRD may only be required for companies with more than 1,000 employees.

Not that much is changing

The “Omnibus” measures caused a shockwave when they were announced in February 2025. However, by the time of the roundtable discussion, it had already become clear that many stakeholders were not expecting major changes.

“Carbon accounting will continue to play an important role, despite the Omnibus,” emphasizes Filip Ceulemans. “Suppliers will keep asking questions, supply chain responsibility still exists, and financiers still want to know where you stand. That pressure doesn’t only come from regulations, but primarily from the market itself.”

“We assume that scope 1 and 2 emissions will still need to be reported,” adds Simon Maillet. “You’re dealing with a large value chain, which includes major publicly listed companies as clients. Their reporting obligations are not being reduced, so they will still have to account for their scope 3 emissions.”

Regarding the delay, Laurence Gacoin offers a valuable tip: “The temptation may be strong to take your foot off the gas. But we very consciously decided not to do that. The cost of halting all investments and calculations now and picking them back up in two years is much higher than simply continuing.”

What the participants do expect is that fewer companies will formally report under the CSRD and that more will switch to VSME – a simplified, voluntary standard for SMEs. This still allows them to make their emissions visible and report them to larger companies in the value chain. Even in that scenario, accurate carbon accounting remains essential.

“Don’t stop your sustainability efforts,” says Mario Matthys, Expert Practice Leader Corporate & ESG Reporting at TriFinance. “Even if reporting requirements are softened, stakeholder expectations won’t disappear. While the political battle over sustainability reporting rages on, care for our planet, for society, and the drive for healthy profitability continue – with or without the Omnibus.”

The verdict is clear: those who pause now risk falling behind later – not out of compliance concerns, but due to strategic necessity.