Closing the gap between compliance and business strategy.
Regulation has moved from uncertainty to consequence, but most sustainability teams haven’t grown with it. The result is the same three problems, year after year:
Fragmented data across procurement, finance, facilities, and suppliers
Reporting cycles that consume every available hour
Little room to move past compliance into strategy
“A sustainability team that could keep pace with one reporting cycle a year is now expected to keep pace with several. That is not a staffing problem sustainability teams can solve by working harder. It is a structural one.“
Linn Holmer, Senior Manager, Position Green
Quoted in The next generation of carbon management
Because the gap sits above the software, not inside it. No platform can assign ownership of Scope 3 data, create accountability, decide your methodology, or resolve competing priorities between procurement and sustainability. Strong programs treat technology, governance, and expertise as one system, not separate purchases.
The guide sets out three things to evaluate: interoperability (does it connect to the systems where your activity data already lives?), lifecycle breadth (does it cover baselines, ownership, supplier data, and auditability, not just calculation?), and strategic features (can the same emissions data inform procurement, supplier risk, and capital decisions?).
No. The first four chapters set a standard you can hold any carbon platform to, including ours. Only the final chapter covers how Position Green is building against it.
A Position Green feature that reads activity data from invoice line items, classifies it in line with the GHG Protocol, and matches it to emission factors. Where no confident match exists, it falls back to a spend-based estimate, so incomplete data reduces precision instead of leaving a gap. Get a walkthrough
