Many companies want to act on climate change. The intent is already there. But turning that intent into a structured plan is not easy. Data sits across teams. Systems don’t connect. And without clarity, progress is hard to measure.
This case study looks at how Sagan supported a pan-African industrial business by building a robust, decision-grade carbon footprint, identifying key emission drivers, and quantifying the climate impact of its innovative carbon capture process – moving from fragmented emissions data to a clear and credible carbon management approach.
Complex footprint, limited clarity
The company operated across multiple countries, with significant energy use and emissions from resource-intensive manufacturing sites and remote operations. Yet visibility remained limited:
- No consolidated GHG baseline across international operations
- Inconsistent reporting structures from legacy systems
- Limited primary data with reliance on estimates
- Increasing stakeholder pressure from customers, investors, and corporate management
At the same time, the company had potential for strong climate leadership and positioning – including carbon capture from industrial processes – but lacked the data and methodology to substantiate this.
Building a practical emissions baseline
Sagana developed a full corporate carbon footprint aligned with the GHG Protocol, covering Scope 1, 2, and relevant Scope 3 categories.
1. Defining boundaries and materiality: We applied an operational control boundary and relevant materiality thresholds to ensure focus on the categories that actually drive emissions,
2. Building the baseline using best-practice data hierarchy: Given fragmented data availability, we applied a tiered methodology using Primary data where available (fuel use, electricity consumption), engineering estimates (e.g. installed power capacity → kWh proxy), spend- and activity-based estimates (for Scope 3) and transparent, credible emission factors from sources such as IPCC and UK DESNZ. This approach balanced accuracy and feasibility, enabling a credible baseline without delaying progress.
3. Validating the baseline (ensuring credibility): A key part of Sagana’s role was validating that the baseline reflected operational reality, not just calculations. For example, we validated site-level emissions by reconstructing generation mixes (diesel, hydro, solar) and applying weighted emission factors with engineering logic. These checks ensured the footprint was audit-ready and methodologically sound.
Identifying emission hotspots: where emissions actually come from
With a complete inventory in place, Sagana identified clear emission drivers, giving key insights:
- Top 6 Scope 3 categories = 98% of value chain emissions
- Scope 2 Electricity emission factors ranged from ~1 gCO₂e/kWh up to 800 gCO₂e/kWh which dramatically affected the carbon intensity – and decarbonization approach – for individual sites
Going beyond measurement
Once visibility improved, the focus shifted to interpretation. A key differentiator in this project was moving beyond footprinting to quantifying positive climate impact. We assessed the company’s carbon capture process using lifecycle analysis aligned with WBCSD guidance. This demonstrated avoided emissions of nearly 2,500 tCO₂e/year – a 91% reduction vs. the reference scenario. This ensured the claim was credible, verifiable, and aligned with international guidance
Creating a clear narrative
The biggest shift came from consolidation. Emissions data from different sources were brought together into a single view. Avoided emissions were calculated in a structured way. Low-carbon manufacturing benefits were clearly articulated.
This allowed leadership to communicate impact with confidence.
“What stood out in this engagement is that the ambition was already there, but the results were hidden in fragmented data. By making sense of the complex GHG emissions in a single, credible narrative, we were able to demonstrate a clear impact to position the company as a climate leader.” – Jamie Oliver, Sagana
Impact delivered
The company moved from fragmented reporting to structured climate management. A base year for emissions was established across operations. A full Scope 1, 2, and 3 inventory provided visibility. Avoided emissions from carbon capture were quantified using credible methodology. Next steps for decarbonization were defined.
Most importantly, the organization could now communicate its climate impact clearly.
- Full Scope 1, 2, 3 inventories aligned with GHG Protocol
- Clear base year (2025) established to enable ongoing future reporting
- Identification of top emission drivers (electricity, product use, transport)
- Quantified avoided emissions from carbon capture (>90% reduction)
What this means
Many organizations face similar challenges. Data is often scattered. Operational footprints are complex. Expectations from stakeholders are increasing. And internal teams may lack dedicated climate expertise.
A structured approach helps bridge this gap. Start with available data. Build a credible baseline. Identify priorities. And translate insights into action.
Conclusion: Clarity drives action
Climate leadership rarely begins with perfect information. It begins with a credible baseline, a clear understanding of emission drivers, and a structured approach to improvement. When emissions data is organized into a clear narrative, decision-making improves. Teams align faster. And momentum builds.
Is your organization’s climate ambition supported by a clear emissions story?
