Love Island, Scope 3, and the Art of Avoidance
How Love Island reminded me of the Scope 3 dilemma and the climate opportunity ("opportunily") hidden in all that dodged accountability.
Like much of America, I have spent more than a few summer nights huddled on the couch watching Love Island USA.
For those who haven’t been following along, the drama goes a little something like this:
Chelley told Ace she wanted to “keep her options open.”
Then Huda kissed Ace.
Chelley got mad, and Ace replied, “I thought we were open,” reminding her that she kissed Chris.
Huda insisted it was “just a challenge.”
Confused yet? The crux of the matter is that multiple parties are involved. Many are affected. And no one takes responsibility.
Bizarrely, these types of interactions reminded me of another head-scratcher: Scope 3 emissions.
Just like in the Love Island villa, Scope 3 is all about indirect actions with real consequences. No one wants to claim them. Everyone points fingers. And while the drama unfolds, the impact quietly builds.
Is Chelley responsible for Ace’s kiss if she said they were open?
Is it your fault your vendor’s vendor burned jet fuel shipping raw materials for your product?
In both cases, the answer is murky.
Wait, What are Scope 3 Emissions?
When people talk about corporate carbon emissions, most immediately think of the pollution a company directly creates, like factories belching smoke or company vehicles burning fuel. These are Scope 1 emissions, which are direct emissions from sources a company owns or controls.
Then there are Scope 2 emissions, which are indirect emissions from the electricity a company buys and consumes, such as from power plants that generate electricity for its offices or factories. While indirect, Scope 2 emissions are usually easier to measure and manage since they involve purchased energy, for which data is readily available.
But beyond those lies Scope 3 emissions, the most complex and far-reaching category. Scope 3 covers all other indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain, upstream and downstream. This includes everything from the production of raw materials and transportation to product use and disposal by consumers. Essentially, any emissions not covered by Scope 1 and Scope 2 are categorized as Scope 3 emissions.
Why Should We Care?
For many industries, Scope 3 emissions make up the majority of their total carbon footprint, sometimes exceeding 90 percent of all emissions linked to their products or services. Yet, despite their scale and importance, Scope 3 emissions are notoriously underreported, and few companies fully disclose them in their climate commitments or net-zero targets.
The usual take is: “Scope 3 is hard to measure.”
And it is. Data is scattered and unreliable, supply chains are complex, and reporting standards are inconsistent. But that’s only half the story.
The deeper issue is systemic. Our business models are designed to shift Scope 3 emissions, and responsibility for them, onto someone else.
Take fast fashion as a clear example. The brand you see advertising trendy clothes often doesn’t own the cotton fields where fiber is grown... or the factories where garments are sewn... or the ships and trucks that transport these items. And they don’t manage the landfills where discarded clothes pile up.
So when a company reports on its carbon footprint but leaves out those indirect emissions, sometimes the largest slice of their total impact, it’s like measuring only the tip of the iceberg while ignoring what’s lurking below the surface. These omissions are more than technical oversights; they’re strategic ways to dodge accountability. Companies can claim progress without taking full responsibility for the real climate costs embedded throughout their supply chains.
This lack of transparency isn’t just a corporate problem. It affects us all. Investors are flying blind when they evaluate climate risks. Regulators struggle to set effective policies. Consumers are left guessing if their purchases align with their values. Without reliable, standardized reporting, we’re stuck in a fog of uncertainty, unable to hold companies accountable or drive real change.
Hope is Not Lost
Tackling Scope 3 emissions requires companies to look beyond their own walls and rethink their relationships with the broader systems in which they operate. While Scope 3 emissions are outside a company’s direct operations, they are not outside of their influence.
Here’s how real change starts:
Set Clear, Ambitious Scope 3 Targets - Companies need to stop pretending like Scope 3 emissions don’t exist because they are inconvenient, and they need to expand their climate goals to explicitly target these emissions.
Demand Transparency Across Supply Chains - In order to close the gaps in Scope 3 reporting, businesses need detailed emissions data from suppliers and logistics partners.
Advocate for Stronger Standards and Regulations - Industry leaders can push for mandatory, standardized Scope 3 reporting to level the playing field and drive consistency.
Invest in Cleaner Practices - Companies can make a real difference by choosing sustainable materials, optimizing transportation, and embracing recycling programs.
Collaborate - Effective Scope 3 management requires partnerships with suppliers, customers, and governments to share knowledge and scale impactful solutions.
That said, these steps are neither simple nor immediate. Companies are built to make money, and shifting supply chains, demanding transparency, and investing in cleaner practices is costly and complicated.
But here’s the thing: addressing Scope 3 emissions isn’t just about doing the right thing for the planet. It’s about reducing business risk.
In other words, companies that face Scope 3 emissions head-on are better positioned to anticipate challenges, adapt to shifting markets, and seize emerging opportunities, turning sustainability into a competitive advantage rather than a cost burden. So while the transition may be difficult, embracing full responsibility for Scope 3 emissions ultimately protects a business’s future and builds trust with both investors and customers.
At the same time, lasting progress depends on looking beyond individual efforts. It requires rethinking entire systems, fostering transparency, and building accountability across industries and supply chains. So yes, responsibility is shared. But more than that, it’s collective.
It’s a bit like Love Island: the real drama happens when no one wants to own the mess. Everyone hesitates, waiting for someone else to make the first move. On reality TV, this drama serves as entertainment. But when it comes to our planet, these challenges have profound consequences for our economy, communities, and environment. And while Love Island may have wrapped up this past weekend, the climate crisis certainly did not.
Super creative Ben!