Joshua Rayan Communications
Matrix Scope 3
Facilitator and data collection kit
Use with the 24-slide training deck. This is a proposed workshop process. Matrix confirms names, dates, reporting period and decision authority before invitations.
Workshop access and release steps
Participants use the full invitation link or access code supplied by the JRC facilitator. They do not need a ChatGPT account or login. The bare /priority and /readiness addresses printed in the slides are landing pages; they need the invitation link or code to enter the relevant workshop.
- The owner opens /admin and signs in. Administration is owner-only. Set up the workshop and provide its full invitation links or codes to the facilitator for the participant invitation.
- Participants complete Survey 1 using their invitation link or code. The facilitator reviews the results and records the emissions-relevance review, including any mandatory or relevance overrides.
- The facilitator confirms exactly five activities for the Survey 2 data discussion and records the relevance review. Only then does Survey 2 open. Relevant sources outside these five remain in the inventory coverage plan.
- JRC proposes activities, sites, period, methods, owners and the wider coverage plan to management. The owner records the actual management approval before issuing operational collection requests; a pending proposal is not approval.
- After approval, issue each PIC an individual scoped /collection link. Collection links expire after 90 days and can be revoked. Share them only with their intended PICs.
- Use /training to access the training deck, facilitator companion and ZIP bundle. Keep invitation codes and collection tokens out of public training materials.
The administration workflow does not send emails automatically. JRC checks recipients and manually sends the approved invitation or data-request draft with the correct full link. Participants do not use /admin.
Preparation and run sheet
Confirm the legal reporting entity, financial period, existing inventory boundary, intended management decision and candidate pilot locations. Invite the actual record owners in the role roster. Give them the plain activity list before the session and ask for one redacted example record or system description. Confirm that full invitation links or access codes open the correct workshop without a ChatGPT login and record a clearly labelled test submission before invitations.
| Time | Activity | Lead | Output |
|---|
| 0–15 min | Purpose and decisions needed | Sponsor and JRC | Confirm entity, period and workshop rules |
| 15–35 min | Scope 3 training and category screen | JRC | Shared activity definitions |
| 35–55 min | Survey 1 and questions | All participants | Importance and cost ratings |
| 55–80 min | Relevance review and provisional shortlist | JRC with owners | Top five discussion activities plus overrides |
| 80–90 min | Break | All | |
| 90–120 min | Survey 2 and data-owner interviews | Shortlisted PICs | Availability, effort, coverage and method options |
| 120–150 min | Worked examples and proposal | JRC with PICs | Proposed methods and management work package |
| 150–170 min | Actions, gaps and management review | Sponsor and JRC | Owners and review date |
| 170–180 min | Readback and close | JRC | Agreed next actions |
Facilitator prompts
- “Which record would prove that quantity, and who owns it?”
- “Does your score describe the agreed Matrix entity or only your department?”
- “Could this activity have significant emissions even if Matrix pays little directly?”
- “What does the factor include, and where could we count the same activity twice?”
- “What remains outside this pilot, and how will it enter the inventory review?”
Survey 1: business importance and financial cost
https://workshop.jrcesg.com/priority — landing page. Use the full invitation link or access code supplied by the JRC facilitator.
Score each plain-language activity for importance and cost using 1–5. Use 2 and 4 between the anchors below. Keep “Don’t know” and “Not applicable” separate from numerical scores. Ask for a brief reason and the respondent's function.
| Score | Business importance | Financial cost to the agreed entity |
|---|
| 1 | Minor impact on delivery or operations | Very low |
| 3 | Important to normal delivery | Medium |
| 5 | Essential to core operations | Among the largest cost areas |
Summarise the number of valid responses, median scores and the spread by function. Keep unknown and not-applicable counts visible. Discuss contradictory ratings instead of treating a combined score as precise measurement. Finance checks cost perceptions against records.
The top-right quadrant guides sequencing. It cannot alone justify exclusions. Review potential emissions size, requirements, sector relevance, stakeholders and influence across all 15 categories. Document any exclusion separately with evidence and approval. A top-five activity shortlist can include several activities within one category.
Provisional shortlist
Take the high-priority activities into the data discussion, then add required or relevant sources even where business cost is low. Keep the existing waste, business travel and commuting process active. Concrete, steel, haulage, sold-building use and commuting in the training deck are illustrative discussion candidates, not actual survey results.
Survey 2: data readiness
https://workshop.jrcesg.com/readiness — landing page. Use the full invitation link or access code supplied by the JRC facilitator. Survey 2 opens only after the facilitator confirms exactly five activities and records the relevance review.
Ask the relevant PIC to name the records, period, sites, coverage gaps, extraction effort and expected date. Test supplier evidence first where appropriate, then physical quantities with a suitable factor, hybrid approaches or spend estimates. Assess the method actually appropriate to the category. Specificity alone does not establish accuracy.
| Effort rating | Meaning |
|---|
| 1 | Records ready for extraction |
| 2 | Simple system export |
| 3 | Reconciliation or cleaning needed |
| 4 | Supplier or third-party follow-up needed |
| 5 | A new collection process is needed |
Effort is separate from availability, coverage and quality. A difficult but significant source stays in the coverage plan. Record an initial estimation method and an improvement action where primary data is missing. Do not turn unknown quantities into zeros.
Management proposal and approval
Prepare a concise decision paper using the evidence from both surveys and the relevance register. The management decision template captures one row per proposed activity.
| Decision item | What management needs to see |
|---|
| Business case | The decision the work supports, supported by workshop ratings and records |
| Proposed scope | Activity, category mapping, legal entity, selected site and reporting period |
| Method and evidence | Proposed calculation method, sources, coverage, assumptions and fallback |
| Responsibility | Named PIC and job title, JRC reviewer, resources and due dates |
| Coverage outside the pilot | Relevant activities and entities not yet measured, with assessment and expansion actions |
| Decision | Approve, approve with conditions or revise, with approver and date |
An HQ or project pilot tests collection and calculation. It does not automatically meet group inventory or disclosure coverage. Management choices must remain consistent with applicable reporting requirements.
Readback before close
Confirm the provisional shortlist, unresolved category questions, named data owners, management review date and owner of each gap. Keep approval pending until an authorised management decision is recorded. Data requests follow that decision.
Targeted collection and review
- JRC prepares exact fields and evidence needs for the approved activity, site and period.
- After the actual management approval is recorded in /admin, the coordinator issues the PIC's individual scoped collection link and manually sends the specific email request. The link expires after 90 days and can be revoked.
- The PIC submits quantities and evidence references, states gaps and confirms coverage.
- JRC checks units, factors, period, duplicates and the link to source records.
- The PIC confirms source data, JRC completes technical review, and management approves reporting.
Keep workshop ratings separate from operational data. Agree the protected evidence route and access controls before requesting commercial or personal records. The templates use group-level commuting data and do not request employee names. Do not place private collection tokens in shared training slides.
Source-specific minimum records
| Activity | Minimum fields | Owner to confirm |
|---|
| Materials | Mix/grade, supplier, quantity and unit, period, product evidence and freight coverage | Procurement / QS, with Finance reconciliation |
| Transport | Mass basis, route distance, trips, vehicle, who pays and treatment of empty journeys | Site / Logistics |
| Waste | Waste type, weight, treatment, contractor and supporting evidence | HSE / waste owner |
| Commuting | Eligible population, responses, mode, return distance, days, occupancy and non-response method | HR |
| Sold buildings | Sales cohort, area, energy assumption, expected life, occupancy, factor and use-stage boundary | Design / Sales / Asset |
Editable templates and email drafts
The CSV files contain headers and proposed role/category rows where useful. Blank records remain blank for the approved scope. The readiness activity names are examples to replace after the workshop. Open a copy in Excel or the agreed data system.
Workshop invitation draft
Data request email draft
Both emails are drafts and are not sent automatically. Replace all bracketed fields, include the correct full invitation or collection link, and confirm recipients before sending.
Calculation examples and sources
All quantities and factors in training slides 19–21 are illustrative. Do not reuse them as Matrix factors. The arithmetic is: concrete 30 tCO₂e, haulage 0.20 tCO₂e, waste 5.0 tCO₂e, commuting 60 tCO₂e, and the sold-building lifetime example 7,500 tCO₂e.
Speaker notes
01 MATRIX SCOPE 3
Welcome the proposed Matrix data owners and management sponsor. Explain that this workshop prepares an evidence-based proposal. Management will approve the activities, pilot sites, methods and responsibilities before JRC requests operational data. The workshop date, named participants, reporting period and final approver must be confirmed before invitations. This training supports the presentation at https://slides.jrcesg.com.
02 Business decisions beyond reporting
Ask procurement for an example of two suppliers with comparable technical performance. Ask project teams where material loss or repeat deliveries occur. A carbon inventory makes these questions measurable. It does not establish that Matrix has already saved money or that the most expensive purchase has the highest emissions. These are proposed business uses tailored to property development, rather than quantified claims about Matrix.
03 What Matrix gains from a better record
Explain the practical problem: different functions hold parts of the same answer. Procurement may know a supplier, Finance holds invoice value, QS holds quantity and site teams hold delivery records. The workshop connects those records to a named owner. The value comes from decisions and repeatability, even before a disclosure deadline.
04 Scope and reporting boundary
Use three examples: diesel in an owned generator, purchased grid electricity, and production of purchased concrete. Confirm the corporate consolidation approach and reporting entity before deciding category treatment. The proposed pilot may start with a selected site, but management cannot make material group emissions disappear by selecting a convenient location. Record the entities and activities outside the pilot and how they will be assessed. Source: https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard
05 Matrix already reports all three
All three activities appear in the FY2026 table on printed page 90, PDF page 91. Employee commuting must receive the same existing-disclosure highlight as waste and business travel. Use the report’s definitions and coverage when refreshing the data. The values do not prove that all relevant Scope 3 categories have been measured. The rounded figures total 2,726.0 tCO2e. Source: https://cms.mchb.com.my/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/MATRIX-Sustainability-Report-2026mchb.pdf
06 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions
Read the map as a completeness screen, not an assertion that every category applies. Category 1 is purchased goods and services, 2 capital goods, 3 fuel- and energy-related activities not included in Scope 1 or 2, 4 upstream transportation and distribution, 5 waste generated in operations, 6 business travel, 7 employee commuting, 8 upstream leased assets, 9 downstream transportation and distribution, 10 processing of sold products, 11 use of sold products, 12 end-of-life treatment of sold products, 13 downstream leased assets, 14 franchises and 15 investments. Purchased construction materials may be category 1 or 2 depending on their accounting and activity. Third-party transport Matrix purchases, including outbound logistics, can fall in category 4. Category 9 applies to eligible downstream transport not purchased by Matrix. Source: https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard
07 The proposed workshop
Walk through the agenda before participants answer a survey. Explain the four outputs: a business-priority picture, a relevance register covering all categories, a readiness assessment and a management decision paper. Do not imply that the workshop itself approves disclosure. Proposed run sheet: 0–15 introduction, 15–35 training, 35–55 Survey 1, 55–80 relevance and shortlist, 80–90 break, 90–120 Survey 2, 120–150 examples and management proposal, 150–170 actions and questions, 170–180 close. Adjust after the sponsor confirms availability.
08 Activity questions people can answer
Use familiar activity labels rather than asking staff to interpret category numbers. Split purchased concrete and steel if ownership, records or methods differ. Capture an Other activity response so the predefined list does not hide a source. For downstream transport ask what moves, from where to where, who owns it and who contracts or pays for transport. A fixed building does not itself move after sale. For sold buildings, energy use over the expected lifetime may require modelling and assumptions rather than a current operating bill. Source for sold products: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter11.pdf
09 Survey 1: importance and financial cost
Use 2 and 4 for positions between the anchors. Ask respondents to state their function and explain high scores or uncertainty. These ordinal scores are a screening aid. Use a consistent view of the agreed Matrix reporting entity and period rather than mixing one department’s budget with total group spend. Finance validates the cost ranking against records. A low direct cost for the use of sold buildings can coexist with significant downstream emissions. Unknown responses do not become zeros. Link: https://workshop.jrcesg.com/priority
10 A business-priority quadrant
The plot uses invented training scores: purchased concrete (5,5), steel (5,4), third-party haulage (4,3), site waste treatment (3,2), employee commuting (3,1), use of sold buildings (5,1). Horizontal axis is importance, vertical axis financial cost. The latter can be low for downstream use because customers pay energy bills. Use the upper-right area as a workshop discussion prompt, with a provisional high score of 4–5 on both axes. JRC must add the emissions relevance screen before a shortlist or exclusion recommendation. This example intentionally demonstrates why a business cost screen alone is insufficient.
11 The relevance check before exclusions
JRC reviews all 15 categories. Give an example of sold-building energy use: it may have little direct cost to Matrix but can still need assessment. A justified exclusion is a separate technical and reporting decision, supported by evidence and applicable reporting requirements. The standard requires exclusions to be disclosed and justified and cautions against excluding significant activities. The workshop register distinguishes not applicable, included, deferred data improvement and proposed exclusion. Source: https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard (chapter 6, table 6.1).
12 A shortlist of five activities
This is a sample of five activities, not five categories, an actual participant result or a predetermined exclusion list. Concrete and steel can share one category. The first shortlist combines business scores, estimated significance and reporting considerations. Keep mandatory or relevant activities even if more than five need work. Continue the existing waste and travel data process. If the workshop’s actual top five differ, update the decision register and record why. Explain that prioritisation sets sequence and effort, not permission to omit material emissions. Matrix existing disclosures source: https://cms.mchb.com.my/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/MATRIX-Sustainability-Report-2026mchb.pdf
13 Who needs to be in the room
A general sustainability representative cannot answer for every record system. Invite the people who own the data and one decision maker who can authorise resources. Ask each function to bring one redacted example record or a description of the system. Do not collect employee-level personal information during the prioritisation workshop. Named data owners and access permissions belong in the private management record.
14 Survey 2: data readiness for the shortlist
Run this survey after the initial shortlist and relevance check. Ask the actual PIC to answer for each shortlisted activity. A low effort score is easier. Do not collapse everything into an accuracy score. Record estimated staff days and a realistic date as well as the rating. A supplier may provide a number quickly but its boundary, date or product match may be poor. Conversely, quantity records plus a well-matched average factor can be suitable for an initial estimate. Link: https://workshop.jrcesg.com/readiness
15 Choosing a method that fits the evidence
These category 1 method names illustrate the choice. Other categories have their own recognised methods, such as distance-based commuting or waste-type-specific treatment calculations. Start by checking whether supplier evidence is available and appropriate, then use a defensible alternative where it is not. Do not describe this as a universal ladder from accurate to inaccurate. Review geographic, technological and temporal representativeness, completeness and reliability. Record improvement actions for major gaps. Source: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter1.pdf; category guidance: https://ghgprotocol.org/scope-3-calculation-guidance-2
16 A readiness discussion using actual record types
Pause for each owner to identify one real system or document and one missing field. The record types are concrete examples, but the availability shown is hypothetical. Do not infer that Matrix already has these datasets. Supplier emissions factors require quality checks. For sold buildings, calculate only the applicable use-stage boundary with a consistent cohort and expected lifetime. Do not treat a single year of bills as full lifetime emissions. Sources: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter1.pdf; https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter4.pdf; https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Ch5_GHGP_Tech.pdf; https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter7.pdf; https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter11.pdf
17 The management approval package
Present the business survey and technical assessment together. Management chooses an initial work package within the applicable reporting requirements. The decision paper includes recommended methods and alternatives, locations, resources, named owners, deadlines, limitations and the plan for activities outside the pilot. An HQ-only pilot is described as HQ-only. Approval does not make an incomplete group inventory complete or override mandatory disclosure requirements.
18 A targeted data request after approval
Use the companion email draft after management approval. Replace every bracketed field. Send directly to the confirmed PIC only after the recipient list and work package are approved. Request no operational data through an open workshop discussion response. The collection link is issued for the approved activity, site and period. Confirm the evidence-sharing route and access controls before requesting confidential documents. No invitation or request email has been sent as part of this training material.
19 Worked example: purchased concrete
The quantity and factor are deliberately invented teaching inputs, not Matrix data and not a recommended factor. Multiply 100 cubic metres by 300 kilograms CO2e per cubic metre to get 30,000 kilograms, then divide by 1,000 to get 30 tonnes. Before a real calculation, confirm quantity basis, mix, factor year, declared unit and life-cycle modules. If a product declaration already includes delivery, avoid counting the same transport again. Purchased materials can be category 1 or capital goods depending on the activity and reporting boundary. Method reference: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter1.pdf
20 Worked examples: transport and waste
Transport calculation: 20 times 100 equals 2,000 tonne-km, multiplied by 0.10 gives 200 kgCO2e or 0.20 tCO2e. This is an illustrative one-way movement. Confirm whether empty return journeys, load factors and well-to-tank emissions are already in the chosen factor. Waste calculation: 10 tonnes times 500 kgCO2e per tonne is 5,000 kgCO2e or 5.0 tCO2e. Use appropriate treatment factors for each waste stream. Do not subtract avoided recycling emissions from the inventory as an unsupported credit. Sources: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter4.pdf; https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Ch5_GHGP_Tech.pdf
21 Commuting and the use of sold buildings
Commuting: the example assumes one person per car and a vehicle-kilometre factor. For a passenger-kilometre factor, match the underlying passenger basis instead. Separate modes and commuting days, exclude leave and remote-working days, and document non-response treatment. Use of sold buildings: the example is a simple constant-intensity model for one sold cohort. It demonstrates lifetime magnitude, not a recommended 30-year life, energy intensity or factor. Real category 11 treatment requires a defensible expected lifetime, scope of energy use, cohort and scenario assumptions. These emissions do not describe the pilot office electricity bill. Sources: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter7.pdf; https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Chapter11.pdf
22 Checks before a number reaches the report
Ask a participant to explain a result from quantity to factor to total. The reviewer checks whether freight overlaps with product factors, whether capital and operating purchases overlap, and whether site subtotals reconcile to the reporting entity. Keep an uncertainty or assumption note, evidence references and correction history. Record preparer, PIC reviewer, technical reviewer and management approver separately. Independent assurance, if required, is a separate process.
23 Outputs and responsibilities
Close by reading back each decision, open issue and owner. Ask the sponsor to confirm the management review date. The companion kit includes a decision record, participant roster, relevance register, readiness record, collection fields and email drafts. Keep the first data request conditional on the signed management decision.
24 Workshop links and next steps
Share the priority survey first. Release the readiness survey after the shortlist and relevance review. The URLs are ordinary browser routes and the main presentation stays at https://slides.jrcesg.com. The main project owner will verify publication and respondent access before invitations. No unique data-collection token belongs in this deck. Priority survey: https://workshop.jrcesg.com/priority
Readiness survey: https://workshop.jrcesg.com/readiness