Practical guides
Carolina Skarupa
Product Carbon Footprint Analyst
.png)
In carbon accounting, real time does not mean the dashboard refreshes every second: it means the latency of the source data. A dashboard that updates instantly with electricity data from three weeks ago is not real time. The useful frequency for an organisation is set by the slowest source it needs to make a decision, not by the software.
This guide ranks data sources by the frequency they genuinely allow, explains what cannot be tracked continuously, and shows how to build monitoring that supports management without breaking the annual inventory.
A carbon footprint is calculated by multiplying activity data by an emission factor. In continuous monitoring that means two separate clocks:
Two practical consequences follow. First, you almost never measure gas at a stack: you estimate from consumption. Second, the figures on a continuous dashboard are provisional and get restated when the final factors arrive. An honest system flags which figures are provisional and which are closed.
| Data source | Realistic frequency | Typical latency | How it is automated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Own sub-metering: meters, IoT sensors and building management systems | Minutes | Seconds to minutes | Direct integration by industrial protocol or API into the platform |
| Electricity at the supply point | Hourly | Several days, until the distributor publishes the curve | API from Spain's Datadis, the retailer or the energy management system |
| Emission factor of the Spanish grid mix | Hourly | Near immediate | Red Eléctrica and e·sios data APIs, which publish generation structure and associated emissions in real time |
| Natural gas | Monthly or bimonthly for most supplies, hourly with telemetering for large consumers | Weeks | Automatic invoice reading or retailer telemetering |
| Own fleet fuel | Per refuelling, daily or weekly | Hours to days | Fuel card file and vehicle telematics |
| Business travel | Weekly | Days | Corporate travel agency and company cards |
| Contracted transport | Per shipment | Days to weeks | Logistics operator portal with ISO 14083 compliant data |
| Waste | Monthly or quarterly | Weeks | Waste transfer documents and authorised manager delivery notes |
| Purchases and materials | Continuous on spend, annual on supplier data | Spend is immediate; the supplier footprint arrives a year later | ERP for spend and a data campaign for the product footprint |
| Supplier Scope 3 | Annual | Months to a year | Structured questionnaire or exchange of verified product footprints |
It is worth saying plainly, so nobody promises the impossible:
The sensible approach is to monitor continuously what can be monitored, with hourly or daily data, and keep the rest on an annual cycle with documented estimates.
Spotting a consumption spike at a plant is not the same as preparing the annual report. The decision sets the latency you need, and that latency sets how much integration work is worth doing. Start with the use case, not the dashboard.
Use the table above to tag your sources. Anything that already arrives daily or faster goes into continuous monitoring. The rest stays on a monthly or annual cycle, with the reason documented.
Integrate invoices, meters, telematics and ERP so consumption arrives on its own. The less manual entry there is, the more reliable the system and the slower it degrades. Automatic document and invoice reading is usually what unlocks the sources that arrive on paper or as PDFs.
Record which factor was applied to which data point and on what date. Without that versioning, a mid-year factor change makes the series incomparable and complicates verification.
A dashboard with no thresholds does not get looked at. The indicators that work are intensity based, not absolute: tCO₂e per unit produced, kWh per square metre, litres per hundred kilometres. The useful comparison is against the same period last year, corrected for production or degree days, with an owner assigned to every alert.
Continuous monitoring feeds the annual calculation aligned with the main standards, it does not replace it. At year end you apply the final factors, complete the annual categories and submit the inventory for verification where relevant.
It is also the basis of data and AI integration in ESG reporting: without a continuous flow there is nothing to automate.
Standards still think in years. The GHG Protocol and ISO 14064-1:2018 require a defined reporting period, and the MITECO carbon footprint registry only accepts footprints covering twelve consecutive months calculated with official factors. Continuous monitoring is a management layer on top of that: it adds reaction time, not rigour.
For the dashboard and the inventory to reconcile at year end, the organisational boundaries, the Scope 1, 2 and 3 split and the allocation rules must be identical in both. If the dashboard uses a different definition of a site than the inventory, reconciliation eats more time than the monitoring saves.
In practice, almost never. Emissions are estimated from activity data and emission factors. Direct gas measurement is reserved for specific industrial stacks with continuous emission monitoring systems.
Minutes with your own sub-metering. A few days with the distributor's hourly curve. Weeks for gas and waste. A year for supplier data. An honest corporate dashboard shows different latencies per source instead of a single headline figure.
No. It complements it. The annual inventory brings rigour, official factors and verification; continuous monitoring brings the ability to react and a shorter close.
Because final emission factors are published after the close and because third-party data replaces earlier estimates. Good practice is to flag which periods are provisional and to log every restatement.
Electricity supply points with access to the hourly curve, the fuel card file if you run a fleet, and an ERP connection for spend. Those three sources already cover much of Scope 1 and 2 at daily frequency.
Yes, if the operator delivers data per shipment. The GLEC Framework and ISO 14083 define the common format that makes that data comparable across providers.
If you want to move from an annual calculation to continuous monitoring without losing traceability, Manglai's carbon footprint platform automates capture from invoices, ERP and telematics with artificial intelligence features, and keeps the factor versioning a verifier will ask for.
Carolina Skarupa
Product Carbon Footprint Analyst
About the author
Graduated in Industrial Engineering and Management from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, with a master’s degree in Environmental Management and Conservation from the University of Cádiz. I'm a Product Carbon Footprint Analyst at Manglai, advising clients on measuring their carbon footprint. I specialize in developing programs aimed at the Sustainable Development Goals for companies. My commitment to environmental preservation is key to the implementation of action plans within the corporate sector.
Companies that trust us

Practical guides
The Sustainability Cheque (Cheque Sostenibilidad) run by the Institute for Development of the Region of Murcia (INFO) is a grant scheme that helps sma ...

Practical guides
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the methodology that allows the environmental impact of a building or piece of infrastructure to be quantified across i ...

Practical guides
The ISO 14046 standard is the international standard that defines how to assess the water footprint of a product, a process or an organization based o ...
Guiding businesses towards net-zero emissions through AI-driven solutions.
Product & Pricing
What is Manglai
Features
SQAS
GLEC
GHG Protocol
ISO-14046
ISO-14064
Miteco certification
CSRD
CSDDD
Digital Product Passport
EINF
Prices
Customers
Partners
Solutions by role
Environmental consulting
ESG management solutions
Financial directors
General directors
HR managers
Operations directors
Quality and environment directors
Senior management
Solutions for investment funds
Supply chain managers
Sustainability managers
Transport responsible
© 2026 Manglai. All rights reserved