The hidden cost of inaccurate travel data

Accurate reporting has become the foundation of every credible sustainability strategy. As organisations face growing pressure to disclose their Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, travel can, for many sectors, be among the most complex and costly areas to manage accurately. While many corporates are already working towards NetZero targets, poor-quality data can undermine these efforts, leading to hidden financial, reputational, and strategic risks.

“For a Sustainability strategy to be successful, it needs to be measurable,” says Pippa Ganderton, ATPI Halo Director. “Visibility of data is vital for agreeing a baseline, setting reduction goals, and working towards an ultimate NetZero target.”

The financial cost of inaccurate data

For many organisations, the biggest hidden cost of inaccurate reporting is overpaying for carbon offsets, removals or SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel).

Pippa recalls a recent example: “We compared a client’s year-to-date travel data under DEFRA-only methodology with Thrust Carbon’s dynamic methodology. In most cases, Thrust Carbon showed consistently lower CO2e counts due to additional fuel-based factors. The client quickly realised they were buying more offsets than they needed. The cost of subscribing to Thrust Calculator was a no-brainer compared to their continued offset costs, representing a significant saving.”

As Kit Aspen, Founder and CEO of Thrust Carbon, explains: “Bad data is like swimming in the ocean at night: you don’t know if you are close to shore, what’s lurking under the surface, or when you have a speedboat nearby. Good data gives you the ability to not just know where you are, but to predict the future and to align it with the rest of your travel program. Want to reduce spend? There’s a sustainability data-point that will help. Want to improve traveller wellbeing? There are supplier data points. Want to reduce risk of future regulations? There’s ISO data points. It’s only by starting with the right foundation that we can build a modern travel program.”

Beyond offsets, poor data also increases the time and cost of audits. “Robust carbon reporting is pretty much audit-ready,” Ganderton notes. “It can save a lot of time addressing queries or trying to justify numbers. If auditors are charging day rates, that can make a significant difference to costs.”

The reputational and compliance cost

Data inaccuracy isn’t just a financial issue – it can directly impact credibility.

“In a world where carbon calculation methodologies are popping up right, left and centre, using an approved methodology is critical,” Ganderton explains. “If auditors aren’t convinced the basis is sound, they could downgrade a company’s score, or even worse, fail their Scope 3.6 disclosure.”

The reputational impact can be equally damaging. “Credibility is the difference between having clients’ and employees’ trust – and securing the investment that supports the future of the business – or constantly having to justify and convince new stakeholders,” she adds.

The strategic cost

Inaccurate data doesn’t just cause headaches at audit time – it undermines long-term strategy. Without confidence in their numbers, businesses struggle to plan effectively for NetZero.

“If poor-quality data leads to inconsistent reporting, then goals and targets may have to be adjusted frequently. That can directly impact operations,” says Ganderton. “Whereas granular, trusted data gives confidence that calculations comply with ISO 14083 standards and can be updated as the science evolves. With our partner Thrust Carbon, Auditors can even be provided direct access to the Calculator platform, saving time and resources.”

ATPI’s approach

Through its partnership with Thrust Carbon, ATPI provides clients with far more than just accurate numbers. The integration delivers up-to-date, supplier-specific data that allows businesses to set budgets, assess supplier choices, and plan for predictive scenarios.

Examples include:

• Events clients changing venues or cities upfront to reduce projected emissions.
• A financial services client mandating Eurostar over flights between London and Paris.
• Growing momentum across corporates considering European rail for short-haul travel.

“The biggest difference is accuracy,” says Ganderton. “Our chosen methodology is based on up-to-date, fuel-based criteria. It gives clients confidence that their data isn’t just good enough – it’s a foundation for real decisions.”

Looking forward

As regulations tighten and investor expectations rise, demand for higher-quality reporting tools is only set to increase.

“These tools do so much more than calculate,” Ganderton explains. “They enable carbon budgets, carbon pricing, and predictive planning. That’s why we’re seeing growing interest from clients who want not just compliance, but confidence and tangible options.”

Her advice to businesses still using default methodologies like DEFRA is clear: “It’s still better to start with DEFRA than to defer reporting altogether. But over time, mileage-based averages will never be as accurate as fuel-based, granular calculations. To plan effectively for NetZero, you need robust data from the very beginning.”

The hidden cost of inaccurate travel data is more than financial. It’s the risk of undermining credibility, losing investor trust, and failing to deliver a tangible NetZero pathway. By investing in accurate, trusted methodologies, organisations can not only reduce unnecessary spend but also strengthen their strategy for the future.