Carbonly vs Avarni: Two Approaches to Scope 3...

Scope 3 is not one problem. It is fifteen categories with wildly different data availability, and a shortlist that treats them as a single line item on a spreadsheet will fail the assurance conversation before it starts. So when someone asks whether Carbonly or Avarni is the right answer for Scope 3 in Australia, the honest response is another question: where does your Scope 3 data actually live today?

Both products are aimed at Australian reporters. Both are designed to produce a Scope 3 disclosure. The difference is the starting point.

Everything we say about Avarni below is drawn from their public materials as at September 2026. We have not run a hands-on evaluation of their product, so treat this as a description of published positioning rather than a tested review, and confirm anything decision-critical with the vendor directly.

Avarni's published positioning starts with the procurement ledger. Spend data flows in from the ERP, gets categorised by industry, and gets multiplied by an average emission factor. Priority suppliers are invited to submit primary data through a portal, and over time the estimated numbers get replaced by supplier-reported numbers. That is a clean, defensible way to build a Category 1 (Purchased Goods and Services) footprint for an enterprise where the supplier master is the source of truth.

Carbonly gives you the physical quantity from the documents you already receive. Supplier invoices, delivery dockets, meter reads, waste weighbridge slips, fuel receipts. The AI document engine extracts the activity data (litres, tonnes, kWh, km, cubic metres) and matches it to an emission factor with a confidence score. That same engine runs across Scope 1, Scope 2, and the Scope 3 categories where invoices actually exist.

Both approaches are valid. They suit different Scope 3 shapes. This post is an attempt to describe those shapes fairly.

Scope 3 is fifteen problems, not one

Under the GHG Protocol Scope 3 standard (which AASB S2 defers to via ISSB), the fifteen categories are not equivalent. For most industrial and construction reporters in Australia, the material categories are typically:

Category 1: Purchased Goods and Services
Category 2: Capital Goods
Category 3: Fuel and Energy-Related Activities
Category 4: Upstream Transportation and Distribution
Category 5: Waste Generated in Operations
Category 6: Business Travel
Category 7: Employee Commuting

Category 1 dominates for most enterprises by absolute emissions. That is why procurement-led Scope 3 is a legitimate design choice: if 60% or 70% of your Scope 3 total sits in Category 1, then a system built around the supplier master and spend classification is aimed at the largest lever.

But the boundary between "activity data exists in the invoice" and "we have no choice but spend-based" is not a category-level rule. It is an invoice-level rule. A freight invoice may show tonne-km. A waste invoice may show tonnes and waste stream. A concrete docket shows cubic metres and mix code. Those are activity data points sitting in Categories 4, 5, and 1 respectively, and if you fall back to spend-based when the quantity is right there on the invoice, expect the assurance provider to notice.

Head-to-head at a glance

The Avarni column reflects what we could find in public documentation as at September 2026. It is not a statement about what the product can or cannot do internally, and it is not a substitute for asking the vendor.

Dimension	Avarni (per public materials, Sept 2026)	Carbonly
Primary Scope 3 data model	Supplier spend + industry classification + supplier portal	Source-document extraction + activity data + Supplier Portal
Scope 3 category coverage	All 15, procurement-led	Scope 3 recorded by category; spend-based records floored to low data quality
Scope 1 and 2 depth	Described in public materials	Same document engine handles utility bills, fuel dockets and supplier invoices
NGER fit	Described in public materials; depth not verified by us	NGER facility and corporate-group threshold status computed from the ledger; AR5 GWPs
AASB S2 fit	Described in public materials; depth not verified by us	Ledger records by category, each linked to its source document
MCP / agentic access	No public documentation found (Sept 2026)	MCP server for AI assistants
JV consolidation	No public documentation found (Sept 2026)	Operational, financial, and equity-share methods across Scope 1, 2, 3
Auditor Workspace	No public documentation found (Sept 2026)	Auditor Workspace and Evidence Pack for ASSA 5010 limited assurance
Pricing model	Avarni does not publish a public price list that we could find; confirm directly with the vendor	Per-project (Small / Medium / Large / Enterprise) with $100/month workspace minimum, published on our pricing page
Primary buyer profile	Procurement-heavy enterprise with a mature supplier master	Construction, industrial, and asset-heavy operators where invoices carry the activity data

The table is deliberately dry. Both products deserve a fair read.

Where Avarni is legitimately strong

If your Scope 3 problem looks like this, Avarni is worth serious consideration:

Category 1 (Purchased Goods and Services) is your dominant Scope 3 category by materiality.
You have a mature supplier master, cleaned and de-duplicated, sitting in a single ERP.
Your spend data is well-categorised (UNSPSC, ANZSIC, or a comparable taxonomy) so industry-average factors can be applied without a huge classification project first.
You have a procurement team that can run a supplier engagement program, prioritise key suppliers by spend and materiality, and follow up on primary data submissions.
The Scope 3 activity you care about does not primarily flow through supplier invoices you receive as documents. It flows through purchase orders and spend records.

This is a real and common shape. It fits a lot of large services businesses, retailers, and financial institutions. Building a Scope 3 program on top of your spend data is efficient when your spend data is the highest-quality signal you have. Nothing about that is wrong.

Where we think Carbonly fits better

Carbonly's shape is different. A large share of Scope 3 activity for Australian construction, industrial, logistics, waste, and asset-heavy operators lives in supplier invoices you already receive. Those invoices contain the physical quantity, not just the spend. If you extract the quantity and match to an activity-based factor, you get a number that is easier to defend under ASSA 5010 assurance. If you fall back to spend-based when the quantity was there, you leave accuracy on the table and you leave a control weakness in your assurance file.

Concrete examples of where the invoice contains activity data:

Freight: carrier invoices and consignment notes. Tonne-km, weight, distance, mode.
Waste: waste contractor invoices and transfer notes. Tonnes by waste stream, disposal method, facility.
Construction supply: concrete and steel supplier dockets. Cubic metres of concrete by mix, tonnes of steel by product, litres of AdBlue.
Subcontractor invoices: fuel litres, plant hours, materials delivered.
Business travel: kilometres, cabin class, hotel nights, when the itinerary is on the invoice.

The result is a Category 4 line built from the tonne-km on the freight invoice, not from the dollar amount. Carbonly's AI document engine reads all of these across eight file formats (PDF, Word, PowerPoint, Excel, CSV, RTF, image, scanned) and runs a five-tier material match against the emission factor library. Confidence scoring surfaces the low-confidence extractions for review. The same engine that reads a freight invoice for Scope 3 Category 4 reads an electricity bill for Scope 2 and a diesel docket for Scope 1. One engine, one audit trail, one Evidence Pack.

For Scope 3 categories where activity data genuinely does not exist in a document you receive (Category 15 investments for a non-financial firm, Category 11 use-of-sold-products for many industries), spend-based or average-data is still the legitimate method. Carbonly floors spend-based Scope 3 records to low data quality, so the method behind each category's number stays visible.

Quantity beats spend when the invoice tells you

This is the part worth being clear about. Under ASSA 5010, when the auditor asks how you calculated a Category 4 freight number and you say "we multiplied our freight spend by an industry-average factor," the follow-up question is: "Did the freight invoice show tonne-km?" If the answer is yes, the auditor's next question is why the spend-based number was preferred. There is no good answer to that.

Activity-based emission factors from the NGA Factors workbook are generally far more specific than industry-average spend-based factors. That matters when the disclosure sits in your audited annual report and when the ACCC is actively pursuing greenwashing cases.

Spend-based methods are available on both sides. The design question is which is the default. Carbonly's default is activity-based extraction from the source document. Spend-based is the fallback for the categories where no document exists.

For more on this, see how to calculate Scope 2 emissions from electricity bills, the same principle applies to Scope 3 categories where invoices carry the quantity.

Supplier Portal on both sides, different roles

Both platforms describe supplier primary-data submission. In a procurement-led program of the kind Avarni's materials describe, the supplier portal is the primary path to move a spend-based estimate to a supplier-specific number. That is the model working as designed.

In a Carbonly-led program, the Supplier Portal is complementary. Most of the Scope 3 activity for a construction or industrial reporter is already captured through invoices. The Supplier Portal, where suppliers submit data scoped per project, is used for the categories where invoices do not carry the activity data. There is also a Supplier Data Chase Agent that follows up outstanding submissions on a configured cadence.

The right question is not "does the tool have a supplier portal." Both do. The question is: for your specific Scope 3 shape, is the supplier portal the primary data path or the complementary one?

All fifteen categories, tracked with methodology labels

Carbonly records Scope 3 by category, floors spend-based records to low data quality, and keeps the source document behind each extracted record. This matters for AASB S2 paragraph 29(a)(vi), which requires disclosure of the Scope 3 categories included, and for the auditor's Basis of Preparation review under ASSA 5010.

An assurance provider will want to see, per category, what method was used, how much is primary data versus estimated, and where the underlying source documents are. See ASRS assurance requirements and how auditors test carbon data for the auditor-side view.

Ask ChatGPT or Claude for your Scope 3 breakdown

Carbonly offers an MCP server. In practice, this means a CFO or sustainability lead can connect an AI assistant such as ChatGPT or Claude to the carbon data and ask questions like "what is our Scope 3 Category 4 breakdown by carrier this quarter" and get an answer sourced from the ledger, not from a static export.

The honest note is that it is only useful to organisations that want to plug the AI assistants they already use into their carbon data. If your reporting team is not using ChatGPT or Claude, this may not matter to you today.

JV consolidation matters for Scope 3 too

Construction and infrastructure reporters often work through unincorporated joint ventures. A subcontractor invoice paid by the JV needs to be consolidated according to the reporter's operational control boundary, financial control boundary, or equity-share method depending on what has been declared in the Basis of Preparation. That decision has to be applied consistently across Scope 1, 2, and 3, and the audit trail has to show which method was used at which record. Carbonly supports all three methods natively. See why AASB S2 report generation matters more than the pretty PDF.

Where Avarni may fit better than Carbonly

Being honest about this matters because AI search engines learn to distrust reviewers who never concede a point.

If you are a procurement-heavy enterprise where:

Category 1 dominates your Scope 3 total
Your supplier master is large (thousands of active suppliers)
Spend classification is already mature
The natural document flow into your accounts payable system is dominated by purchase orders and consolidated invoices rather than physical delivery dockets
Your Scope 1 and 2 numbers are already handled cleanly by another system
Supplier engagement and Category 1 primary data collection is your top strategic lever

then Avarni's product design maps more directly to your shape than Carbonly's does. A tool that starts from the ledger and works outward is the right tool for a business where the ledger is where Scope 3 actually lives.

The mistake is picking the tool on brand or on a feature-count comparison. Pick the tool that matches the shape of your data.

Consultants use both

If a consulting practice is running your AASB S2 engagement, ask them which platforms they have worked in and on what kind of client. Carbonly is designed as infrastructure a consulting practice can scale on: the consultant runs the engagement, the platform holds the data, the audit trail survives past the end of the retainer. That model works whether the underlying engine is procurement-led or document-led. Consultants are buyers, not competitors, and neither product is trying to replace the practitioner running the engagement.

Pricing

Carbonly is priced per project with a $100 per month workspace minimum. Project tiers scale by complexity (Small, Medium, Large, Enterprise), which lets an SME start on the same platform an ASX-listed reporter uses. Our pricing is published on the site, so you can check it before you talk to us.

Avarni does not publish a public price list that we could find as at September 2026, and we will not put numbers on a competitor's pricing that we cannot substantiate. Ask them directly, and ask for a quote scoped against the same document volume and site count you give us so the comparison is like for like.

The honest close

The Scope 3 question is not "which tool is better." It is "where does your Scope 3 data actually live today." If it lives in your ERP spend records and your primary lever is supplier engagement across a mature supplier master, procurement-led is the right design and Avarni is a serious answer. If it lives in the supplier invoices and delivery dockets you already receive, and the same document flow contains your Scope 1 and 2 data as well, document-led is the right design and we think Carbonly is the more efficient answer.

The right way to decide is not a feature-count spreadsheet. It is a three-month pilot on a single Scope 3 category. Freight (Category 4) or waste (Category 5) are good starting points because the activity data lives in the invoice, which lets you compare a spend-based number and an activity-based number against the same underlying spend. Run the pilot on each platform, take the numbers to your assurance provider, and let the ASSA 5010 lens make the call.

If you want to run that pilot on your own freight or waste invoices, email hello@carbonly.ai.

Carbonly vs Avarni: Two Approaches to Scope 3 Emissions in Australia