On your belief that actionable data _trumps_ perfectly attributed data, I'm not entirely convinced. I think actionable data _complements_ attributable data. But you need the attributable data to accurately measure the impact and learn what specific actions caused that impact.
I think all companies want to make actions that are well-informed, 'the right choice', and have the potential to demonstrate it was 'the right choice'. My concern is that when someone takes a 'good action' such as replacing high intensity animal protein with low intensity plant protein there is no evidence from your side that it made any difference. You are divorcing the actual choice that was made from what is perceived as the outcome.
The dollars-to-emissions relationship is just not as simple as is being represented, and for those who are not specialists there might be a false sense of progress.
"We cut our daily emissions from transport by having employees purchase Uber rides in off-peak times."
"We cut our emissions for business travel by setting up a policy that flights must be purchased at least 2 months in advance."
"We cut our emissions from our regular food purchases by looking at the local newspaper for coupons and signing up for a customer loyalty account."
"Maybe we all should fly to Las Vegas (tickets are cheap) rather than have Linda fly to NYC (an expensive ticket)."
Each of these might be smart business choices, but they have absolutely no real world effect on emissions that should be attributable to a company, but that isn't what the company is being told.
As a first pass to estimate sense of scale and where to look into unsustainable practices and prioritize better data collection, Bend seems to be valuable.
