Food and beverage companies rely on sustainability marketing while lacking verified data on Scope 3 emissions, which account for 95% of their carbon footprint and occur throughout their supply chains. Better data collection through supplier collaboration and emerging regulations like California's SB 253 are forcing companies to measure and report actual emissions rather than estimates.
- Scope 3 emissions represent 95% of food company carbon footprints, including agriculture, processing, and distribution before products reach consumers
- Only 30 of 50 major companies report agricultural emissions despite agriculture being a major emissions driver in food supply chains
- Consumer demand is rising: 25% of consumers choose products based on environmental impact, and 9 out of 10 report experiencing climate change effects
- New regulations in California, New York, and the EU require companies to report Scope 3 emissions by 2027-2029, forcing supply chain transparency
- Standardization through PACT (Partnership for Carbon Transparency) enables consistent measurement and comparison of product-level emissions globally
Consumers don’t often think of the carbon emissions that go into each bite of food. Whether it's dining in a restaurant, cooking at home or ordering delivery, each meal has different circumstances that creates its own emissions profile. What they have in common is the challenge of getting a clear, verifiable picture of where those emissions actually come from and how they add up.
This is the quiet problem sitting underneath the food industry's sustainability push. Companies are setting climate targets, printing “eco-friendly” on packaging and reporting progress to investors, customers and regulators. But for many food and beverage companies, the overwhelming majority of their carbon footprint doesn't come from their owned factories and fleets. It’s instead in Scope 3 emissions: what happens before a product reaches them and after it leaves their purview, including how crops are grown, how livestock is raised, and how ingredients move through processors, packagers and distributors before reaching our plates.
When supply chain emissions account for 95% of a food company’s total footprint, it's essential to measure where the biggest impacts are occurring, in order to make reductions where they’ll matter.
The scale of that is precisely why Scope 3 data is some of the hardest to collect. Any company can monitor its own electricity consumption, but it can’t as easily verify how a wheat farm a few tiers up its supply chain manages fertilizer, land use changes or how a shipping route impacts fuel burn for a specific mix of ingredients.
Now if you multiply that by hundreds or thousands of suppliers, many of them being small operations without dedicated sustainability staff, it’s clear why so many companies are still working off estimates rather than verified data. In the same Ceres research linked above, they found that only 30 of the 50 companies report agricultural emissions in their supply chain disclosure, despite agriculture being one of the largest drivers of an F&B company's footprint.
The visibility gap is ultimately a transparency problem and closing it requires suppliers and buyers to collaborate and be consistent on what gets measured and shared, whether it's sourcing practices, sustainability commitments or emissions data.
Reporting regulation is encouraging early adopters
The gap in reporting determines if sustainability claims hold up to consumer scrutiny, whether procurement decisions are made with real information or best guesses, and whether corporate carbon reduction goals are achieved. It also shapes the way that consumers trust certain brands, and many are making purchasing decisions based on these sustainability commitments and emissions visibility.
A recent analysis by MasterCard said that 25% of consumers choose based on the purchase’s environmental impact.
Additionally, a 2024 study by PwC found that consumers are willing to pay 9.7% more for sustainably produced or sourced goods, as nine out of 10 respondents also shared that they experience the disruptive effects of climate change in their daily lives. This proves that consumers care about putting their dollars behind missions they believe in, even if it means higher costs.
Regulation in Europe and some U.S. states aim to close this gap. For example, California's SB 253 will require companies doing business in the state to report their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by Nov. 10, extended from Aug. 10, and report on Scope 3 emissions beginning in 2027. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive also has companies operating in Europe already following similar regulations.
Additionally, New York’s State Senate passed the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act in February, which will require companies working in the state to report on greenhouse gas emissions, with Scope 3 reporting coming in 2029.
These rules are forcing a shift in reporting that companies have been able to avoid until now, and for most, that shift starts with their suppliers. Meeting Scope 3 requirements means engaging with suppliers more closely to gather better data, meaning more open collaboration and alignment on emissions, ingredient sourcing and sustainable practices than many companies have at this time.
Companies that deepen supplier relationships, rather than treating this as just another compliance box to check, will be the ones with real data to show for it.
The need for transparency in food and beverage emissions
What does emissions transparency in our food system look like and where do supplier relationships fit in?
It begins with vast amounts of granular data on where ingredients are sourced and how they’re managed and handled, going beyond global average emissions data. Broad industry averages of emissions may satisfy the reporting requirements, but they don’t tell a company which suppliers, ingredients or regions are actually driving its greenhouse emissions, which means they can’t zero in on specific providers or actions that would reduce its footprint. Ingredient level, supplier-specific data addresses that by letting procurement professionals weigh all of their options to lower overall carbon emissions.
With reporting requirements starting to firm up internationally, standardization in the reporting methods and data availability is vital.
One reason Scope 3 has historically been so difficult to track is that companies and regions have calculated emissions differently, making it hard to track data across an entire supply chain or industry. The Partnership for Carbon Transparency (PACT) has standardized how companies calculate and share product-level carbon emissions on a global scale so that a number from one supplier means the same thing as another.
As reporting requirements expand and consumer scrutiny grows, companies that prioritize supplier engagement are in a better position to enhance transparency across their supply chains, meet shifting compliance requirements and build more trust from end customers. Supplier transparency and ongoing communications on what gets measured, shared and improved are what make this all possible.
For F&B companies that are waiting until the deadline to begin Scope 3 emissions reporting, now is the time to start strategizing and prioritizing supplier engagement. Ask suppliers for the data behind their numbers and how they measure it and treat the collaboration as an ongoing practice rather than a one-time ask.
The companies that start this work now, ahead of regulatory deadlines, will be the ones positioned to get ahead of policy shifts, build consumer trust and turn “sustainable” from a marketing term into something they can actually prove.
