Key Takeaways:
- Making climate goals public encourages follow-through
- Supplier opacity, unclear calculations hinder Scope 3 reporting
- Global company targets resist shifts in policy
Publicly articulating clear sustainability goals helps ensure company follow-through, according to an annual supply chain study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The sixth annual State of Supply Chain Sustainability report was compiled by the Sustainable Supply Chain Lab at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, together with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals and garnered survey responses from 1,200 people throughout the supply chain in 97 countries.
“This year’s findings make it clear that publicly stated sustainability goals can be a powerful catalyst [and] companies that set them are 74% more likely to invest in high-impact initiatives and embed sustainability into day-to-day decision-making,” the report said. “This suggests that public accountability creates internal momentum.”
Scope 3 reporting continues to lag
Scope 3 emissions remain both the biggest challenge and the greatest opportunity, the report authors said. Scope 3 emissions are indirect, coming from suppliers, transportation, product use and throughout the value chain. They “remain the most difficult area of corporate climate management,” despite accounting for more than 75% of a company’s total emissions, the report authors said.
Recycled materials contribute to reaching Scope 3 goals by reducing the need for virgin paper fiber and plastics. As brand owners ease back on recycled-content commitments, some research indicates Scope 3 accounting may gain favor.
Reporting for Scope 3 lags far behind Scopes 1 and 2, and “this year’s findings underscore both the scale of the challenge and the growing innovations to address it.” Although more than 40% of companies now track Scope 1 and 2, far fewer report on Scope 3, citing supplier data as the main barrier. About 70% of respondents cited a lack of supplier-specific information as the biggest challenge, followed by fragmented methodology and complex calculations cited by more than half of respondents. In addition, the high cost of digital tools and data privacy concerns further complicate measurement, respondents indicated.
“Progress has been made in tracking direct emissions, but supplier engagement, methodological clarity, and financing mechanisms remain critical bottlenecks,” the report said. “Where companies do succeed, they leverage digital traceability, standardized accounting, and industry collaborations to move the needle.”
The survey also found benefits in industry collaboration, with 80% of respondents reporting gains in emissions data quality, supplier alignment, shared expertise, cost efficiencies and policy influence. However, practical and logistical barriers can slow collaboration, with the most common being cost and resource constraints, standardization issues, data-sharing concerns and differences in priorities.
Sustainability targets so far defy policy shifts
Despite the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement earlier this year, only 15% of responding companies reported reduced sustainability commitments, while 12% increased and 73% reported no change.
“Corporate sustainability strategies might operate independently of national climate policy shifts, driven by factors beyond federal political positions, or they might use the strictest regulation that needs to be met to drive their organization’s goals.”
Even so, “only a minority succeed in translating this conviction into daily operations that deliver measurable results, leaving a persistent gap between strategy and execution.”
Predictably, regional differences exist. In Europe, regulatory measures act as the primary driver, while in North America, financial concerns, investor expectations, C-suite directives and requirements from European customers are more influential for company strategy than government mandates.
In Europe, 60% of businesses said they faced pressure to improve supply chain sustainability, compared to 46% in North America. Europe’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, along with other EU regulations, directly affects European businesses and indirectly affects non-EU companies with global subsidiaries and international value chains.
The regional differences extended beyond policy, however. North American businesses lean into financial data and industry averages, “an approach that offers broad comparability but fails to reflect supplier-specific improvements.”
In contrast, European businesses rely more on supplier data, “reflecting deeper engagement with upstream partners.”
In addition, half of North American respondents still rely primarily on spreadsheets, compared to just 33% in Europe, where companies are adopting life cycle assessment tools and custom solutions.
However, the economics of sustainability present a major headwind, with more than half of respondents reporting unclear return on investment as the top barrier to Scope 3 reduction, followed by high implementation costs and a lack of influence over suppliers. Small and medium businesses especially felt this challenge, as nearly half said customers may not pay more for “greener” products, while 43% also lack the knowledge, 40% lack the resources, or 31% lack the demand signals needed to justify investment, the MIT survey found.
Even so, both regions show optimism, the report said, with more than half of all respondents indicating high confidence in meeting sustainability goals, with European firms slightly more confident than their North American counterparts.
