Although the study from MIT addressed broader climate-related goals, the results provided insight into what drives companies to pursue sustainability initiatives. | Tada Images/Shutterstock
Key Takeaways:
- Making climate goals public encourages follow-through
- Supplier opacity, unclear calculations hinder Scope 3 reporting
- Global company tarreceives resist shifts in policy
Publicly articulating clear sustainability goals assists ensure company follow-through, according to an annual supply chain study from the Massachutilizetts 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, toreceiveher 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 build 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-building,” the report stated. “This suggests that public accountability creates internal momentum.”
Scope 3 reporting continues to lag
Scope 3 emissions remain both the hugegest challenge and the greatest opportunity, the report authors stated. Scope 3 emissions are indirect, coming from suppliers, transportation, product utilize 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 stated.
Recycled materials contribute to reaching Scope 3 goals by reducing the necessary 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 hugegest 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 built in tracking direct emissions, but supplier engagement, methodological clarity, and financing mechanisms remain critical bottlenecks,” the report stated. “Where companies do succeed, they leverage digital traceability, standardized accounting, and industest collaborations to relocate the necessaryle.”
The survey also found benefits in industest 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 tarreceives 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 alter.
“Corporate sustainability strategies might operate indepconcludeently of national climate policy shifts, driven by factors beyond federal political positions, or they might utilize the strictest regulation that necessarys 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 stated 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 extconcludeed beyond policy, however. North American businesses lean into financial data and industest 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 stated customers may not pay more for “greener” products, while 43% also lack the knowledge, 40% lack the resources, or 31% lack the demand signals necessaryed to justify investment, the MIT survey found.
Even so, both regions display optimism, the report stated, 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.
More stories about research
Leave a Reply