Blog
Carbon Data Is Key to Scope 3 Decarbonisation
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated:
Reliable carbon data is the procurement tool that unlocks Scope 3 decarbonisation, EcoVadis and Kearney find. Their Carbon Action Report, based on 56,061 company assessments between July 2025 and June 2026, shows supply-chain emissions typically account for 70 to 90% of a company’s footprint and that low‑reliability supplier data can understate Scope 3 by as much as 2.7 times. For procurement teams this means measurement, verification and targeted engagement — not broad reporting exercises — are the levers that shift purchasing decisions, concentrate effort on a small number of high-impact suppliers and speed operational reductions.
This report reinforces a simple truth: better data leads to better decisions – and better decisions lead to faster action.
Angela Hultberg, Global Head of Sustainability at Kearney
Key takeaways
- EcoVadis and Kearney analysed carbon-performance data from 56,061 companies assessed between July 2025 and June 2026.
- Supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions typically make up 70 to 90% of a company’s total footprint, per the Science Based Targets initiative.
- Companies using low-reliability supplier data may understate their Scope 3 footprint by as much as 2.7 times, the report finds.
- The report shows the top 10% of suppliers account for 95% of reported Scope 1&2 emissions network-wide and are connected to 72 buyers on average.
Table of contents
Why reliable carbon data matters for Scope 3 procurement
Scope 3 emissions are the bulk of most corporate footprints: the Science Based Targets initiative puts the share at 70 to 90%. That scale makes procurement decisions the single most direct corporate lever to cut upstream emissions, but it also exposes procurement to measurement risk when supplier data is poor.
EcoVadis and Kearney traced carbon-performance scores from 56,061 companies assessed on the Carbon Action Manager platform between July 2025 and June 2026. Their analysis finds two separate but related problems: first, many companies rely on low‑reliability or self-reported figures; second, that unreliability systematically underestimates true upstream emissions. The report states that low-reliability data can understate Scope 3 by as much as 2.7 times, and it contrasts median Scope 3 multipliers of 2.5x for lower-quality data against 6.8x for high‑reliability or verified data.
For procurement teams the operational consequence is clear: buying decisions made on weak carbon numbers will misallocate capital and lower the odds of meeting corporate targets. The report frames reliable carbon information not as a compliance output but as a procurement asset capable of revealing hotspots, prioritising suppliers and limiting exposure to climate-driven disruption.
Prioritise the high-impact suppliers, not every vendor at once
The report shows emissions and buyer connections are highly concentrated. The top 10% of suppliers account for 95% of reported Scope 1&2 emissions network-wide and are connected to 72 buyers on average, versus 35 for other suppliers. That concentration creates a practical route for procurement: focus verification, contractual terms and support on a small set of high-impact, highly connected vendors and the visibility and reductions propagate across many buyers.
Engagement amplifies the effect. Only 7% of companies currently engage suppliers on carbon, yet those that do are about six times more likely to hit science-based targets. Companies with verified operational data are roughly eight times more likely to be engaging suppliers at all, with 37% of verified-data companies engaging suppliers versus 4.5% among low-reliability peers. Examples in the report show how this works in practice: Atos embeds supplier sustainability oversight into procurement with biweekly cross-team meetings and targets roughly 200 key global vendors for high-touch engagement; BD sends manufacturing experts on-site to identify practical reductions; Accor runs a three-pillar Measure, Reduce and Promote framework, awarding supplier recognition to accelerate progress.
The implication for procurement is procedural: combine verified measurement with contract clauses, tailored support and incentives rather than blanket reporting demands that many early-stage suppliers cannot meet. The report warns that forcing immature vendors to report before they have measurement capability tends to create low-quality data and erode trust.
From company-level scores to product-level carbon footprints
EcoVadis and Kearney identify product-level carbon footprints as the next step in supply-chain decarbonisation. Product-level data lets buyers evaluate the embedded carbon of specific materials, components and products and shift sourcing decisions from rough estimates to targeted interventions at the source.
Moving to item-level footprints requires technical investment and broad alignment: suppliers need capability upgrades, buyers must adopt common methodologies and industry data-sharing is essential. The report notes that organisations doing this already see operational gains: high-reliability Scope 1&2 data is linked to 50% faster operational emissions reductions. Automotive and manufacturing sectors — where materials and components dominate Scope 3 impacts — stand to gain most from product-level tracking; Volvo Cars, for example, publishes life-cycle assessments and is building item- and component-level tracking into design programs.
Procurement functions should treat product-level metrics as a multi-year programme. Start with the most connected and highest-emitting suppliers, standardise measurement methods in sector pilots, and use verified data to convert measurement into contract terms and supplier development plans.
| Company | Sector / role | Procurement action | Notable detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitachi Rail | Rail / transport | Embed supplier sustainability within procurement | Places Head of Supplier Sustainability inside procurement; assessing product carbon footprints |
| Atos | Technology / services | Cross-department oversight and targeted outreach | Biweekly procurement–sustainability meetings; ~200 key global vendors receive high-touch support |
| BD | Healthcare / manufacturing | Operational support and preferred‑supplier requirements | Uses manufacturing experts for on-site reduction opportunities; ties SBTs to preferred status |
| Accor | Hospitality | Tiered supplier programme | Three-pillar Measure, Reduce, Promote framework with supplier recognition |
| Volvo Cars | Automotive | Integrate carbon into design and supplier benchmarks | Publishes life-cycle assessments and tracks item- and component-level emissions |
| Colt Technology Services | Digital infrastructure | Contractual mandates and sector piloting | Requires top emitters to set SBTs; participating in a Net Impact Methodology pilot |
Outlook — the case for data-led procurement
The case for
- Verified supplier data concentrates effort: improving data for a few high-impact suppliers lifts Scope 3 visibility for many buyers, and firms with verified data have three times as many buyer connections as those with low-reliability data.
- High-reliability Scope 1&2 reporting is linked to 50% faster operational emissions reductions, suggesting that investment in measurement can shorten the path to near-term decarbonisation.
The case against
- Pushing immature suppliers to report before they can measure tends to produce bad data and erode trust, which undermines engagement and slows progress.
- Product-level footprints and sector-wide alignment require sustained investment and common methodologies; without coordination those efforts risk fragmentation and inconsistent reporting.
What to be careful about
- Procurement decisions based on low‑reliability data can understate Scope 3 by as much as 2.7 times, misdirecting capital and undermining target tracking.
- Forcing early-stage suppliers to report before capability exists risks producing poor-quality data and damaging buyer–supplier relationships.
- Concentration in a small set of suppliers (top 10%) creates single points of failure if those suppliers resist engagement or face operational disruption.
- Lack of common product-level methodologies could produce inconsistent footprints that complicate buyer comparisons.
The bottom line
EcoVadis and Kearney make a practical case: measurement and verified supplier data turn Scope 3 from a reporting burden into a procurement advantage. Procurement teams that focus on a small set of high‑impact suppliers, pair verification with tailored supplier support and embed carbon metrics into contracts will unlock faster emissions reductions and greater resilience. The transition to product-level footprints will magnify those gains, but only if procurement, suppliers and industry pilots align on methods and investment.
What to watch
- Watch for publication of results from the sector pilot evaluating a science-based Net Impact Methodology; no date has been set.
- Watch supplier readiness for product-level carbon footprints in your sector; no date has been set.
- Watch for procurement contracts to include verified-data requirements for top suppliers; no date has been set.
Frequently asked questions
How much of a company’s emissions are usually Scope 3?
The Science Based Targets initiative estimates supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions typically represent 70 to 90% of a company’s total footprint.
What dataset underpins the EcoVadis–Kearney findings?
The Carbon Action Report draws on EcoVadis Carbon Action Manager assessments of 56,061 companies between July 2025 and June 2026.
How should procurement prioritise suppliers to cut Scope 3 emissions quickly?
Target the top 10% of suppliers first: the report finds those suppliers account for 95% of reported Scope 1&2 emissions network-wide and are connected to 72 buyers on average, so improving their data and performance lifts visibility across many buyers.
Related reading