Your Biggest Customer Is About to Require Carbon Data. Here's What Happens If You Can't Provide It.

By Allan Traicoff

In Q4 2025, a mid-sized food packaging manufacturer learned they had 90 days to provide verified Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) data for their materials—or lose a multi-million dollar contract with a Fortune 500 food company. The reason wasn't environmental activism. It was mathematics. Their buyer's validated science-based target for 2030 made high-carbon suppliers mathematically incompatible with their compliance requirements.

This wasn't an isolated incident. It's the leading edge of a fundamental shift in how global commerce works.

If you only read the headlines in 2025, you might believe the corporate climate movement is collapsing. Anti-ESG political campaigns, the quiet removal of sustainability language from annual reports, and high-profile departures from voluntary climate alliances paint a clear picture: companies are retreating.

But if you look at the purchase orders, supplier contracts, and audited data flows of the global economy, you'll see something completely different.

The Numbers Don't Lie: Climate Action is Accelerating, Not Retreating

According to PwC's 2025 State of Decarbonization Report, 37% of companies increased their climate ambition in the last year. Only 16% pulled back. More telling: these commitments survived CEO transitions. Climate action is no longer about individual leaders—it's embedded in corporate strategy.

The "Great Delisting" of 2024, where thousands of companies were removed from Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validation lists? Critics called it an exodus. The data tells a different story. As of mid-2025, the number of companies with validated science-based targets has tripled compared to the end of 2023. These targets now cover over 40% of global market capitalization and a quarter of global revenue.

The sheer volume of disclosure has exploded. In 2025, over 23,100 companies disclosed environmental data through CDP—effectively ending any debate about whether corporate transparency is fading.

This is not a retreat. This is a recalibration.

The marketing noise has decreased, but the gears of implementation are grinding harder than ever. We've traded easy pledges for audited math. And for middle-of-the-value-chain (MotVC) companies—manufacturers, logistics providers, agricultural processors—this shift represents a profound change in the rules of the game.

The pressure is no longer about saving the planet or looking good in a press release. It's about keeping your contracts.

From Nice-to-Have to Deal-Breaker: The Scope 3 Procurement Mandate

Large corporations have largely solved their operational emissions challenges through efficiency and renewable energy procurement. To hit their validated Net-Zero targets, they must now address the 90%+ of their emissions that sit in their supply chain.

According to CDP's Strengthening the Chain report, corporate supply chain emissions (Scope 3) are on average 26 times greater than operational emissions. This massive disparity is creating what PwC describes as a "Ripple Effect"—large companies are no longer just asking suppliers for data; they're incorporating climate commitment requirements into contractual agreements.

Real Companies, Real Requirements

Unilever is engaging 291 suppliers representing 42% of their Scope 3 emissions through their Supplier Climate Programme. To be considered a climate leader, suppliers must:

• Set SBTi-aligned targets

• Publicly report progress

• Provide Product Carbon Footprint data

Suppliers meeting these criteria can sign Unilever's Climate Promise. Those who can't? They're watching competitors capture the premium contracts.

Walmart's Project Gigaton achieved its goal of reducing one billion metric tons of supply chain emissions six years early in February 2024. But the program didn't stop. It evolved. To achieve "Giga Guru" status—Walmart's top supplier recognition—companies now must:

• Report complete Scope 1 and 2 emissions footprints (95% complete for each scope)

• Detail renewable electricity consumption

• Demonstrate progress across at least three emission reduction pillars

• Show which Scope 3 categories are most relevant to their operations

As of 2025, over 5,900 suppliers representing 75% of Walmart's sales participate in the program. Industry commentary suggests that reporting quality and transparency are increasingly factored into procurement decisions.

Apple has committed over 300 suppliers—representing more than 90% of its direct manufacturing spend—to use 100% renewable electricity for Apple production by 2030. This isn't a voluntary program with optional participation. Apple ties involvement in its Supplier Clean Energy Program to contract renewal. Suppliers unable or unwilling to comply risk losing business with one of the world's most valuable companies.

These aren't sustainability initiatives. They're procurement requirements.

How This Plays Out in Your Sector

Food & Agriculture

If you supply cocoa, soy, palm oil, or other forest-risk commodities to companies like Mars, Nestlé, or Unilever, and you can't prove deforestation-free sourcing back to 2020, you're not just at risk—you may already be disqualified.

Under the SBTi FLAG (Forest, Land, and Agriculture) guidance, companies in land-heavy value chains must set specific targets for land-based emissions. The guidance imposes a strict no-deforestation commitment. There is no wiggle room for "mostly deforestation-free" in a validated science-based target.

The newly released GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals (LSR) Standard (January 2026) allows buyers to count soil carbon sequestration in their financial inventories—but only if suppliers provide physical traceability to the specific land management unit. If you cannot prove your soil is sequestering carbon through regenerative practices and prove exactly where that soil is, you're withholding a financial asset from your customer's balance sheet. Your commodity becomes less valuable than your competitor's—not because of crop quality, but because of data quality.

Logistics & Transportation

Maersk's 2040 net-zero target means by 2030, they'll need verified emissions data from every trucking and warehousing partner. If you can't provide Scope 1 and 2 intensity metrics, you won't make the RFP shortlist.

Manufacturing & Materials

Leading steel and chemical manufacturers are requiring suppliers to submit carbon intensity data as part of technical specifications. Your product quality is now inseparable from your carbon quality.

According to CDP data, suppliers were 52% more likely to reduce their annual emissions when their buyers offered financial incentives compared to those who only received training. The business case is clear: companies estimate potential financial losses from supply chain climate risks at approximately $162 billion—almost three times the $56 billion it would cost to mitigate them.

The Timeline: When This Becomes Your Problem

2026-2027: Major buyers finalize supplier scorecards and carbon tracking systems. You might not have received the questionnaire yet, but it's coming.

2028: Contract renewals begin incorporating carbon KPIs as standard terms. Non-compliance starts affecting bid eligibility.

2029: Suppliers unable to provide verified data begin losing competitive bids to those who can.

2030: Hard targets hit. Mass disqualifications begin for suppliers whose emissions profiles make buyers' targets mathematically impossible.

Your Client's Target Is Now Your Liability

This is the critical message for MotVC companies: If a major client like Unilever, Walmart, or Apple has a committed SBTi target for 2030, they mathematically cannot keep buying from you if your emissions remain flat.

The cost of inaction is moving from reputational damage to financial loss. PwC notes that 83% of companies are already investing in R&D for low-carbon products because products featuring sustainability attributes can command a revenue premium of 6% to 25%+. Those who cannot provide these attributes will be relegated to selling generic commodities at lower margins while competitors capture high-value contracts.

Despite the high stakes, many companies are unprepared. PwC found that while engagement is high, execution is lagging. Only 54% of companies are on track to hit their Scope 3 targets. This widespread failure is exactly why buyers are about to get more aggressive. Gentle encouragement hasn't worked fast enough. To close the gap before 2030, buyers will have to ruthlessly prune their supply chains, cutting off suppliers who are dragging down their averages.

The Carbon Data Paradox: Silence Isn't Stopping, It's Working

You might be thinking: "My customer hasn't mentioned this yet."

That's because they're still building their measurement systems. But here's what's happening behind the scenes:

According to CDP's 2025 data, over 270 major corporate buyers are actively engaging suppliers through CDP's Supply Chain Program, representing trillions in procurement spend. These buyers are already collecting data, building scorecards, and preparing procurement policies.

The fact that you haven't received the questionnaire yet doesn't mean you won't. It means you're about to.

What Makes This Different: Regulatory Momentum Meets Procurement Power

The regulatory wave is forcing this data into the open. California's SB 253, the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the ISSB global baseline standard are moving climate disclosure from voluntary sustainability reports to mandatory financial filings.

For the supply chain, the message is simple: The era of green as a premium feature is ending. Low-carbon is becoming the standard license to operate.

You can ignore the politics of climate change. You can ignore the environmental arguments. But you cannot ignore the procurement requirements of your largest customer.

What You Need to Do Now

1. Audit your current emissions data capability. Can you calculate Scope 1 and 2 emissions for your operations? Can you provide Product Carbon Footprint data at the material or product level?
   

2. Map your exposure. Which of your customers have published SBTi targets? What percentage of your revenue depends on contracts with companies that have committed Net-Zero goals?
   

3. Assess the cost of compliance vs. the cost of inaction. What would it cost to implement carbon tracking systems? What's at risk if you lose your top three contracts?
   

4. Investigate industry-specific requirements. Are you in a FLAG sector? Do you handle forest-risk commodities? What are the specific data requirements for your industry?
   

5. Build internal alignment. This isn't just a sustainability issue—it's a revenue risk. Your CFO and procurement team need to be at the table.

The companies that survive this transition will be the ones who recognize that carbon data is no longer a "nice-to-have" for winning awards—it's a "must-have" for winning contracts.

Conclusion: The Bridge With No U-Turn

We are crossing a bridge that has no U-turn sign.

The silence you hear in the media isn't the sound of companies stopping. It's the sound of companies working. The retreat narrative is a myth. What we're witnessing is the Great Recalibration—a shift from marketing pledges to mathematical requirements, from voluntary disclosures to contractual mandates.

For middle-of-the-value-chain companies, 2026 is the year of implementation. The procurement wave is here. Your carbon data will determine your contracts.

If you want the contract, you need the carbon data.

Allan Traicoff writes about the intersection of climate policy, procurement, and supply chain transformation. This analysis is based on comprehensive review of data from PwC's 2025 State of Decarbonization Report, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Trend Tracker 2025, CDP's 2024-2025 Supply Chain Reports, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and direct supplier program documentation from Unilever, Walmart, and Apple.

Key Intelligence Pillars

Sales Enablement: Tools and frameworks to empower the commercial frontline.

Market Credibility: Navigating the evolving standards of SBTi and Scope 3.

Narrative Strategy: Building commercially relevant stories that move beyond reporting.

GTM Architecture: Scaling climate-tech through rigorous market positioning.

Get the quarterly briefing

Direct insights on commercializing sustainability, delivered to your inbox.