Supplier Engagement for Diversified Supply Chains: How to move from data collection to collaborative reduction

Setting the stage to shift from data collection to actionable reduction

‍

Q: Why is corporate-level emissions data no longer sufficient for achieving our decarbonization goals? 

Corporate-level averages often fail to reflect the reality of your specific procurement patterns. For example, if a supplier has solar panels at a facility in Germany, but you source from their facility in Italy, the corporate average is irrelevant to your footprint. To make meaningful reductions, you need product-level data from the actual facility where your goods are produced. Furthermore, high-level corporate data is not actionable for category managers who need to make day-to-day sourcing decisions.

‍

Q: How many suppliers should we start with when launching a program? 

Many companies will begin with small, focused pilots of approximately 20 to 30 or up to 50 key suppliers. These pilots allow for close collaboration and deep engagement to refine the process. However, to meet ambitious net-zero targets, organizations must eventually look toward scaling these efforts to 250, 500, or even 5,000 suppliers on an annual basis. The goal is to move from small-scale success to a full-scale, automated approach. When considering your supplier group, it is critical to look at your suppliers’ contribution to your overall emissions, selecting a group that will cover a significant portion of your footprint. A further consideration is how many materials to request from each: you may consider again selecting a prioritized list, so that your top contributors are covered, but you are not over-burdening your suppliers with an endless request. 

‍

Q: How do we handle "survey fatigue" and ensure high participation among our suppliers? 

Survey fatigue is a significant barrier caused by asking suppliers for data they simply do not have, such as complex Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs). To combat this, sustainability and procurement teams should adopt a structured, maturity-based engagement model. This means equipping less mature suppliers with intuitive tools to calculate their first corporate or product carbon footprint, while enabling more advanced vendors to submit verified LCAs or granular primary data. Meeting suppliers where they are ensures a clear path to participation for everyone from small vendors to major Tier 1 manufacturers.

‍

Considerations for diversified (food and non-food) supply chains

‍

Q: How do we customize engagement for different supplier types, such as food vs. non-food or materials vs. services?

Effective engagement requires recognizing that not all suppliers are on the same journey or have the same data availability. For food and ingredient suppliers, you must focus on producing high-fidelity Product Carbon Footprints with granular data like regional land-use and economic allocation. These Scope 3 categories often represent the largest risk to net-zero commitments despite appearing smaller on the balance sheet. For non-food materials or services, you might focus on facility-specific data rather than farm-level data. Crucially, you should offer a structured, maturity-based engagement model: ingesting full LCAs from mature Tier 1 suppliers while providing simple calculation tools for smaller vendors who have never heard of Scope 3.

‍

Q: Why is specialized data so critical for food and ingredient supply chains? 

Generalized emission factor databases lack the granularity required for complex food systems, leading to massive discrepancies. For instance, accounting for economic allocation in beef can result in a 7,000% variance between different cuts (e.g., beef stomach vs. steak). Similarly, regional considerations matter: soybean oil from Spain may have higher emissions than one from the Netherlands due to different land-use practices. Only granular, specialized data allows you to claim credit for sustainable sourcing in your Scope 3 reporting, and make more informed decisions with your procurement and sourcing teams.

‍

Operationalizing supplier data

‍

Q: How do we ensure that data collected from thousands of different suppliers is comparable? 

Data consistency is a fundamental challenge because different suppliers often use different methodologies and system boundaries. To address this, organizations must move toward a shared methodology and shared understanding of what data is required. The most effective programs use platforms that harmonize supplier data to ensure a true "apples-to-apples" comparison and utilize both automated and expert-reviewed checks to validate incoming data quality.

‍

Q: Why is it necessary to bring supplier carbon data into our ERP or procurement systems? 

Sustainability data often "collects dust" in isolated spreadsheets, disconnected from commercial decisions. To bridge this gap, carbon must be treated as a primary KPI alongside price and quality. Integrating this data into pre-existing data structures—such as ERPs or procurement systems—enables category managers and sourcing teams to evaluate trade-offs in real time, reward lower-carbon suppliers in competitive bids, and anchor carbon expectations within contractual negotiations. Ultimately, integration moves carbon from a reporting exercise to an operational lever that drives measurable emissions reduction.

‍

Q: How can I design and launch an aligned incentives program with sourcing and procurement to drive decarbonization across my organization?

To get an incentive program off the ground, you must first build the confidence of your sourcing and procurement teams. It may be a hurdle for them to link their personal bonuses or performance to sustainability if the data feels "generic" or outside their control.

1. Get to the BOM Level: Break emissions data down to the Bill of Materials (BOM) level so it matches the line items category managers actually buy.
2. Identify Opportunities: Show the category manager exactly which suppliers have the highest improvement potential.
3. Link to KPIs: Once you have activity-level data, you can set credible category targets. Category managers are much more likely to accept sustainability-linked incentives when they have the data to prove they can actually influence the outcome.

‍

The shift to reduction: working with your suppliers to achieve decarbonization

‍

Q: What specific strategies can help us move from simple data collection to collaborative reduction? 

To move beyond simple data collection, sustainability experts must shift from being "data requesters" to "decarbonization partners." Key strategies include:

• Provide "Intervention Support": Don't just set targets; use granular data to suggest specific technical shifts (e.g., regenerative ag or fuel switching) and provide the ROI data to justify the investment.
• Disaggregate the Energy Mix: Identify if emissions stem from electricity or thermal energy. This allows for "Mars-style" innovations, such as procuring renewable energy on behalf of your suppliers.
• Bridge the "Commodity Hole": Use primary data to gain visibility into Tier 2 and Tier 3 hotspots, like fertilizer or methane, allowing you to influence sourcing criteria at the very start of the chain.
• Embed Carbon as a KPI: Move carbon data into RFPs and Quarterly Business Reviews. When a supplier’s carbon performance impacts their contract, reduction becomes a business imperative rather than an elective.
• Offer Mutual Value: Provide suppliers with validated Product Carbon Footprints (PCFs) or benchmarking they can use for other customers. Reducing their reporting burden incentivizes long-term transparency.

‍

Q: How can we address emission "hotspots" that are hidden deep in Tier 2 or Tier 3 of the supply chain? 

In the food system, products become commoditized very quickly (e.g., wheat in a silo or cattle in a feedlot), making visibility difficult. However, by moving to supplier-specific Scope 3 data, companies can identify hotspots way upstream—such as nitrogen fertilizer use or methane production in cattle backgrounding. Identifying these specific levers allows companies to be more strategic about where they engage. For instance, one livestock company focused specifically on feed production to lower their carbon intensity, which ultimately created a stronger commercial proposition for retailers and consumers.

‍

Q: What is the benefit for the supplier in this new collaborative model? 

To ensure successful annual engagement, the process must provide tangible value back to the supplier. For many suppliers, this model accelerates sustainability capabilities they may not have had the time or resources to build internally. Benefits can include giving them a free, validated PCF they can use for their own reporting and customer requests, incentives in their contracting, providing industry benchmarking to see where they stand, or offering specific abatement recommendations. When suppliers see an ROI for their effort, whether through improved reporting readiness, stronger customer relationships, or long-term value creation, they are less likely to dread the annual request and more likely to engage in the long-term collaboration needed for year-over-year reductions.