Supply chain organizations continue prioritizing sustainability despite economic uncertainty and shifting global policies, with 85% of companies maintaining or increasing their environmental efforts according to new research from MIT's Center for Transportation and Logistics. However, the study reveals a critical implementation gap: while firms express strong commitment to emissions reduction, most lack the measurement systems required to quantify progress accurately. This disconnect between intention and execution creates strategic risk for supply chain executives facing increasing regulatory pressure, investor scrutiny, and stakeholder expectations around environmental performance—particularly as reporting requirements expand to encompass Scope 3 emissions representing roughly 75% of total corporate carbon footprints.
Key Takeaways
- 85% of companies maintain or increase supply chain sustainability efforts despite economic uncertainty and policy shifts
- European firms respond primarily to regulatory mandates while North American organizations prioritize investor expectations and competitive pressures
- 70% of firms lack sufficient supplier data to accurately calculate Scope 3 emissions representing 75% of total corporate carbon footprints
- 50% of North American firms still use spreadsheets for emissions tracking versus 32% of European organizations using lifecycle assessment tools
- Operational efficiency improvements deliver immediate emissions reductions and cost savings without requiring new technology investments
Regional Differences Drive Distinct Approaches to Sustainability
The sixth annual "Sustainability Still Matters" report, based on responses from 1,203 professionals across 97 countries, identifies fundamental differences in what motivates corporate sustainability action. For European-based firms, government mandates such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive—which requires companies to publish regular environmental impact assessments—serve as the primary driver. North American organizations respond more directly to investor priorities and competitive pressures than regulatory requirements.
"In Europe the pressure primarily comes more from regulation, but in the U.S. it comes more from investors, or from competitors," notes Josué Velázquez Martínez, research scientist and director of the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab. This distinction matters for supply chain technology strategy: European operations must prioritize compliance-focused measurement systems that satisfy specific regulatory reporting formats, while North American implementations should emphasize investor-grade metrics demonstrating financial materiality of sustainability performance.
For freight operations managing global supply chains, this regional variation creates implementation complexity. Organizations cannot deploy uniform sustainability measurement approaches across jurisdictions—systems satisfying European regulatory disclosure requirements may not address North American investor information needs, while approaches optimized for competitive differentiation in U.S. markets may inadequately support European compliance obligations. Supply chain leaders must either develop region-specific measurement frameworks or select platforms flexible enough to accommodate varying stakeholder requirements across operating territories.
The Scope 3 Measurement Crisis Undermines Emissions Reduction
While approximately 40% of surveyed firms closely track Scope 1 emissions (directly produced) and Scope 2 emissions (from purchased energy), far fewer accurately measure Scope 3 emissions—those produced across value chains including supply chain activities involved in producing, transporting, using, and disposing of products. This measurement gap creates strategic blindness: Scope 3 typically accounts for 75% of aggregate firm emissions, meaning organizations lacking comprehensive measurement systems cannot identify their largest environmental impacts or prioritize reduction efforts effectively.
The research reveals 70% of firms report insufficient supplier data to accurately calculate total supply chain greenhouse gas impact. This data availability challenge stems from multiple factors: smaller suppliers often lack measurement capacity, multi-tier supply chains obscure upstream emissions, and standardized reporting protocols remain inconsistent across industries and regions. For freight operations specifically, calculating total emissions requires granular data about carrier fuel consumption, equipment utilization, route efficiency, and modal split—information that traditional freight audit processes don't systematically capture.
However, the measurement challenge extends beyond data availability to analytical sophistication. The MIT study finds 50% of North American firms still use spreadsheets for emissions tabulation, often employing simplified calculations that correlate emissions to basic economic activity rather than actual operational characteristics. By contrast, only 32% of European firms rely on spreadsheet-based approaches, with most having adopted life cycle assessment software providing more accurate emissions estimates from material extraction through post-use disposal.
"You get what you measure," Velázquez Martínez emphasizes. "If you measure poorly, you're going to get poor decisions that most likely won't drive the reductions you're expecting. Firms pay a lot of attention to metrics in their financials, but in sustainability they're often using simplistic measurements." This observation applies directly to freight operations: organizations estimating transportation emissions through generic industry averages rather than actual carrier performance data, shipment characteristics, and routing efficiency cannot identify specific optimization opportunities or validate that operational changes produce claimed environmental benefits.
Transportation Technology Transitions Create Strategic Uncertainty
Survey responses reveal continued uncertainty about optimal pathways for reducing freight transportation emissions. Some organizations prioritize biofuels as near-term fossil fuel alternatives, others invest heavily in electric vehicle fleets, while additional firms await hydrogen-powered vehicle infrastructure development. This technology fragmentation reflects genuine uncertainty about which approaches will prove economically viable and environmentally effective for long-haul freight operations—the backbone of global supply chains.
Electric vehicles demonstrate clear environmental benefits for last-mile delivery and regional distribution, but range limitations and charging infrastructure gaps constrain applicability for long-haul freight. Hydrogen-powered vehicles offer theoretical advantages for heavy-duty applications but lack established refueling networks and face production cost challenges. Biofuels integrate with existing equipment but require careful lifecycle analysis to ensure overall emissions reduction versus fossil fuel alternatives. Supply chain leaders cannot definitively select winning technologies based on current information—they must develop flexible strategies accommodating multiple pathways as infrastructure and economics evolve.
Despite technology uncertainty, Velázquez Martínez notes that "transportation has made a lot of progress in general," referencing increased acceptance of alternative power sources across freight modes. For supply chain operations, this progress creates opportunities beyond vehicle technology adoption. Organizations can achieve substantial emissions reductions through operational optimization: improving load factors to reduce empty miles, consolidating shipments to minimize trip frequency, selecting efficient routes that balance time and fuel consumption, and shifting freight to lower-emission modes where service requirements permit.
Operational Efficiency Delivers Immediate Environmental and Financial Returns
Beyond technology transitions, supply chain sustainability advances through better utilization of existing infrastructure. Competitive pressure to reduce costs creates natural alignment between environmental and financial objectives—spending less on fuel typically means lower emissions while improving profitability. Organizations that systematically analyze freight operations to identify efficiency opportunities often discover substantial reduction potential without requiring capital investment in new technologies.
"There is always a need to revise traditional ways of operating to find opportunities for more efficiency," Velázquez Martínez observes. For freight operations, this efficiency focus translates to specific actions: consolidating less-than-truckload shipments to increase vehicle utilization, optimizing warehouse locations to reduce transportation distances, coordinating inbound and outbound flows to eliminate empty backhauls, and selecting carriers based on operational efficiency metrics rather than solely on rate. These operational improvements deliver immediate measurable benefits while establishing data foundations that enable accurate Scope 3 emissions tracking—addressing both the measurement gap and actual environmental impact simultaneously.
Organizations implementing comprehensive freight audit processes that capture granular shipment data, carrier performance metrics, and route characteristics position themselves to both measure Scope 3 emissions accurately and identify specific optimization opportunities. When freight data is normalized across currencies, measurement units, and regional formats, supply chain teams can compare emissions intensity across lanes, carriers, and modes—identifying where operational changes deliver greatest environmental and financial impact.
Assess your supply chain Scope 3 measurement maturity. Contact Trax to understand how comprehensive freight audit and normalized data management enable accurate emissions tracking while identifying operational efficiency opportunities across global transportation networks.