Retain and win business by meeting retailer demand and setting realistic targets with accurate data
There’s been a noticeable shift in how retailers are approaching carbon. It’s no longer sitting in sustainability updates or annual reviews. It’s showing up in commercial conversations, often without much warning, and it tends to land with more weight than people expect.
In some cases, setting targets through the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is a nice-to-have, but in others it’s explicit. At least one major multinational retailer is requiring new and existing suppliers to set targets via SBTi, or risk delisting. For one food producer we’ve spoken with, that represents a 15.9% risk to their annual revenue, putting a £70m retail contract into focus. Not a theoretical risk. A real one, with a deadline attached.
So, what is the SBTi? And how can food producers of all sizes prepare and validate their target to protect their bottom line?
What SBTi actually is (and what it isn’t)
The Science Based Targets initiative is a framework that validates whether a company’s emissions reduction targets align with climate science. In simple terms, it’s about committing to reduce emissions in line with a 1.5°C pathway.
It’s worth separating two things that often get blurred together. SBTi is about targets. It’s not about how you calculate emissions at a product level. It doesn’t require Product Carbon Footprints. But in practice, the two become closely linked.
For larger food and beverage producers, SBTi means setting targets across Scope 1, 2 and 3. That includes emissions across the entire value chain, which is where things get complex. For smaller businesses, there’s a simplified route. SMEs can set Scope 1 and 2 targets and commit to reducing Scope 3 without needing to define a full target.
The SME definition is fairly specific:
Fewer than 250 employees
Turnover under €50m
Total assets under €25m
Less than 10,000 tonnes CO2e across Scope 1 and location-based Scope 2
So technically, most businesses can “have an SBT”. The difference is in what’s required to get there.
Why do retailers care about this?
Scope 3 is where most of the emissions sit for a retailer. Not in their stores or logistics, but in the products they sell. Everything upstream. Agriculture, ingredients, processing, packaging. All of it lands in Scope 3, and most of it is outside their direct control. So if a retailer is expected to report and reduce emissions credibly, they are relying on the data coming from food and beverage producers to do it.
That pressure isn’t just coming from SBTi. Procurement itself is starting to change. Sustainability metrics are being written into buying frameworks, not just reported after the fact. The NHS is one example, where suppliers are being assessed on their ability to measure and reduce emissions as part of the commercial process. It’s less about ambition statements and more about whether the data exists, whether it’s consistent, and whether it can be used to make decisions.
Where things could go wrong
Setting a target sounds straightforward. The difficulty sits in what underpins it.
Most food and beverage producers have the majority of their emissions in Scope 3, specifically Category 1: purchased goods and services. Ingredients, agriculture, upstream production. It’s the least visible part of the footprint and the hardest to measure properly.
So most teams fall back on generic databases. Secondary data, industry averages, broad assumptions. It’s often the only practical way to get started.
If you use low-resolution data to set a target, you’re effectively guessing at the baseline. That baseline then defines the reduction pathway. If it’s wrong, the target is either too easy or completely unachievable.
SBTi doesn’t just validate targets once. It expects progress. Miss the target, or fail to show credible movement, and you can be removed. That’s already happened to a number of large brands.
So you end up in a situation where poor data doesn’t just weaken reporting. It creates targets that can’t be met, and that becomes visible externally.
Why product-level data matters
SBTi itself doesn’t require product carbon footprints. But without product-level insight, it’s difficult to understand where emissions actually sit, or what levers exist to reduce them.
Company-level averages don’t tell you much about where change is possible. They flatten everything into a single number. That might be enough to set a target on paper, but it doesn’t help you manage toward it.
Product-level data starts to show where emissions are concentrated. Which ingredients drive the footprint. Where sourcing decisions make a difference. What changes are marginal, and what actually moves the number.
Without that, reduction pathways tend to be based on assumptions rather than actuals.
How Mondra supports this (depending on where you are)
Different food and beverage producers come at this from very different starting points. There isn’t a single route through it.
For teams that already have in-house Scope 3 models, the challenge is often data quality rather than structure. Mondra’s DaaS sits underneath that, providing more granular and consistent secondary data. The aim isn’t to replace existing models, but to improve the inputs so targets are based on something closer to reality.
For those building out product carbon footprints, the platform takes on more of the work. Generating PCFs across a portfolio, applying a consistent methodology, and keeping those footprints updated as sourcing and inputs change. This reduces reliance on static datasets and one-off calculations.
For organisations trying to move from target setting to actual reduction, the need shifts again. Understanding which changes will deliver measurable impact, and which won’t. Mapping near-term and long-term pathways that are technically possible and commercially viable. That’s usually where platform data and professional support come together.
Some teams only need one of those pieces. Others end up needing all three, just not at the same time.
How Mondra supports this (depending on where you are)
Different food and beverage producers start from very different places. In most cases, the challenge isn’t one thing, it’s a mix of data quality, structure, and how decisions get made from it.
For teams with in-house Scope 3 models, the issue is usually the data underneath them. Mondra’s DaaS improves the quality and consistency of inputs so outputs are based on something closer to reality, without needing to replace what’s already there.
For those building product carbon footprints, the platform takes on more of the workload. Generating PCFs across a portfolio, applying a consistent methodology, and keeping them updated as sourcing changes. Less reliance on static datasets, fewer one-off calculations.
The complexity tends to increase when target setting turns into delivery. Understanding what actually reduces emissions, and how to move from a baseline to something workable. That’s where data alone tends to fall short.
This is where the partnership with Zero Carbon Company comes in. Together, we combine product-level data with the professional support needed to define and deliver SBTi targets.
In practice, that means tracking emissions across Scope 1, 2 and 3 in one system, linking operations, energy, and supply chains into a single view. It also means turning that data into prioritised reduction actions, and maintaining consistent baselines and progress tracking over time.
What gets missed
SBTi is often treated as a compliance exercise. Set the target, get validation, move on.
In practice, the harder part comes after that. Maintaining data quality. Tracking progress. Explaining changes. Responding when things don’t move as expected.
And all of that tends to come back to the same place. How the data was built in the first place.
If you want a quick sense of where your data would hold up, the PCF Reality Check is here: https://www.mondra.com/pcf-reality-check
