Finding superpollutant hotspots
Some superpollutant hotspots show up across many sectors. Upstream activities with significant superpollutant footprints include raw material extraction (such as fossil fuels), agricultural production, and input processing and manufacturing. Downstream activities concentrate around distribution, retail, consumer use, and disposal. Logistics and transportation have hotspots upstream and downstream.
Figure 5: Common superpollutant value chain hotspots
SOURCE: Carbon Containment Lab analysis, 2026
While each company will have its own superpollutant emissions profile based on its activities and location, some clear industry-wide hotspots demand immediate attention and can be addressed through market-based value-chain interventions. (Addtional information on all of these and how we selected them is in Appendix D):
- Agriculture and organic waste generate superpollutant emissions across multiple sectors and gases. Livestock, crop, and waste-derived methane are integral to food, apparel, and packaging supply chains, while soil, fertilizer, and wastewater emissions extend the footprint to textiles, aquaculture, and manufacturing.
- Immediately actionable: Capturing methane from agricultural waste (manure and other organic material) using anaerobic digesters to produce biogas, which is then converted into Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and sold via Book and Claim certificates.
- Fossil energy includes significant hotspots as well. Upstream natural gas operations release methane that can enter the inventories of oil and gas companies through Scope 1, electricity users through Scope 2, and nearly every other company through Scope 3. Companies could avoid 77 percent of the annual 2.4 Gt of CO2e from methane leaks (roughly 5 percent of all anthropogenic emissions) with existing technology. More than a third of those emissions could be abated at a net profit.121 Coal mining carries a parallel methane footprint, driven by demand from thermal power generation and steel production.122 Diesel and combustion engines of vehicles are major sources of black carbon in construction, utilities, manufacturing, retail, and transportation.
- Immediately actionable: Buy from the supplier with the lowest verified intensity, favoring those with no satellite-observed emissions and membership in programs such as OGMP 2.0.
- F-gases are widespread wherever companies use refrigeration or climate control, including HVAC in data centers and large building portfolios and refrigerants in food and cold chains. Industrial processes (from electronics manufacturing, heavy metal production, and electricity infrastructure) also use and emit highly potent F-gases, including PFCs, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, in aluminum and semiconductor production. Electricity transmission systems likewise use sulfur hexafluoride in transformers and switchgear.
- Immediately actionable: Purchase reclaimed F-gases with forward offtakes, and/or through Book and Claim certificates. Engage suppliers to ensure other F-gases are being properly managed throughout their lifecycle, and that high-GWP gas equipment is phased out in procurement cycles.
- Chemical manufacturing and heavy industrial processes generate high-potency nitrous oxide emissions across multiple sectors and specialized product lines. The production of intermediate bulk nitric and adipic acids and chemical precursors creates a large superpollutant footprint in downstream consumer goods, automotive engineering, and construction markets. Specifically, manufacturing facilities release concentrated nitrous oxide emissions during steps required to make synthetic fertilizers, performance nylon fibers, polyurethane insulation foams, and synthetic dyes. Small volumes of highly potent industrial nitrous oxide emissions also escape into the atmosphere from high-temperature fossil fuel combustion, inside heavy manufacturing machinery, and as part of the silicon wafer electronics fabrication processes.
- Immediately actionable: Specify to “buy clean” materials in key sectors that rely on these chemicals (such as textiles, furniture, mattresses, car powertrains, and the agriculture and food industries.)
- Immediately actionable: Provide financing via insetting projects; and/or engage suppliers on best practices.
Three mechanisms for action
Companies have three main mechanisms for mitigating superpollutants in their value chain: direct operational action, supplier engagement, and market-based instruments. SBTi recognizes all three as allowable pathways for claiming GHG reductions.
The right approach depends on where a hotspot sits on the control spectrum, as well as on a company’s supplier relationships, available contractual mechanisms, budget, and risk appetite. A mitigation measure’s level of maturity also matters: for example, some measures will benefit from more flexible forward offtake agreements while they scale up in new jurisdictions, while others are highly mature and can more easily be integrated into existing supplier engagement relationships and requirements. Appendix B describes how these different mechanisms map to the maturity levels of the mitigation measures.
Figure 6: Three types of value chain action
Direct operational action
Seizing abatement opportunities that sit fully within a company’s own control
Supplier engagement
A company collaborates with its suppliers of products and services to reduce superpollutant emissions
Market-based instruments
Contractual tools that enable companies to claim mitigation outcomes (i.e. reductions or removals). These include insetting, where a company works directly with a supplier, and environmental attribute certificates, which are logged in a third-party registry
At one end of that spectrum is direct operational action. A company could purchase certified low-carbon natural gas, phase out high-GWP refrigerants, upgrade on-site combustion equipment, and capture the reduction directly in its own Scope 1 inventory.
Moving into Scope 2 and 3, a company no longer controls the source directly but can still influence the activities that generate those emissions by providing capital, technical support, or other market incentives.
Supplier engagement fills that gap: through a structured, usually multiyear program, a company works with upstream or downstream partners to mitigate their direct emissions, which then count as a reduction for the company itself.
Insetting is one example of this type of value chain intervention. A company developing mitigation projects directly with an existing business partner is still engaging a supplier, even where accounting convention has historically grouped it with market tools.
Deep in Scope 3, a company may have little or no operational relationship with the source of a superpollutant emission. Market-based instruments—such as environmental attribute certificates and Book and Claim credits—allow a company to support and claim mitigation outcomes achieved elsewhere in the value chain. Reductions are verified by third-party certifiers rather than a direct relationship.
Emerging standards, including the AIM Platform and the upcoming GHG Protocol Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) standards, establish value chain association rules, certification standards, and an appropriate reporting framework.123
Market-based value chain instruments are distinct from voluntary carbon markets. When a company uses these instruments, it claims credit for an outcome tied to its own value chain. For example, a shipment allocated to certified low-carbon fuel remains part of that company’s transportation footprint. Voluntary carbon markets, discussed in the next chapter, work differently: they finance verified mitigation beyond a company’s own footprint entirely, reaching sources that value chain action cannot touch. The two levers are therefore complements, not overlapping paths to the same claim.
Finding corporate superpollutant hotspots
For Scope 1 emissions, identifying hotspots is usually straightforward. Most greenhouse gas footprint and reporting frameworks already require companies to track emissions by gas, making it relatively easy to pinpoint where superpollutants occur. The one exception is ozone-depleting substances, which the GHG Protocol lists as optional to report on (these “non-Paris” gases are governed instead by the Montreal Protocol; despite being classified as optional, they are in fact potent greenhouse gases).
For Scope 2, while some superpollutant emissions are produced during combustion, most of the associated superpollutant impact sits further upstream, landing in Scope 3 Category 3, “fuel- and energy-related activities.” Specifically, Scope 3.3 includes the methane, black carbon, and tropospheric ozone released during the extraction and processing of the coal, oil, and gas burned to generate a company’s purchased electricity.
For Scope 3 emissions, identifying superpollutant hotspots within existing footprinting tools becomes more challenging. Hotspots often occur in low-spend, low-tonnage, or low-energy activities, which means the spend- and energy-based screening and estimation models that companies commonly use to quantify Scope 3 emissions can miss them entirely. Locating these hotspots therefore requires additional detective work and analysis.
A decision framework for action
Corporate decision-making on superpollutants follows the same logic as other climate investments: evaluate risk, cost, and benefit; set targets aligned with strategy; and prioritize the actions that deliver the greatest ROI. To begin, companies can follow five steps.
Step 1: Identify hotspots
A value-chain superpollutant hotspot for a company is the point in a product or company’s value chain where a small volume of a short-lived, high-GWP gas represents an outsized share of near-term warming. A hotspot can be identified by three criteria: 1) size, using a common materiality threshold of 5 percent of Scope 3, consistent with standard assurance practice; 2) influence over reduction potential, where a small number of suppliers account for significant superpollutant emissions or where technology is readily available and at scale; and 3) cost, since some opportunities are available at negative or near-zero net cost and merit priority treatment on that basis alone. Regulatory risk, such as emerging methane rules in oil and gas, is also a consideration.
Step 2: Identify mitigation actions
Table 6 maps common actions to superpollutants and the Scope 3 categories they typically affect. See more about these measures at superpollutantroadmap.org.
Table 6: Superpollutants and relevant Scope 3 categories
| Superpollutant | Value Chain Hotspot | Available Mitigation Actions |
|---|---|---|
| Methane/ Nitrous Oxide | Agriculture and organic waste | Aerobic composting; anaerobic digesters; food-waste diversion; manure management; methanotrophic bioreactors; solid waste separation. |
| Methane | Upstream natural gas and coal mining emissions | Leak detection and repair (LDAR); capture and destruction or oxidization of gas from mines and oil & gas fields; orphaned/marginal well plugging; waste gas utilization for energy/fuel; vapor recovery. |
| On-site power generation, particularly behind-the-meter natural gas for data centers and other large energy users | Select gas suppliers with: lowest verified methane intensity (0.2% or below), no satellite-observed emissions, and/or membership in OGMP 2.0; slip control via turbines; vapor recovery; regular leak detection and repair. | |
| Nitrous Oxide | Soil and fertilizers | 4R nutrient stewardship (codified framework); biochar soil amendments; biological nitrogen fixation (legume rotation/inoculation); enhanced-efficiency fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors; optimized nitrogen-fertilizer use and precision agriculture techniques. Improved soil management to reduce the conditions leading to microbial nitrous oxide formation in agricultural soils. |
| Wastewater processing | Deployment of continuous nitrous oxide sensors coupled with dissolved oxygen/aeration control loops to actively suppress nitrous oxide production in wastewater. | |
| Industrial processes: nitric acid, adipic acid, and caprolactam production (nylon, polyurethane foam, synthetic fiber inputs) | Catalytically decomposing nitrous oxide into nitrogen and oxygen using zeolite- or metal-oxide-based catalysts; Installing emission control technologies or process substitutes to reduce nitrous oxide generated as a by-product of nitric or adipic acid production; Installing catalytic or thermal nitrous oxide tail-gas destruction technology downstream of caprolactam, glyoxal, or glyoxylic acid production process vents, converting nitrous oxide to nitrogen and oxygen before atmospheric release. | |
| F-Gases | Refrigeration; HVAC cooling; industrial production | Equipment installation/retrofit; leak detection and repair; low-GWP refrigerant replacement (drop-ins); refrigerant recovery, reclamation or destruction; cooling load reduction measures. |
| Black Carbon | Industrial combustion; diesel engines; owned and contracted freight fleets and non-road mobile machinery (construction, agricultural equipment) | Vehicle electrification; ultra-low sulfur diesel with particulate filters; hydrogen fuel-cell trucks; heavy-duty truck idle reduction; diesel locomotive retrofits/replacement. |
| Shipping | Alternative marine fuels (such as “low carbon” methanol or ammonia); fuel switch to distillates; exhaust filtration; maritime emission control areas (ECAs); reduce vessel speeds; shore-power at berth; voyage optimization; wind-assisted propulsion. |
Step 3: Calculate emissions savings
Savings are calculated as baseline activity levels multiplied by an emission factor minus project emissions. For oil and gas methane specifically, facility-average emission factors can understate savings relative to directly measured emissions so companies working in this sector should treat modeled baselines as a floor, not a ceiling.
Figure 7: Emissions savings calculation
Savings =
Baseline emissions − Project emissions
Project emissions can be calculated for all individual projects/actions to estimate total savings
- 01
Baseline emissions = activity level without the project × baseline emission factor
This is likely to be the annual greenhouse gas inventory
- 02
Project emissions = activity level with the project × relevant emission factor
Mitigation is a result of lowering the activity level and/or the emission factor
- 03
Therefore, Savings = Baseline emissions − Project emissions
Step 4: Build the business case
Many value chain superpollutant mitigation measures achieve cost savings or are low-cost on a per-ton basis—some examples can be seen in Table 6. Two tools are widely used to shortlist actions: an impact/effort matrix and a marginal abatement cost curve.
Placing actions in a two-by-two matrix with axes of impact and effort groups actions by expected reduction and implementation difficulty, cost, and time.
Table 7: Impact/effort matrix
If there is appetite to conduct a more detailed assessment, generating a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) will lend quantitative support to the cost component of an effort. A MACC plots reduction potential in metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year year against marginal cost per MTCO2e. Actions to the left of the curve’s inflection point are the lowest cost, and those below the x-axis pay for themselves outright, making them no-regrets moves for corporate actors.
For example, the Carbon Containment Lab generated the following marginal abatement cost curve for cooling-related emission reduction measures in the commercial real estate sector in the U.S. and China (Figure 8).125 This was modeled using GWP-100, so near-term benefits are conservatively stated. Economically attractive mitigation measures have the potential to reduce total cumulative commercial cooling emissions by 45 percent, representing some 5.7 Gt CO2e of avoided emissions from 2026 to 2060. A subset of these measures generates cost savings. For example, improving system controls and smarter maintenance and operations could avoid 1.4 Gt CO2e of emissions in the U.S. and China if implemented between 2026 and 2060.
Figure 8: Marginal abatement cost curve example for U.S. commercial real estate cooling sector emissions mitigation measures
Category A: Lifecycle Refrigerant Management (“fuel”)
- Recover & recycle refrigerants on-site
- Recover & reclaim pure refrigerants
- Recover & reclaim mixed refrigerants
- Recover & destroy refrigerants
- Use ‘drop-in’ lower GWP refrigerants
Category B: Cooling Equipment Upgrades (“engine”)
- Upgrade to lower GWP refrigerant equipment
- Conduct smart equipment maintenance and calibration
- Install sensors to detect leaks in compressors
- Use best practice equipment installation and calibration
- Upgrade to higher COP cooling equipment
Category C: Reduced Primary Cooling Load (“demand”)
- Establish higher cooling set-points
- Increase insulation, shading, reflection
- Install heat exchanger between incoming and outgoing air
- Install occupancy sensors for lighting systems
- Transition from open to closed refrigerated displays
Category D: Cooling System Management (“system-wide”)
- Implement intelligent, data-driven control
- Enhance management & operator skills
- Upgrade system hardware
Source: Carbon Containment Lab, 2026
Beyond GHG reduction, many actions carry multiple additional benefits that should be accounted for in impact assessments: waste and energy-efficiency measures cut operating costs, fertilizer-reduction actions improve soil health and farmer income stability, and reductions in methane, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon improve air quality, a leading driver of respiratory and cardiovascular illness. A new study by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) quantifies the broader economic and health benefits potentially generated from 25 selected superpollutant mitigation measures. The study finds that for each $1 spent on superpollutant and air quality mitigation, some $15 in economic benefits are generated.126
Table 8: Sample of value chain superpollutant actions and costs
| Category | Action | Available Cost Information |
|---|---|---|
| Methane/Agriculture | Anaerobic digesters at dairy farms and feedlots | Typically results in net savings for farmers; RNG/biogas production provides revenue, with additional benefit from selling environmental attributes.127 |
| Sustainable rice sourcing | Can provide water savings of up to 30 percent and yield stability for farmers.128 | |
| Methane/Oil & Gas | Leak detection and repair, pneumatic device replacement, eliminating routine flaring, vapor recovery units | About 39 percent of oil and gas methane abatement pays for itself outright, since the resold gas value exceeds the cost of capture; nearly all remaining abatement is cost-effective below $20 per metric ton CO2e.129 |
| Black Carbon/Ocean Freight | Book and Claim for biodiesel, green methanol, and ammonia | Typically a 10 to 20 percent cost premium depending on route and fuel; programs available through Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM, MSC, and COSCO.130 |
| Black Carbon/Air Freight | Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) | Two to three times the cost of jet fuel, a $0.50 to $1.50/gallon premium, translating to $60 to $190/MTCO2e in a Book and Claim program; pricing is volatile and access can be scarce.131 |
| F-gases/Fugitive Emissions | High-efficiency low-GWP HVAC upgrades | Payback typically five to fifteen years via operational energy savings, depending on existing system efficiency, electricity rates, and available incentives.132 |
Step 5: Implement and integrate into your portfolio of climate commitments and claims
Once actions have been prioritized, companies can model emission targets and create commitments for superpollutant emissions reductions. The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard provides a useful framework for setting holistic targets across Scopes 1 to 3, including superpollutant reductions achieved through value-chain engagement. As a reminder, SBTi rests on GWP-100 and does not currently offer dedicated standards for setting superpollutant-specific reduction targets that reflect their potency and unique time signatures. Superpollutants like methane and nitrous oxide fall under SBTi’s general corporate near-term and net-zero frameworks, which cover all GHGs (Scopes 1–3) aligned with 1.5°C pathways.133 However, sectoral guidance covers superpollutants, such as nitrous oxide in agriculture.
Seeing mitigation in action: Value chain project examples
The mechanisms above are already in use. The examples below range from single unilateral actions to multiyear partnerships.
Table 9: Value chain project examples
| Company | Mechanism | Action | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALDI | Direct Operational Action | The first U.S. food retailer to commit to a full HFC phase-out by 2035 | 600-plus stores converted to HFC-free; reduced average store potential emissions by 50 percent per year; ranked #1 U.S. supermarket by the EIA.134 |
| Nestlé | Direct Operational Action | Used Maersk ECO delivery for 100 percent of its 2023 ocean shipments | Reduced shipping emissions by more than 80 percent.135 |
| TSMC | Supplier Engagement | Reviews Tier 1 suppliers’ carbon reduction plans, including F-gas abatement for silicon wafer suppliers | Goal of reducing Tier 1 supplier emissions 30 percent by 2030.136 |
| Tesco | Supplier Engagement | “Tesco Exchange” platform redistributes supplier food waste surplus across the supply chain | Mitigates methane from food waste disposal.137 |
| Mars | Supplier Engagement (Insetting) | $20 million investment in sustainable rice sourcing | Reduces methane; co-benefits in water use and crop resilience.138 |
| United Airlines | Market Instrument (Book and Claim) | Sustainable aviation fuel Book and Claim certificates | Mitigates carbon dioxide, black carbon, upstream methane.139 |
| Meta | Market Instrument (Book and Claim) | RFP for MiQ-certified low-methane-intensity natural gas certificates to cover Meta’s onsite/behind-the-meter generation | RFP live as of May 2026, seeking 2026-vintage certificates; MiQ’s own modeling suggests a 100 megawatt (MW) facility running on Grade A gas could cut methane emissions roughly 95 percent versus the U.S. benchmark.140 |
Checklist 1: Value chain action checklist for companies
Next 12–24 months period:
- Map where each type of superpollutant arises in your value chain across Scope 1, 2, and 3, distinguishing sources within direct operational control from those several tiers removed.
- Apply the three hotspot criteria—size, concentration of reduction potential, and cost—to shortlist priority sources.
- Assign each priority hotspot to a mechanism for action and related mitigation measure (see Appendix B):
- Direct operational action for Scope 1 and 2 sources
- Supplier engagement or insetting where a hotspot sits with an existing partner
- Market instruments where no direct relationship exists or where there is significant near-term impact potential and existing standards.
- Build an impact/effort matrix and/or marginal abatement cost curve for shortlisted actions, and act first on anything with negative or near-zero net cost.
- Confirm which value-chain mechanisms are creditable under current SBTi guidance, and flag insetting and market-instrument claims where treatment remains unclear.
- Execute on the actions selected; track progress and report on results.
By 2030:
- Embed hotspot mapping and mechanism selection into standard procurement, capital planning, and supplier scorecards/ engagement processes, rather than treating them as a one-time exercise.
- Convert priority supplier relationships into structured, multiyear engagement programs, extending to insetting where the partnership already exists.
- Track how tightening rules and policy—for example, coal mine methane requirements, methane MRV standards, F-gas quotas—change which actions remain voluntary, updating claims appropriately.
- Publish results from action taken, since demonstrated cost and performance data is what unlocks the next round of supplier or partner engagement, sharing results and methodologies with peers.
- Use what you have learned on cost, feasibility, and supplier response as you shape your Policy Engagement strategy, since operational evidence is what turns advocacy into implementable rules.
Endnotes
Numbering follows the report, so the web and print editions cite alike.
- IEA, Global Methane Tracker 2023 (IEA, 2023), https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2023. ↩
- ”Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP),” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed August 11, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/cmop. Sudhanshu Mathur), Plugging the Leaks: An Investor Guide to Oil and Gas Methane Risk (Environmental Defense Fund, 2023), https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/6c7u05cgb77ohg3jhy7mq4q76bp040es.pdf. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Christopher P. Donahue et al., “Aerial LiDAR-Based, Source-Resolved Methane Emissions Inventory: Permian Basin Case Study for Benchmarking U.S. Emissions,” Environmental Science & Technology 60, no. 19 (2026): 13968–79, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c15184. “OGCI’s Methane Intensity Target,” Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, accessed August 11, 2026, https://www.ogci.com/methane-emissions/methane-intensity-target/. ↩
- Willem Vriesendorp, Anastasia O’Rourke, Ethan Olim, Selin Gören, Sage Wen, Bending the curve: Cost-effective cooling emissions reduction pathways for commercial real estate in China and the U.S. (Carbon Containment Lab, 2026,) https://carboncontainmentlab.org/publications/bending-the-curve. ↩
- United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition (2026). Global Economic Assessment of Integrated Climate and Clean Air Action. Nairobi (forthcoming) ↩
- Carolyn Betts Liebrand and K. Charles Ling, Cooperative Approaches for Implementation of Dairy Manure Digesters, Research Report 217 (USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 2009), https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/rr217.pdf. ↩
- Katie Lelito, Anne Liebscht, and Panagiota Boumpalou, “Sustainable Rice Farming: Reducing Methane Emissions and Water Use through AWD and DSR,” BASF Agricultural Solutions, November 19, 2025, https://agriculture.basf.com/global/en/sustainable-agriculture/climate-smart-farming/carbon-field-trial-program/rice-farming. Kota Mameno, Takahiro Kubo, and Yasushi Shoji, “Price Premiums for Wildlife-Friendly Rice: Insights from Japanese Retail Data,” Conservation Science and Practice 3, no. 6 (2021): e417, https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.417. ↩
- IEA (2023), Global Methane Tracker 2023. ↩
- Lynn Loo et al., Voyaging toward a Greener Future: Insights from the GCMD-BCG Global Maritime Decarbonization Survey (Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonization and Boston Consulting Group, 2023), https://www.gcformd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/GCMD-BCG-Voyaging-Toward-a-Greener-Future-vF.pdf. ↩
- Jade Patterson, “United Airlines Is Betting Big on a Pricey Green Aviation Fuel,” BloombergNEF, March 20, 2024, https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/united-airlines-is-betting-big-on-a-pricey-green-aviation-fuel/. ↩
- At the national average commercial electricity rate of $0.14/kWh, a $30,000 HVAC upgrade reduces HVAC electricity consumption by 20%, and results in savings of $3,000/year, the payback is exactly 10 years. The economics are generally linear—larger system upgrades will still result in a 20% reduction, conservatively, given changes in efficiency standards for commercial HVAC since 2015. Payback can be shorter when replacing older systems and systems used more intensely (e.g., retail, industrial settings), or longer for situations when replacing systems are newer and not used as intensely. https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/ https://www.shareddocs.com/hvac/docs/1011/Public/0E/CML-001-DN-00.pdf ↩
- Science Based Targets initiative, SBTi Corporate Near-Term Criteria, version 5.3.1 (Science Based Targets initiative, 2026), https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/SBTi-criteria.pdf. ↩
- “Refrigeration,” ALDI, accessed August 11, 2026, https://corporate.aldi.us/corporate-sustainability/climate-and-energy/refrigeration. Jesse Klein, “Supermarkets Are Tackling Emissions from Their Freezer Aisles,” Trellis, March 14, 2024, https://trellis.net/article/supermarkets-are-tackling-emissions-their-freezer-aisles/. ↩
- Maersk, “Nestlé Cuts Ocean Transport Emissions with Maersk’s ECO Delivery Solution by over 80%,” press release, December 6, 2023, https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2023/12/06/nestle-cuts-ocean-transport-emissions-with-maersk-eco-delivery-solution. ↩
- TSMC, TSMC 2024 Sustainability Report (TSMC, 2025), https://esg.tsmc.com/en-US/file/public/2024-TSMC-Sustainability-Report-e.pdf. ↩
- “Working with Suppliers to Minimize Food Waste,” Tesco PLC, accessed August 11, 2026, https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/planet/food-waste/working-with-suppliers. ↩
- Mars, “Mars Investing $20 Million in Sustainable Rice Sourcing to Help Farmers Manage Climate Variability and Protect Livelihoods,” press release, December 4, 2025, https://www.mars.com/news-and-stories/press-releases-statements/mars-investing-20-million-USD-sustainable-rice-sourcing. ↩
- United Airlines, Response to SBTi Call for Evidence on the Effectiveness of the Use of Environmental Attribute Certificates in Corporate Climate Targets: United Airlines’ Eco-Skies Alliance Program Case Study (United Airlines, 2023), https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Call-for-Evidence/407_United-Airlines_2023_SBTi-Call-for-Evidence-Submission.pdf. ↩
- Meta Sustainability, “Request for Proposals: Addressing Upstream Natural Gas Emissions,” May 19, 2026, https://sustainability.atmeta.com/blog/2026/05/19/request-for-proposals-addressing-upstream-natural-gas-emissions/. ↩
- Interview with Juliette Devaney, Amazon ↩
- Interview with Mark Herrema, Chief Executive Officer, AirCarbon. ↩
- Mónica Andrés and Jim Andrew, “How Partnerships Can Help Decarbonize Food Value Chains,” World Economic Forum, January 9, 2026, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/fertilizer-decarbonize-food-value-chains/. ↩
- PepsiCo, “PepsiCo Europe and Yara Partner to Decarbonize Crop Production,” press release, July 16, 2024, https://www.pepsico.com/newsroom/press-releases/2024/pepsico-europe-and-yara-partner-to-decarbonize-crop-production. ↩
- “Maersk ECO Delivery Ocean,” Maersk, accessed August 11, 2026, https://www.maersk.com/transportation-services/eco-delivery/ocean. ↩
- Green Fuel Journal, “Green Methanol: A Rising Star in Low-Carbon Shipping,” January 1, 2026, https://www.greenfueljournal.com/post/green-methanol-a-rising-star-in-low-carbon-shipping. ↩
- Hapag-Lloyd, “Ship Green Fees: Biofuel, Q1 2026,” accessed August 11, 2026, https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/content/dam/website/downloads/pdf/Ship_Green_Fees_BIO_Q1_2026.pdf. Loo et al., Voyaging toward a Greener Future. ↩
