How CSRD, Scope 3, and SBTi Work Together: A Guide for Food Businesses

This article explains how each framework works, why they connect, and what that means practically for food and beverage companies navigating carbon accounting today. If you're looking for how to achieve CSRD compliance or how Klimato's reporting software supports Scope 1–3 disclosure, those are covered separately.

CSRD sets the reporting standard

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive introduces standardized sustainability disclosure requirements across the European Union. Under the ESRS standards, companies must report greenhouse gas emissions across Scope 1, 2, and 3 with a level of rigor similar to financial reporting.

What CSRD doesn't do is redefine how emissions are calculated. Its focus is on how information is disclosed, verified, and compared across organizations—creating a common language for sustainability performance that investors, regulators, and supply chain partners can rely on.

Scope 3 is where most food emissions live

For food and beverage companies, the largest share of emissions sits within the supply chain—agriculture, land use, packaging, logistics, and waste—not in direct operations. Scope 3 emissions can represent up to 95% of total climate impact in food systems.

That makes value-chain visibility essential, both for credible reporting and for identifying where reductions are actually achievable.

This is also where most food businesses encounter the hardest data challenges: gathering reliable supplier data, aligning procurement decisions with climate targets, and translating complex emissions information into something actionable.

Where SBTi fits into the picture

The Science Based Targets initiative provides a framework for setting emissions reduction targets aligned with climate science. Where CSRD focuses on disclosure, SBTi focuses on ambition—helping companies define credible pathways toward meaningful emissions reductions.

For food businesses, SBTi guidance increasingly includes sector-specific considerations around agriculture and land use, grouped under the FLAG (Forest, Land, and Agriculture) category. That means companies need emissions data that reflects the full lifecycle of food production, not just energy and transport.

How CSRD, Scope 3, and SBTi Work Together

Rather than operating independently, these frameworks form a connected workflow:

The practical progression looks like this: you measure emissions accurately using Scope 3 methodology, report them consistently under CSRD's ESRS standards, and use that data to set and track targets that meet SBTi's science-based criteria.

Each framework strengthens the others. CSRD reporting is more credible when it draws on robust Scope 3 data. SBTi targets are more actionable when they're grounded in verified supply chain emissions. And Scope 3 measurement is more purposeful when it's feeding into structured disclosure and defined reduction pathways.

Strategic benefits of aligning reporting and target setting

When food businesses treat compliance as part of a broader carbon accounting strategy, several advantages emerge:

Reduced regulatory risk

Building structured reporting processes early helps avoid last-minute audits, data gaps, and supplier challenges as CSRD requirements expand.

Operational efficiency

Measuring Scope 3 emissions often reveals inefficiencies across procurement, packaging, and logistics—creating opportunities to reduce both emissions and costs.

Stronger procurement positioning

Companies that can provide verified emissions data are increasingly favored in tenders and supply chains, particularly across European markets.

Building a practical reporting workflow

Organizations that have successfully aligned CSRD and SBTi reporting typically follow a similar path:

• Establish a GHG Protocol-aligned emissions baseline across Scope 1, 2, and 3
• Map high-impact ingredients and suppliers to identify where Scope 3 data is weakest
• Integrate emissions tracking into procurement workflows so data collection is ongoing, not a once-a-• year exercise
• Translate data into ESRS-ready disclosures that meet CSRD verification standards
• Use that same dataset to set and report against SBTi-aligned targets

The order matters. Companies that try to set SBTi targets before establishing a reliable Scope 3 baseline often find themselves revising targets as data quality improves—which creates more work, not less.

How Klimato supports integrated carbon accounting

Klimato’s platform helps food businesses connect emissions measurement with structured reporting outputs. By aligning Scope 1, 2, and 3 calculations with GHG Protocol methodologies, emissions data can support both CSRD disclosures and SBTi target setting.

This enables sustainability teams to move from fragmented reporting toward consistent carbon accounting across sites, suppliers, and menus.

FAQ: CSRD, SBTi, and Scope 3 for Food Businesses

Q: What is the difference between SBTi and CSRD?
A: CSRD is a regulatory framework requiring sustainability disclosure. SBTi is a voluntary initiative that validates science-based emission reduction targets.

Q: Why is Scope 3 so important for food businesses?
A: Most emissions in food systems come from agriculture and supply chains, making Scope 3 central to both reporting and reduction strategies.

Q: Do companies need both CSRD and SBTi?
A: Many organizations use CSRD to structure disclosures while using SBTi to guide long-term climate targets.

Q: How do these frameworks support corporate carbon accounting?
A: GHG Protocol methodologies measure emissions, CSRD structures disclosure, and SBTi defines reduction pathways—together forming a complete reporting ecosystem.