Food businesses are under growing pressure to understand, and explain, their climate impact.
From clients and guests to investors and regulators, expectations are rising. But while more organizations are measuring their carbon footprint than ever before, many still struggle with a fundamental question:
What does credible food climate data actually look like?
The answer is less obvious than it seems, and that’s where confusion often begins.
Food is one of the most climate-intensive and variable sectors to measure.
Emissions aren’t driven by a single factor, but by a web of interlinked variables:
• How ingredients are grown or produced
• Where and how they’re sourced
• How food is processed, stored, and prepared
• How menus are designed and changed over time
Much of this impact sits outside a company’s direct control—in upstream supply chains—which is why food businesses are disproportionately affected by Scope 3 emissions, as defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.
At a global level, food systems account for a significant portion of total greenhouse gas emissions, primarily driven by agriculture, land use, and supply chain activities.
This inherent complexity is exactly why food climate data is so often misunderstood.
One of the biggest myths in sustainability is that any carbon footprint is better than none. While any carbon footprint might be good from the start, it needs to reach a higher quality as soon as possible.
In practice, food businesses often start with:
• Generic carbon calculators
• Spend-based data
• Broad food categories
These approaches can be useful for awareness. But they’re rarely sufficient for:
• Decision-making
• Credible reporting
• Meaningful reduction strategies
This is where the gap between having data and trusting data becomes clear.
Credible food climate data doesn’t begin with totals. It begins with methodology.
At a minimum, this means:
• Using product–specific emissions factors, not generic industry averages
• Applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) principles to capture impacts across production, processing, and sourcing
• Being transparent about data sources, assumptions, and boundaries
Without this foundation, numbers may look precise, but they’re difficult to defend, compare, or act on.
Accuracy alone isn’t enough.
For food businesses, climate data becomes valuable only when it can be:
• Compared across ingredients, dishes, or suppliers
• Updated as menus or sourcing change
• Used by teams outside sustainability roles
• Explained clearly to external stakeholders
This is where many well-intentioned reporting efforts fall short. Data exists—but it’s locked in spreadsheets, static reports, or formats that don’t support everyday decisions.
Credible food climate data must balance scientific rigor with operational relevance.
Another hallmark of credible data is transparency.
That includes:
• Clear explanations of what’s included (and what isn’t)
• Consistent methodology across sites, menus, or time periods
• The ability to trace results back to underlying assumptions
This matters not just for audits or compliance, but for trust:
• Internally, with procurement, operations, and leadership
• Externally, with clients, partners, and guests
When teams understand why numbers look the way they do, they’re far more likely to use them and stand behind them.
As sustainability shifts from a “nice-to-have” to a business requirement, food businesses are expected to:
• Back up climate claims with evidence
• Show progress over time
• Demonstrate that data informs real decisions
In that context, credibility is about being accurate enough to trust, consistent enough to compare, and practical enough to use.
If food climate data feels confusing today, it’s a reflection of how complex food systems really are. In other words, the path forward is about better rather than more numbers.
Credible food climate data gives businesses:
• Confidence in reporting
• Clarity in decision-making
• A foundation for real reduction, not guesswork
And that’s what ultimately turns sustainability from a reporting exercise into a strategic advantage.
Q: What makes food climate data credible?
A: Credible food climate data is built on food-specific methodology, transparent assumptions, and emissions factors that reflect how food is actually produced and sourced. Understanding credibility requires looking beyond totals to how the data is calculated and used.
Q: Why is food climate data harder to calculate than other emissions data?
A: Food systems involve high variation across ingredients, suppliers, and production methods. That complexity means credibility depends on methodology choices that generic approaches often simplify.
Q: How can food businesses tell if their climate data can be trusted?
A: Trust comes from clarity around data sources, boundaries, and how insights connect to real decisions. Businesses benefit from evaluating whether their data supports explanation, comparison, and action.
UNLOCK YOUR POTENTIAL
Book a demo with Klimato and see how our tools can help your catering business win.