Climate reporting is now a standard expectation for food businesses.
Emissions are calculated. Reports are published. Frameworks are followed. Yet many organizations still struggle to use that information in a meaningful way.
The data exists, but it often sits disconnected from daily decisions, commercial priorities, and operational reality. Understanding why this happens is key to improving how reporting is done and how it’s used.
Climate reporting was designed for consistency, not complexity
Most reporting frameworks aim to create comparability across industries. That goal makes sense at a global level.
Food businesses, however, operate in ways that are far more dynamic than most reporting structures account for:
• Menus change frequently
• Ingredients shift based on availability and cost
• Suppliers vary widely in climate impact
• Decisions are shared across procurement, operations, finance, and marketing
When reporting systems don’t reflect this pace of change, the outcome is often a complete report that still leaves teams unsure about where emissions actually come from or what to do next.
Reporting often ends once the numbers are disclosed
In many food organizations, climate reporting is treated as a defined task with a clear endpoint. Once emissions are calculated and disclosed, attention moves on. The report fulfills a requirement, but rarely feeds back into everyday decision-making.
This gap matters. Food businesses reduce emissions through changes in sourcing, menu composition, and supplier strategy. When reporting outputs aren’t connected to those areas, the data remains descriptive rather than practical.
Over time, reporting becomes something teams maintain, rather than something they rely on.
Scope 3 complexity makes food reporting harder to operationalize
Food businesses face an additional challenge in determining where emissions occur.
According to WRAP, a large share of emissions in food-related operations sits in Scope 3, particularly in purchased goods and services. That includes agricultural production, ingredient processing, and upstream supply chains.
At a global level, food systems account for a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions, driven largely by these upstream activities—a pattern consistently highlighted in datasets from Our World in Data.
Many reporting setups rely on high-level averages to manage this complexity. While that simplifies disclosure, it limits insight. Teams see totals, but struggle to identify priorities, trade-offs, or realistic reduction pathways.
When reporting can’t answer follow-up questions, confidence drops
A common signal that reporting isn’t working is uncertainty during follow-up conversations.
Teams are asked:
• What caused changes in emissions year over year?
• Which ingredients or categories contribute most?
• Where should efforts be focused next?
When reporting outputs can’t support those discussions, confidence erodes. Sustainability teams become isolated as the sole owners of the data. Commercial and operational teams disengage because the information feels distant from their responsibilities.
Over time, reporting loses relevance across the organization.
Reporting needs to reflect how food businesses make decisions
Improving climate reporting in food doesn’t require abandoning standards or frameworks.
It requires systems that build on them in ways that reflect operational reality:
• Emissions data that connects to ingredients, menus, and suppliers
• Visibility that updates as sourcing and offerings change
• Outputs that can be shared and understood across teams
• Insights that support prioritization rather than just disclosure
When reporting aligns with how decisions are made, it becomes easier to use and easier to trust.
The business impact of usable reporting
As sustainability expectations increase, reporting plays a growing role in:
• Tenders and procurement processes
• Client and guest communication
• Brand credibility and stakeholder trust
Food businesses that can explain their numbers clearly and consistently are better positioned to respond to these demands. Reporting supports conversations rather than slowing them down. Data becomes something teams refer to, not something they work around.
From reporting as a task to reporting as a resource
Climate reporting struggles in food businesses when systems prioritize completion over usability.
The path forward is clearer alignment between:
• How emissions are calculated
• How food businesses operate
• How decisions are made day to day
When reporting reflects that alignment, it provides clarity rather than confusion. It supports progress rather than just documentation. And it creates a stronger foundation for reduction over time.
FAQ: Credible Food Climate Data
Q: Why does climate reporting feel disconnected from daily operations?
A: Many reporting setups are designed for disclosure rather than decision-making, which makes it harder for food businesses to apply insights in procurement, menus, and planning.
Q: Why is climate reporting especially challenging for food businesses?
A: A large share of food-related emissions sit in complex supply chains, making reporting harder to translate into practical actions without food-specific detail.
Q: How can climate reporting become more useful internally?
A: Reporting works better when it aligns with how teams actually make decisions and provides insights that can be revisited over time.
UNLOCK YOUR POTENTIAL
Ready to turn sustainability into a
growth driver?
Book a demo with Klimato and see how our tools can help your catering business win.
