From Commitments to Credible Delivery in Scope 3 Emissions of Agriculture

The Commitment–Delivery Gap

Over the past decade, food and agriculture companies have made ambitious climate and sustainability commitments. Net-zero targets, deforestation-free pledges, regenerative sourcing goals, and nature-positive strategies are now standard across the sector. Most of these commitments hinge on Scope 3 emissions — those embedded in agricultural supply chains.

Yet despite growing ambition, progress on delivery remains uneven. Targets are announced, but real-world outcomes lag behind. Emissions reductions are difficult to verify, farmer adoption is slower than expected, and reporting often outpaces transformation. This gap between commitment and delivery is now one of the greatest risks facing corporate sustainability strategies.

Closing that gap is not a communications challenge. It is an implementation challenge — and agriculture is where it is most acute.

Photo by Monika Kubala on Unsplash

Why Scope 3 Is So Hard in Agriculture

Scope 3 emissions dominate the footprint of food and fiber companies, often accounting for 70–90 percent of total emissions. Unlike emissions from factories or offices, agricultural emissions are dispersed across millions of farms, landscapes, and livelihoods.

They are also biological rather than purely industrial. Emissions fluctuate with weather, soils, management practices, and land-use change. Measurement is complex. Attribution is imperfect. Reductions take time. These realities make agricultural Scope 3 fundamentally different from energy or transport decarbonization.

Many companies underestimated this complexity. Early strategies relied on high-level assumptions, proxy data, or isolated pilot projects. As scrutiny increases from investors, regulators, and civil society, it is becoming clear that ambition alone is no longer sufficient.

The Limits of Accounting Without Action

Carbon accounting is necessary, but it is not delivery. Emissions inventories can describe a footprint, but they do not reduce it. In agriculture, progress depends on changes in how land is managed — how crops are grown, how livestock are raised, how soils are cared for, and how landscapes are protected.

This requires engaging farmers at scale, over time, and in ways that align with their livelihoods. No spreadsheet can substitute for trust, incentives, technical support, and shared risk. Where Scope 3 strategies rely too heavily on offsets, assumptions, or distant control, they risk becoming detached from reality on the ground.

Credible delivery starts with recognizing that agricultural transformation cannot be outsourced or automated. It must be built.

Farmers as the Core Delivery Partners

Farmers are the primary actors in Scope 3 mitigation, yet they are often treated as downstream beneficiaries rather than core partners. Expectations are placed on them to change practices, absorb risk, and deliver outcomes — frequently without adequate support or compensation.

This approach is not only unjust; it is ineffective. Transitions in agriculture require investment, learning, and time. Farmers must navigate yield risk, market uncertainty, and climate variability while maintaining livelihoods. Without aligned incentives, uptake remains limited and fragile.

Credible Scope 3 delivery depends on placing farmers at the center of strategy — recognizing their constraints, valuing their knowledge, and sharing both costs and benefits of transition.

From Pilot Projects to Systemic Change

Many companies have demonstrated success through pilot projects: a regenerative initiative here, a climate-smart program there. These efforts matter, but they are rarely sufficient to move Scope 3 emissions at scale.

Systemic change requires moving beyond isolated projects toward integrated supply-chain strategies. This includes aligning procurement policies, long-term sourcing commitments, financing mechanisms, and technical assistance around shared outcomes. It also means working at landscape scale, where climate, biodiversity, and livelihoods intersect.

Scaling delivery is not about replicating identical models everywhere. It is about building adaptive systems that can deliver consistent outcomes across diverse contexts.

Why Verification and Credibility Matter

As sustainability claims multiply, so does scrutiny. Regulators are tightening disclosure requirements. Investors are demanding evidence. Civil society is increasingly alert to greenwashing.

In this environment, credibility is a strategic asset. Companies need confidence that reported Scope 3 reductions reflect real, additional, and durable change on the ground. This requires robust monitoring, transparent methodologies, and independent verification.

Credibility does not mean perfection. It means honesty about uncertainty, continuous improvement, and a clear line of sight between actions and outcomes. Without this, even well-intentioned strategies risk losing trust.

Shared Responsibility Across the Value Chain

Scope 3 delivery cannot rest on farmers alone. Responsibility must be shared across value chains — from brands and traders to financiers and policymakers. Long-term contracts, price signals, access to finance, and supportive regulation all shape what is possible at farm level.

When risks and rewards are better balanced, transformation accelerates. When they are not, commitments remain aspirational. Delivering Scope 3 outcomes is therefore as much about governance and collaboration as it is about technical solutions.

Why the Window Is Closing

Time is a defining constraint. Climate science makes clear that emissions reductions must happen this decade to avoid the most severe impacts. Agricultural transitions, however, take years to mature. Soils rebuild slowly. Trees grow over decades. Trust cannot be rushed.

Every year of delayed action increases reliance on future shortcuts — offsets, accounting adjustments, or unproven technologies. Credible delivery requires starting early, staying consistent, and investing in long-term change now.

Conclusion: From Pledges to Proof

The era of climate commitments in agriculture is giving way to an era of accountability. Companies will increasingly be judged not by what they promise, but by what they deliver — on farms, in landscapes, and in livelihoods.

Closing the Scope 3 gap is difficult, but it is achievable. It requires moving beyond abstraction to action, beyond pilots to systems, and beyond promises to proof. Those who succeed will not only meet their targets, but help reshape agriculture into a more resilient, equitable, and climate-aligned system.

About the Sustainable Agriculture Network

The Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) is a global impact network transforming agriculture into a force for good — healing and nourishing our extraordinary planet. Together with 37 member organizations across more than 120 countries, SAN advances sustainable, equitable, and climate-resilient farming systems that empower communities and restore nature.

Through radical collaboration, SAN connects farmers, businesses, researchers, and civil society to co-create solutions that tackle the world’s most pressing challenges — from climate change and biodiversity loss to social inequity. Our network’s collective efforts have already helped transform over 40 million hectares of farmland, driving measurable progress toward regenerative and inclusive food systems.

Rooted in integrity, inclusivity, curiosity, empathy, adaptability, and evidence-based action, SAN leads with both urgency and hope. We envision a future where agriculture heals, communities thrive, and nature flourishes.

Learn more at www.sustainableagriculture.eco