4 mins read
Published Nov 27, 2025
Proving Sustainability in Complex Supply Chains
Credible Sustainability Proof in Complex Supply Chains – Part 1: Overcoming Internal Challenges
Sustainability has become a critical focus for supply chain executives, but providing proof of sustainability is often easier said than done.
Within organisations, there are common pain points that make it difficult to gather reliable data and demonstrate real progress. In this first part of our series on proving sustainability, we’ll explore the internal challenges companies face, from data woes and disjointed processes to cultural resistance and lack of visibility and how addressing them can set the stage for credible sustainability proof.
The Data Collection Dilemma
One of the biggest internal challenges is collecting and managing sustainability data. Supply chains involve many suppliers and sites, each potentially generating emissions and other sustainability metrics. Getting all that data can feel like herding cats. Many organisations struggle to track Scope 3 emissions (the indirect emissions in the value chain) because of the intricate web of supplier and customer relationships beyond their direct control.
Data often comes from different sources and in different formats; one supplier sends a spreadsheet, another emails a PDF, others might not report at all. This patchwork leads to inconsistencies and gaps.
Business Impact: When data is unreliable, sustainability efforts can’t be totally trusted. Goals may be missed because the organisation isn’t measuring correctly. Worse, regulators or partners might question your claims. Imagine investing in emissions reductions only to find you can’t prove it due to unstructured data management; it’s a frustrating loss of credibility. Thus, solving the data dilemma is the first step toward credible sustainability performance.
Inconsistent Processes Across Suppliers
When every supplier measures differently, data alignment collapses before it even begins. A recent MIT study noted that emissions data today often have “outliers” and inconsistencies because of incongruent methodologies and sources. These data quirks can drastically skew results and lead to incorrect reporting of emissions.
Business Impact: Inconsistent processes mean no single version of truth. It’s hard to roll up data or compare suppliers when everyone speaks a different sustainability language. This not only slows down reporting (as teams spend time reconciling formats) but can also hide risks. For instance, if Supplier A measures water usage differently than Supplier B, you might miss that one of them has a serious efficiency problem. Furthermore, lack of standardisation is labour-intensive: without clear guidelines, your team must constantly convert and re-evaluate data for each new request or regulation. Over time, this patchwork erodes efficiency and can lead to errors or non-compliance if something falls through the cracks.
No System for Emissions Tracking
Many organisations also face a technology gap: they lack proper systems to track emissions or production sustainability metrics. Sustainability data might live in giant spreadsheets or siloed databases that aren’t integrated.
While spreadsheets are familiar, they simply don’t scale for today’s needs. Compliance with the evolving ESG regulations demands scalable tools, beyond traditional methods like Excel, to handle the vast amounts of data from thousands of sources.
Not having a centralised tracking system also means limited operational visibility. Data might be collected only quarterly or annually for reporting, instead of continuously. This makes it hard to respond quickly or improve proactively. For example, if a sudden emissions spike occurs at a facility, a robust tracking system could alert managers immediately, but a manual approach might only catch it months later (if at all). Moreover, as sustainability reporting becomes more complex, the methodologies themselves are evolving. Companies need to update from generic estimation methods to more precise, data-driven approaches.
Without modern tools (sensors, software, etc.), it’s difficult to adopt these advanced methods or even to implement things like automatic data validation (catching those outliers we mentioned earlier).
Resistance to Change
Technology can fix processes, but only people can decide to change. Sustainability often requires new ways of working, and not everyone is immediately on board. Internal teams or suppliers may show resistance to change, whether it’s adopting a new reporting process or investing in cleaner technology. This resistance is natural, it can stem from fear of the unknown, comfort with the status quo, and concerns about the impact of change. In the context of sustainability initiatives, some employees might be sceptical about things like new circular economy practices or carbon tracking methods, perhaps doubting their effectiveness. Others fear that changing a well-oiled (if not sustainable) process could disrupt operations or add extra work.
Suppliers may also push back if they feel the new sustainability requirements are burdensome. For example, a small supplier might not have dedicated staff for ESG data and could see the request as a costly annoyance. Without proper engagement, they may drag their feet or provide token information. In some cases, there’s lack of awareness of the benefits; teams might not realise how improving sustainability could also improve efficiency or mitigate future risks, so they view it as “just another compliance task” and resist wholeheartedly changing their routines.
Overcoming resistance usually requires strong leadership and clear communication about why these changes matter. When leadership communicates the rationale and involves stakeholders early, it fosters buy-in. Absent that, even the best strategy will falter.
Figure 1: Operational Traceability Collaboration - How teams align to turn sustainability data into structured, actionable records.
Limited Visibility
When supply chains stretch across continents, transparency thins out where it’s needed most. Many companies have reasonable oversight of their Tier 1 suppliers (the ones they directly contract with) but very little insight into Tier 2 and beyond. In multi-tiered supply chains, this is a big blind spot. According to a recent survey, over 40% of companies lack either upstream supply chain visibility or insight into suppliers beyond the first tier.
This limited visibility often stems from the earlier points, data and process issues. If Tier 1 suppliers aren’t passing information down the chain or there’s no requirement to do so, the transparency stops at the first layer. It’s also a technology issue: without systems to trace materials or collect data through multiple tiers, companies depend on trust or incomplete disclosures.
Companies with better transparency can identify inefficiencies or innovate with suppliers on sustainability; companies without it are stuck in reactive mode. For instance, if you can’t see that multiple Tier 1 suppliers rely on a single Tier 2 source in a water-scarce region, you can’t pre-empt a risk of supply crunch or work collectively on water-saving initiatives. In essence, limited visibility keeps companies in the dark about where to focus sustainability improvements and leaves them exposed to hidden risks that could impact the business’s bottom line and brand trust.
Figure 2: Sustainability Data Verifiaction Cycle - Key stages for creating traceable, audit-ready sustainability data.
How Digital Solutions Help
The challenges above are all connected. Data gaps, inconsistent processes, limited tools, and human resistance often overlap. Digital systems are now bridging those gaps; sustainability data platforms built for verification create a structured, transparent, and efficient way to collect, validate, and report data across complex supply chains.
The key is to combine technology and standardisation. A digital tool is only as effective as the data methods and user adoption behind it.
Carbon Central, developed by NoviqTech, brings structure and credibility to sustainability data management. Instead of chasing spreadsheets and scattered emails, teams collect verified data through one platform, guided by built-in templates that standardise reporting across every site and supplier.
Automated validation ensures data integrity. It flags anomalies before they distort results. Integrated emission factors and automatic footprint calculations eliminate manual guesswork. Dashboards and exportable reports turn once chaotic reporting cycles into clear, traceable performance insights.
As an example, consider Company “Alpha”. Previously drowning in spreadsheets from 50 suppliers, it implemented Carbon Central to unify reporting. Within months, suppliers entered monthly emissions and waste data through platform templates. Outliers were flagged instantly, accuracy improved, and reports became “click and go.” The team reclaimed about 30 percent of its time while uncovering insights such as one supplier’s higher emissions intensity, which led to measurable improvements in cost and carbon.
Technology, though, is only half the equation. Success depends on people. Alpha trained suppliers, named internal champions, and communicated benefits early. As accuracy improved and workloads dropped, resistance faded. This illustrates a crucial point. Digital transformation in sustainability is as much about change management as it is about software.
Companies that take this dual approach, structured data systems plus engaged teams, gain more than smoother reporting. They unlock strategic advantages:
Data-driven decisions grounded in real performance metrics.
Cost savings through efficiency and resource optimisation.
Reduced compliance risk and audit-ready documentation.
A culture that sees sustainability as operational progress.
Getting your internal systems right is the foundation for credible sustainability proof. Once internal data is consistent, traceable, and verifiable, you can respond confidently to external expectations from regulators, partners, and investors. That will be the focus of Part 2.
