More than 180 suppliers told the Scope 3 Peer Group that the single biggest obstacle to cutting supply-chain emissions is not willingness or technology — it is the gap between corporate sustainability targets and procurement practice. Forty-three percent of respondents flagged the same failure: buyers demand decarbonization, then award contracts on unit price.

The Scope 3 Peer Group, a 4,000-member collective of professionals working on supply-chain emissions, polled companies that sell to its member firms. Founder and chair Oliver Hurrey promised anonymity and asked respondents to "pour your heart out." Hurrey said suppliers "went to town."

Why do suppliers reject the current engagement model?

The survey surfaced four recurring complaints. The first, by a wide margin, is price. Suppliers reported offering lower-carbon options that carry a premium, only to lose contracts to cheaper bids from competitors.

"The suppliers are actually willing," Hurrey said. "They're basically saying you're not giving us practical, consistent or frankly believable commercial outputs."

He summarized the frustration in a single line: "Once the sustainability team asks us to decarbonize, we do all this great stuff, and then we go to the commercial procurement team and they go, 'What's decarbonisation?'"

How do buyer specifications undercut emission targets?

Just under a quarter of respondents pointed to a second failure mode: buyers dictating the materials and sub-suppliers that suppliers must use. Because most of a product's carbon footprint sits in purchased inputs, those specifications effectively cap the supplier's emission ceiling.

"Our customers usually specify what material to use and even which suppliers to use," one respondent wrote. "If the customer wants us to decarbonize, these specifications need to align with the wish to decarbonize!"

Does reporting crowd out action?

A third theme hit at the bureaucratic load buyers place on sellers. Several respondents said they now spend more time completing questionnaires and uploading data than acting on the results.

"We are overwhelmed with questionnaires," one wrote. "The majority of time we receive no feedback or engagement as a result of our participation — only notices if we are delinquent."

Another added: "Customers often require different methodologies, reporting platforms, data formats and timelines, creating significant resource demands."

What does better supplier engagement look like?

Suppliers also offered a six-point checklist for buyers who want measurable reductions rather than disclosure theatre:

• Make carbon count: include emissions in estimates and state the premium on offer.
• Align the ask: adopt common methods, public data, and disclose-once platforms.
• Co-own the specs: open material and sourcing specifications to change.
• Commit long term: use multi-year contracts and shared capex.
• Close the loop: explain how data is used and feed it back to sellers.
• Right-size for SMBs: make proportionate requests and use realistic timelines.

What happens next?

The peer group will publish further detail at the Value Exchange Summit, a virtual meeting running Oct. 20–22. Hurrey has framed the gathering as a forum where buyers and suppliers can renegotiate the contract terms, data formats, and specification clauses that suppliers say are missing today.

The milestone to watch is whether major buyers convert the summit's recommendations into procurement-language changes — revised specifications, multi-year terms, and carbon-weighted bid scoring — or leave them as a fresh round of commitments without commercial teeth.