Luke Quinn is Head of Business Solutions at Agreena, where he helps companies to understand and reduce Scope 3 emissions in their agricultural supply chains. Based in London, Luke brings more than 15 years of experience in strategic commercial roles at firms such as Verdantix, where he supported technology, services and corporate firms with strategic initiatives across sustainability, ESG and climate. At Agreena, he spearheads the development of tailored solutions to help supply chain stakeholders meet increasingly ambitious climate and net zero goals, supporting regenerative agriculture and soil carbon sequestration initiatives. He holds a Masters degree in International Relations from the University of Exeter and frequently shares insights through thought leadership on climate action, sustainable finance and technological innovation.
Passionate about building more resilient food systems, Luke focuses on strengthening the link between corporate requirements and farmer realities. He understands the sector’s key challenges – from regulatory compliance to data transparency and growing market expectations – to guide companies in integrating environmental values into core operations.
Understanding emissions in the supply chain
Scope 3 emissions present the largest and most persistent credibility gap in corporate climate action. For most companies, especially those in food and agriculture, these indirect emissions account for the vast majority of their carbon footprint but sit largely outside their direct control. The sheer scale and complexity of global supply chains make measurable, verifiable progress toward net zero frustratingly elusive, exposing organisations both to regulatory pressure and reputational risk.
“For most food and beverage companies, Scope 3 makes up a significant proportion of total emissions, but the sheer scale makes it hard to track, prioritise and make actual progress towards science-based targets,” says Luke, who leads Agreena’s supply chain decarbonisation efforts, helping agri-food businesses move from ambition to action through credible engagement with farmers – the largest emissions source in their value chains.
Breaking down the Scope 3 challenge
While Scope 1 and 2 emissions result from a company’s own operations and energy consumption, Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions. These include those produced by suppliers, distributors, customers and even waste processing. “A company’s direct emissions are easier to control, as Scope 3 includes activities outside of direct ownership which are hard to influence,” Luke explains. Food supply chains are particularly complex – stretching from international commodity crops to consumer packaging, each link introducing new variables, risks and data challenges.
Data availability is a core barrier. “Many suppliers, especially farms or small processors, may not have the necessary tools or expertise to track their emissions,” says Luke. Companies often have no option but to rely on industry averages, rough estimates or secondary data, all of which blur the picture of genuine impact. This reliance on non-specific data not only constrains visibility but also lowers credibility, as stakeholders cannot be sure the reductions claimed are real.
Accounting mismatches compound these issues. Data from intervention projects – such as a new regenerative agriculture initiative on selected farms – does not map cleanly onto inventory reporting, which tracks emissions on a year-on-year basis. The result is a confusing landscape, where progress achieved at the project level is not credibly integrated or traceable in corporate inventories.
Freeriding and double counting further muddy the waters. Because multiple companies may claim the same emissions reduction in a shared supply chain, overall progress toward decarbonisation is often overstated. “Scope 3 emissions often overlap between multiple companies in a single value chain – for example, a food manufacturer’s ingredient supplier and the farmer who grows the raw crop may all claim the same emission reduction if data isn’t transparent,” Luke says. Without third-party controls, some actors may benefit without investing in any real change.
The weight of regulatory and reputational pressure
The rapid evolution of regulation has sharpened the need for credible Scope 3 reporting. From 2025, the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) require large companies to disclose their full emissions footprint, including upstream and downstream activities. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Flags Guidance adds further obligations for land-intensive value chains. “Inadequate Scope 3 reporting could result in non-compliance, fines or reputational scrutiny, and poor compliance may influence investor pressure or negatively influence their brands, as being seen as ‘unsustainable’, or even in some cases ‘greenwashing’,” says Luke.
The business risk is not just regulatory. Public scrutiny, consumer activism and investor demand for scientifically verified claims mean that organisations must go beyond compliance to demonstrate real impact. Inaction or poor disclosure brings the threat of legal penalties, loss of market access and lasting damage to brand reputation.
These risks have become more acute as climate volatility has begun to undermine the business model itself. In 2025, extreme weather events – including unprecedented droughts and floods – resulted in about €43bn (US$50bn) in economic losses across the EU. “For food and beverage companies, soil degradation means lesser crop yield, which will impact overall business performance and financial sustainability in years to come,” Luke continues. This financial volatility reinforces the need to embed credible decarbonisation and resilience directly into procurement and supply chain management, not merely treat it as an add on.
Why credibility is essential for supply chains
At the heart of the Scope 3 problem is a widening gap between the emissions that companies report and those they can actually verify. “Credibility and transparency are fundamental to managing and reporting Scope 3 emissions because these emissions make up the largest, most complex and least directly controlled portion of a company’s climate footprint,” says Luke. Credibility determines whether climate claims are trustworthy, compliant and effective.
Nonetheless, most companies still rely on unverified, average-based reporting. This undermines the opportunity to unlock co-investment, shared finance and genuine progress across supply chains. Verified outcomes – traceable and attributable emission reductions – are necessary for procurement and finance teams to plan and price against, and for sustainability leaders to report with confidence.
Crucially, credible reporting also allows for the collective sharing of both the costs and benefits of decarbonisation. By working together, companies and their suppliers can transform sustainability from an added expense to a shared opportunity, aligning financial incentives and delivering results at scale.
“Sharing the costs and benefits of decarbonisation turns sustainability from an expense into an opportunity,” Luke explains. “No company can meet its Scope 3 targets without engaging its value chain, so collaboration is critical, especially where some suppliers may lack the appropriate levels of finance, education or technical know-how.” Shared investment models build trust and continuity, creating long-term resilience and supply chain security.
Quantification and unitisation
The process of quantification and unitisation is key to addressing Scope 3 credibility. Quantification is the careful measurement and conversion of supply chain interventions into standardised, verified emission reductions, typically expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) reduced, avoided or sequestered. Unitisation then transforms these reductions into discrete, tradable assets – Impact Units – linked to specific value chain stages or goods.
“Quantification and unitisation is the process of measuring and converting activities or practices into standardised and quantified emissions reductions and removals, i.e. carbon units,” says Luke. This method simplifies reporting, makes impact comparable across regions and suppliers, and provides the foundation for finance-grade claims. “They provide the foundations for verified claims, which are critical for reporting, compliance and finance,” he adds.
Unitisation is especially important for co-claiming – the practice of multiple value chain actors sharing in the costs and benefits of a single documented carbon reduction. Impacts are registered and tracked at field level, assigned exclusively to the actors funding or enacting the change. “Transparent emissions data, methodologies and clear ownership ensures integrity and accountability across the chain and the credibility must be underpinned by science, technology and standardised frameworks,” Luke explains.
The weight of regulatory and reputational pressure
The rapid evolution of regulation has sharpened the need for credible Scope 3 reporting. From 2025, the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) require large companies to disclose their full emissions footprint, including upstream and downstream activities. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Flags Guidance adds further obligations for land-intensive value chains. “Inadequate Scope 3 reporting could result in non-compliance, fines or reputational scrutiny, and poor compliance may influence investor pressure or negatively influence their brands, as being seen as ‘unsustainable’, or even in some cases ‘greenwashing’,” says Luke.
The business risk is not just regulatory. Public scrutiny, consumer activism and investor demand for scientifically verified claims mean that organisations must go beyond compliance to demonstrate real impact. Inaction or poor disclosure brings the threat of legal penalties, loss of market access and lasting damage to brand reputation.
These risks have become more acute as climate volatility has begun to undermine the business model itself. In 2025, extreme weather events – including unprecedented droughts and floods – resulted in about €43bn (US$50bn) in economic losses across the EU. “For food and beverage companies, soil degradation means lesser crop yield, which will impact overall business performance and financial sustainability in years to come,” Luke continues. This financial volatility reinforces the need to embed credible decarbonisation and resilience directly into procurement and supply chain management, not merely treat it as an add on.
Why credibility is essential for supply chains
At the heart of the Scope 3 problem is a widening gap between the emissions that companies report and those they can actually verify. “Credibility and transparency are fundamental to managing and reporting Scope 3 emissions because these emissions make up the largest, most complex and least directly controlled portion of a company’s climate footprint,” says Luke. Credibility determines whether climate claims are trustworthy, compliant and effective.
Nonetheless, most companies still rely on unverified, average-based reporting. This undermines the opportunity to unlock co-investment, shared finance and genuine progress across supply chains. Verified outcomes – traceable and attributable emission reductions – are necessary for procurement and finance teams to plan and price against, and for sustainability leaders to report with confidence.
Crucially, credible reporting also allows for the collective sharing of both the costs and benefits of decarbonisation. By working together, companies and their suppliers can transform sustainability from an added expense to a shared opportunity, aligning financial incentives and delivering results at scale.
“Sharing the costs and benefits of decarbonisation turns sustainability from an expense into an opportunity,” Luke explains. “No company can meet its Scope 3 targets without engaging its value chain, so collaboration is critical, especially where some suppliers may lack the appropriate levels of finance, education or technical know-how.” Shared investment models build trust and continuity, creating long-term resilience and supply chain security.
Quantification and unitisation
The process of quantification and unitisation is key to addressing Scope 3 credibility. Quantification is the careful measurement and conversion of supply chain interventions into standardised, verified emission reductions, typically expressed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) reduced, avoided or sequestered. Unitisation then transforms these reductions into discrete, tradable assets – Impact Units – linked to specific value chain stages or goods.
“Quantification and unitisation is the process of measuring and converting activities or practices into standardised and quantified emissions reductions and removals, i.e. carbon units,” says Luke. This method simplifies reporting, makes impact comparable across regions and suppliers, and provides the foundation for finance-grade claims. “They provide the foundations for verified claims, which are critical for reporting, compliance and finance,” he adds.
Unitisation is especially important for co-claiming – the practice of multiple value chain actors sharing in the costs and benefits of a single documented carbon reduction. Impacts are registered and tracked at field level, assigned exclusively to the actors funding or enacting the change. “Transparent emissions data, methodologies and clear ownership ensures integrity and accountability across the chain and the credibility must be underpinned by science, technology and standardised frameworks,” Luke explains.
The dangers of double counting and freeriding
Without independent controls, Scope 3 reporting is rife with integrity risks. Freeriding occurs when companies benefit from the reductions achieved by others without contributing to their cost or implementation. Double counting happens when more than one actor claims the same carbon reduction, inflating total impact and distorting regulatory and investor reporting.
Luke is clear on the stakes: “Scope 3 emissions often overlap – without clear rules and visibility, this creates two major risks: companies benefit from the emission reductions of others without contributing; and double counting, whereby the same reduction or carbon removal is claimed by more than one company, inflating collective progress.”
These problems erode trust, slow the pace of real climate action and raise questions about the actual value of corporate sustainability commitments. The only solution is transparency – verified data, clear ownership and public tracking of Impact Units from field to enterprise.
The role of technology
Technological innovation has created digital measurement, reporting and verification (dMRV) tools that reliably track climate outcomes at scale. Platforms like AgreenaGro use satellite imagery, AI and farmer-reported data to monitor millions of hectares, producing auditable datasets for independent verification.
By automating manual processes and standardising data, dMRV systems rapidly accelerate the verification cycle, offering field-level transparency crucial for compliance and investor scrutiny. “Our system delivers speed by accelerating verification cycles, as proprietary machine learning platforms rapidly process and analyse geospatial data, significantly reducing data processing time from months to hours,” Luke says.
Cross-verification between primary (farmer-reported) data and satellite-derived outputs further reduces fraud risk and strengthens the credibility required for third-party verification by organisations like SustainCERT.
Case study: the SustainCERT Dual Factor Credibility Framework
As the need for trustworthy claims has grown, verification frameworks have evolved. The SustainCERT Dual Factor Credibility Framework has set a new standard for Scope 3 verification, embedding two critical factors: verified mitigation outcomes and credible co-claiming/reporting.
“The SustainCERT Dual Factor Credibility Framework is a system designed to bring credibility, transparency and scalability to reporting on Scope 3 emission reductions,” Luke explains. The framework audits both the quantification methods and the attribution or ownership of claimed impacts – ensuring they are real, measurable and not subject to double counting.
Factor 1: Verified Mitigation Outcomes
This first factor scrutinises the methods used to measure emission reductions, requiring independent audits and science-based calculation standards. “GHG Quantification Approach (Verification of Impact): An audit against SustainCERT’s Rules & Requirements ensures the quantification approach is credible and science based, and that the chosen methods align with Scope 3 reporting,” says Luke. Verification includes a review of baseline scenarios, monitoring plans and causality – checking that the entity reporting the impact genuinely drove the change. Successful verification produces a statement that can be used for investor, regulator and customer disclosures, assuring the market that impacts are measurable and real.
Factor 2: Credible Co-Claiming and Reporting
Turning verified reductions into Impact Units enables companies to accurately claim carbon benefits within inventory reporting. These units are linked to specific goods or value chain stages and live within a transparent registry, eliminating the risk of multiple actors claiming the same reduction. A proof-of-sourcing assessment checks quantitative, temporal, functional and geographic consistency – ensuring that Impact Units reflect real changes aligned to the company’s purchasing patterns. “Proof of sourcing verifies the consistency between the claimed Impact Units and the goods sourced by the company,” Luke explains.
Finally, integrating impacts into Scope 3 inventory reporting verifies that only reductions genuinely achieved within the corporate boundary are credited. This adjustment prevents overstatement and sets new standards for reliability in corporate sustainability disclosures.
SustainCERT for safeguarding
“The framework is considered a safeguard system because its structure is specifically designed to prevent common integrity risks such as double counting, overstating impact and claiming benefits without verifiable action,” Luke says.
Factor 1 covers verification and assignment of ownership, enforcing science-based methodology and actual on-ground change, while Factor 2 governs credible co-claiming, tracing assets through public registries and tightly integrating verified outcomes with inventory reporting.
“Mitigation outcomes are converted into Transferable Impact Units and tracked in a public registry, which is an explicit mechanism to reduce the risk of freeriding and double counting,” Luke says. The system checks that only the company who sourced the goods from the impacted supply shed can report the reductions, enforcing “quantitative, temporal, functional and geographical consistency”.
Inventory adjustments further ensure that only the correct volume of reductions is included in reporting, protecting against overstatement and maintaining alignment with regulatory boundaries.
Making supply chain decarbonisation actionable
Agreena’s approach operationalises the Dual Factor Framework into scalable supply chain solutions. Its platform connects farmers with corporate clients, tracks practice change and issues verified, tradable Impact Units for Scope 3 reporting.
“Our S3 Project essentially operates as the intervention that is designed specifically to pass the two core factors of the SustainCERT framework,” Luke says. Agreena builds scientific rigour into every step, from farm enrolment to final reporting, using dMRV and rigorous QA/QC procedures. This includes the VM0042 methodology for improved agricultural land management and validated tier 3 modelling for soil organic carbon (SOC) removals.
AgreenaGro, the measurement and verification technology, enables rapid expansion by monitoring millions of fields through AI and satellite data. Its proprietary platforms analyse geospatial data for tillage and cover crop presence, replacing manual audits and scaling transparent impact measurement.
Agreena’s platform is active across 4.5 million hectares, engaging over 2,300 farmers in more than 20 countries – a testament to both the speed and scalability of the technology in real-world supply chain transformation.
Delivering compliance, credibility and cost efficiency
For corporates, the Agreena-SustainCERT solution creates a pathway to verifiable Scope 3 claims under mandatory frameworks like CSRD and SBTi. “Credibility is guaranteed because the Dual Factor Framework verifies that the emission reductions are real and that the company has the right to report them, protecting against greenwashing,” Luke says.
Cost efficiency emerges from transparent co-investment and shared value creation. Impact units can be claimed by any value chain actor investing in the change, allowing both corporates and suppliers to spread costs and benefit equally. “The framework’s core safeguards mitigate the risks of double counting and freeriding, ensuring exclusivity and confidence in the reported data,” Luke explains.
Verified reporting also supports market differentiation, allowing branded food companies to demonstrate integrity amid heightened scrutiny from customers, investors and regulators.
Building resilience and new revenue streams for farmers
For participating farmers, verified impact platforms deliver new streams of income while enhancing ecological resilience. The switch to regenerative agriculture – supported by cover cropping, no-till and reduced chemical input – improves soil health and water retention, protecting farms from drought and flood events.
“These practices lead to healthier soil and stronger crop growth, reducing dependency on costly synthetic inputs like fertilisers and pesticides,” Luke explains. Farmers receive direct payments for carbon reductions achieved, offsetting the expense of transition and providing long-term financial stability.
“This creates an ecosystem where farmers are financially incentivised to generate new income streams that help offset the initial investment costs of new equipment and mitigates the risk of any short-term yield dips during the transition,” Luke says.
Unlocking capital and reducing risk
Verified emissions claims are not just compliance tools – they are fundamental to risk management and capital access. Investors, lenders and insurers increasingly demand measurable, auditable climate performance. Verified claims under frameworks like SustainCERT function as “finance-grade” assets with the credibility expected in financial reporting.
“As investors, regulators and customers demand measurable proof of climate progress, verified claims have become a core risk management tool,” Luke says. This integrity de-risks supply chain decarbonisation, opening new capital forms linked to performance rather than intent.
Credible claims mean companies can structure supply contracts, hedging against volatility and securing long-term relationships with growers. Verified volumes can be prioritised, allocated and contracted year on year, improving business resilience.
The business case for Scope 3 decarbonisation
Scope 3 actions yield direct business benefits, and moving supply chain decarbonisation from a reporting exercise to an actionable capital and procurement pillar has proven results. Early engagement with suppliers, measurable interventions and verified co-claiming reduce the cost of crisis responses – such as rush logistics, reformulation or emergency hedging during climate shocks.
Mars, for example, uses Agreena to scale up its regenerative agriculture commitments, targeting a net zero roadmap that covers more than one million acres of practice change by 2030. With nearly 60% of its emissions coming from agricultural inputs, Mars prioritises verified interventions as the heart of its Scope 3 strategy.
“By securing verified greenhouse gas reductions and removals, Mars can confidently account, report and claim on climate impact annually, aligned with their Scope 3 carbon reduction strategy,” says Luke.
Agreena’s impact modelling and registry systems allow Mars and its farmers to share both financing and environmental outcomes. Guaranteed payments flow to farmers, who deliver measurable, independently verified GHG reductions.
Making resilience actionable and budgetable
Climate risk is now a measurable and financeable threat. Corporate clients increasingly embed resilience KPIs into procurement contracts and supplier scorecards, structuring performance incentives for water efficiency, soil health and climate adaptation measures.
“Corporate customers are integrating climate metrics into supplier management, funding initiatives that improve supplier climate resilience for a specific crop, area, or group of farmers,” Luke says. The result is a resilient value chain where operational and financial risk is collectively managed, rather than pushed downstream.
When companies fund field-level interventions, their sourcing strategies align with real climate outcomes – the basis for competitive allocation, priority supply agreements and multi-year partnerships that withstand market volatility.
Avoiding greenwash and overstatement
Transparent verification frameworks are crucial in an era of regulatory uncertainty and rising greenwash scrutiny. They establish what counts as business value – only quantified, independently verified emissions reductions achieved through direct interventions count toward regulatory and voluntary targets.
“Only credible, verified and quantified impact should inform decisions and external reporting and third-party verification frameworks must be deployed to ensure integrity and prevent greenwashing or double counting,” Luke recommends.
Gone are the days of “generic sustainability messaging,” Luke notes. Instead, executives “must now prioritise credibility, transparency, measurable reductions and shared value creation”. Action not only reduces emissions but protects margins, strengthens resilience and unlocks capital.
A new model for supply chain climate action
Active, early engagement with suppliers is essential. Scope 3 emissions originate primarily at the supplier level – be it farmers, processors or packagers. Early collaboration targets shared decarbonisation objectives, incentivises suppliers and embeds co-investment models in procurement.
“Suppliers are the source of most Scope 3 emissions, so early engagement through shared targets, incentives and co-investment programmes is key to scalable impact,” Luke explains. This model distributes climate and business risk, replacing siloed sustainability projects with embedded operational value.
Progress is slow, especially in complex agricultural and upstream value chains, but credible interventions deliver sustainable competitive advantage. “Those firms leading the charge are embedding decarbonisation into long-term strategy, supplier partnerships and procurement cycles which are offering environmental impact and business value,” Luke continues.
Agreena: leading the charge on supply chain transformation
Agreena is the supply chain decarbonisation partner for major corporates, food processors and manufacturers. Its vertically integrated offering – from farm enrolment to verified Impact Units – makes decarbonisation actionable, scalable and trackable.
“Our work is rooted in regenerating the planet through decarbonisation, whilst simultaneously strengthening our agriculture and food systems,” Luke explains. The platform is designed for transparency, traceability and rapid scale, supporting companies through every stage of their Scope 3 journey
As independent verification emerges as the currency of climate integrity, the role of platforms like Agreena only grows, offering both the strategic system and operational execution needed to meet net zero aims.
A direct route to credibility
Scope 3 is no longer an afterthought. Its share of the corporate climate footprint is overwhelming – often 70-90%. Embedding decarbonisation in business strategy, procurement and capital allocation is no longer optional but a necessity for future-proofing operations.
“Sustainability leaders should prioritise credibility, transparency, supplier engagement, measurable reductions and shared value creation,” Luke says. Verified impact must be the standard for both reporting and decision-making.
Collaboration and early engagement are critical. “Suppliers are the source of most Scope 3 emissions, so early engagement is key – through shared targets, incentives and co-investment programmes for decarbonisation which mitigate regulatory, reputational and operational risk and build long-term resilience,” Luke advises.
Agreena and SustainCERT provide the framework and technology. The onus now shifts to sustainability executives to pursue best practice, credible claims and robust reporting.
The future of supply chain management
“Gone are the days of sustainability acting as a standalone function – given short- and long-term net zero ambitions and science-based targets, it is now a core, operational pillar of their business and a real opportunity for firms to be on the front foot,” Luke says.
In the end, independent verification will be the cornerstone for those seeking genuine progress in supply chain decarbonisation – a new currency for credible climate leadership in the 2020s and beyond.
