The original Net Zero deadlines are almost certainly going to be missed, and the longer-term commitments now look increasingly fragile. That is not because companies have done nothing. A lot of effort, investment and energy has gone into decarbonisation. Some of it has created value. Some of it, if we are honest, has made the problem feel more complicated than it needs to be.

It does not really matter which side of the climate change debate you sit on. Most people can agree on something much simpler: we consume too much, waste too much and give too little thought to what happens to products at the end of their life.

The equation is simple. If we consume less, we produce less, and that is good news for everyone. Less production means fewer raw materials consumed, fewer semi-finished parts transported around the world and less waste at end of life. It may not happen immediately, but companies will be forced to adjust inventory levels as consumer behaviour changes.

This single behavioural change could have more impact than many of the initiatives currently being prioritised. It is not easy, and it will not happen overnight, but reducing unnecessary consumption is one lever that sits directly in our hands as consumers.

The work governments are doing to decarbonise power grids remains critical, because that is what powers our homes and offices. But lower consumption should ultimately reduce demand on those power supplies. Not necessarily in the country where the product is consumed, as many goods are imported, but across the full production cycle the net result should be reduced power demand. That cannot be a bad thing.

So, as consumers, we can act if we choose to.

Companies also have a lever available to them, and many are still not using it properly. It is right under their nose: procurement.

Over the last 20 years, supply chains have become finely tuned engines built around cost and speed. If goods arrive at the right price and on time, companies rarely consider where they have come from, how far they have travelled, the mode of transport or how many times they have moved before reaching the consumer. While we cannot lose focus on cost and speed, we need to balance those decisions with distance travelled.

Near-shoring final production closer to the consumer will raise prices in many categories, and in a lot of scenarios that is not something consumer brands want to do. In a post-Covid world, consumers remain highly price sensitive. Combine that with scepticism about climate messaging, and you can see why raising prices may simply push consumers towards competitors.

What can be done, however, is to nearshore more of the supply base around the finishing factory. That allows companies to protect a lower cost base while reducing the total distance travelled across the production cycle.

At this stage, companies do not need to wait for perfect environmental impact calculations before acting. A shorter total distance will generally mean a lower environmental impact, provided the saving is not wiped out by a change in transport mode, such as moving from sea freight to air freight. Environmental impact statements can be discussed and agreed later on. The focus needs to be on making some forward looking progress.

The place to start is not another expensive consulting project. It is to link company performance across the board to a measurable reduction in the distance travelled for each product procured. Nothing focuses the mind better than changing how people are recognised and rewarded.

At the start, there may be very little data to evaluate. I would not be surprised if many companies do not even capture reliable data for their direct suppliers. But with the right framework, this can change quickly. The first performance metric should not be how much distance is already known. It should be a factor of how complete the knowledge is and how much distance has been saved as a percentage. As companies get more confident in their execution capabilities this can evolve around the company’s experience and direction.

If we combine a smarter procurement strategy with reduced consumption, the original Net Zero targets may be closer than many currently think. Not because the challenge is easy, but because some of the most obvious levers have still not been pulled properly.

This is a typical example of where we may have over-engineered the solution. In trying to build complex programmes, models and advisory structures around decarbonisation, we risk missing the simpler operational changes that could create real impact.

This is why procurement strategy should not sit on the edge of the climate conversation. It should be much closer to the centre. If companies want measurable progress, they need to understand where products come from, how far they travel, what documentation sits behind them and where better choices can be made.

We created Zero Pro as an enterprise-level framework to help companies understand their supply chains better, enable effective supplier collaboration through value-added services, automate analytics and reporting, create impactful visualisations and track change over time. We can digitise agreements and trade documentation across the supply chain, creating a unique, indexable and searchable digital vault of what companies need to know about their operations, risks and opportunities. From there, this data can be connected back to consumers through QR codes, helping provide structured and certified education about product impact.

Delivering a lower-carbon environment is not as complicated as we keep making it. We need to stop over-engineering the answer and start looking at what is already right in front of us.

If your company wants to accelerate its progress towards agile, responsive and fit for purpose next generation supply chains whilst reducing costs, get in contact with us at hello@zeropro.co