Sam Stark, CEO and Founder of Green Project Technologies, talks tackling Scope 3 emissions across com-plex food supply chains
Can you tell us about your career journey and what led you to found Green Project Technologies?
I started at Goldman Sachs supporting energy and sustainability work, including the firm’s own net-zero goals. What struck me was the share of emissions sitting within complex supply chains, and how existing tools simply weren’t built to effectively engage suppliers at scale who may lack the resourcing, budget or expertise to start their own in-house climate programs. That insight shaped everything.
I founded Green Project in 2020 because credible net-zero progress means making climate solutions accessible not just to big corporations, but to the thousands of smaller companies sitting behind them. We’ve been Scope 3-focused from day one. Since then, we’ve grown rapidly, and in 2023 became part of ACT Group, which has accelerated our ability to deliver at scale. Today we work with procurement teams and their supplier bases across more than 50 countries.
The food and beverage sector accounts for a significant share of global emissions. Where in the value chain do you see the biggest opportunities for rapid reduction?
The honest answer is that the emissions are spread across the entire chain, from farm inputs and ingredients through to packaging, logistics, and end of life. Each part operates under different constraints, which is what makes food and beverage uniquely complex.
Where I see the biggest untapped opportunity is in ingredient sourcing. Most companies are still working from rough, industry-average estimates here, and quality supplier-specific data will unlock better decisioning, across climate and other risk and cost vectors. Changes in farming practice remain one of the most significant and underleveraged opportunities here too. Regenerative agriculture and interventions like feed additives to address enteric methane can materially reduce upstream emissions, but they require buyer co-funding and long-term relationships with growers, not just data requests. Packaging is consistently underestimated, where more sustainable procurement decisions around global material use can scale extensively. Logistics is worth highlighting too, where fuel type and routing decisions are made daily but rarely connected back to emissions targets – a new class of point-to-point logistics modeling tools and emissions factors have greatly improved calculation accuracy here.
The common thread is that progress depends on engaging each part of the chain in the right way: what works for a farm won’t work for a logistics provider.
Many businesses struggle with visibility beyond Tier 1 suppliers. How can companies realistically gain ac-curate emissions data deeper into their supply chains?
Treat it as a ladder, not a leap. Trying to perfect product-level footprints before you have basic, directional visibility into where Tier 1 hotspots are, is where most companies get stuck, and progress stalls while the problem keeps growing.
Start with a Scope 3 heatmap: combine spend data with sector-level emissions factors to find where the majority of emissions sit by category and geography. Most companies find their footprint is far more concentrated amongst select suppliers than they expected. From there, agree on methodology before collecting data, then run structured, targeted campaigns in your highest-impact categories, reaching out to the most relevant suppliers with tools they can leverage with ease.
In food and beverage specifically, growers, processors, packaging suppliers, and logistics providers each need a different engagement approach. What works for a manufacturer won’t work for a farm. Programs that recognize that reality and segment supplier cohorting drive far better participation, and far better data in turn.
What are the most common mistakes organizations make when they first attempt to measure supply chain emissions?
Three pitfalls come up consistently.
First, chasing the last decimal point, spending months perfecting methodology while suppliers disengage and nothing changes on the ground. It’s better to be directionally correct and action-oriented than stuck in analysis paralysis.
Second, keeping it siloed from procurement. If Scope 3 only comes up in sustainability meetings, it will al-ways come second to price and service. When procurement teams embed carbon into sourcing criteria, suppliers understand it matters not just to the sustainability team, but to their commercial relationships at large.
Third, supplier fatigue. Most suppliers, especially SMEs, are already inundated with fragmented requests from multiple customers. The ask needs to come with the right tools, training, and a clear reason why it matters to them, otherwise you get poor data and disengaged suppliers.
Collaboration is often cited as essential, but difficult in practice. What does effective collaboration across the food value chain actually look like?
In practice, it means aligning on standards and removing duplication. Something as simple as two or three large buyers getting aligned on what they’re asking their shared suppliers can make a real difference, response rates go up, data quality improves, and suppliers aren’t drowning in conflicting requests. These aren’t challenges any one company can solve alone, industry groups and peer networks play a real role in building that common ground.
On the technology side, our partnership with HowGood is a practical example of what this looks like. Food and beverage supply chains are complex enough that trying to solve them in isolation is inefficient. HowGood brings Carbon Trust-certified, farm-level footprinting for food ingredients; we bring supplier engagement and measurement across the rest of the value chain: packaging, logistics, operations, services. Together, organizations get complete visibility rather than fragmented pieces, and suppliers only see what’s relevant and actionable for them.
How can smaller suppliers, who may lack resources or expertise, be supported in reducing their emissions without being excluded from supply chains?
You can’t demand more from suppliers without giving them the means to deliver. That just pushes sourcing toward the biggest players and leaves everyone else behind.
Tools need to be free, easy to use, and built to meet suppliers where they are, not where their customers wish they were. Suppliers shouldn’t need a sustainability team to get started.
Beyond the tools, buyers need to hold up their end of the bargain too. Set clear expectations, make it easy to respond, and recognize suppliers who make progress. Because when climate action is good for business, suppliers engage. When it feels like just another box to tick, they struggle to own and feel excited about the work
What role does technology, particularly data platforms like Green Project play in turning emissions insights into measurable action?
Understanding your footprint was a necessary foundation, but knowing your emissions doesn’t reduce them. The shift we’re seeing now is from measurement to decision-making, and that’s where the real work begins.
The practical breakthrough isn’t perfect data, it’s getting emissions into the room when procurement decisions are being made. AI can surface hotspots, model the impact of different sourcing choices, and help teams focus on the interventions that actually move the needle. That’s when carbon accounting starts to look a lot more like procurement strategy.
And there’s a broader point: reducing emissions and reducing supply chain risk are increasingly the same exercise. Companies using emissions data as a sourcing signal, not just an ESG metric, are making better decisions regardless of their climate ambitions. Additionally, procurement teams who go through the work of engaging suppliers on climate – cleaning up supplier spend data, reconciling vendor accounts, defining relevant contacts at each, building consistent outreach campaigns, and requesting supplier data – will find that these processes well serve procurement needs across the board.
Are there any standout examples of companies or initiatives in the food and beverage sector that are get-ting this right?
The honest answer is that the industry still has a long way to go. The gap between Scope 3 ambition and actual reduction remains significant across the sector, and with 2030 fast approaching, the time pressure is real.
That said, there are approaches emerging that point in the right direction. WBCSD’s work on Avoided Emissions highlights procurement-led models where brands fund farm-level interventions directly. Feed additives reduce enteric methane and manure emissions while lowering feed costs for farmers, connecting the buyer, farmer, and measurement system through a single purchasing decision. Mars’ programs with smallholder farmers across cocoa and mint point in a similar direction, bundling income diversification, agroforestry, and training together, recognizing that farm-level decarbonization doesn’t work unless the economics work for the farmer first. That alignment of incentives is what’s been missing, and it’s starting to emerge.
Where we’re seeing the most progressive organizations move is in getting full Scope 3 visibility, real data across food and non-food suppliers in one place, rather than fragmented estimates. That’s precisely why we partnered with HowGood: to connect farm-level footprinting for ingredients with supplier engagement across the rest of the value chain. When you can see the full picture, you can finally start making decisions that actually reduce it.
How should businesses balance sustainability goals with ongoing cost pressures, especially in today’s eco-nomic climate?
The sustainability versus cost framing is increasingly a false choice. The suppliers best positioned to weather disruption tend to be the same ones managing their emissions well, not just because of lower carbon exposure, but because the discipline of understanding your emissions means you understand your business. Better processes, clearer visibility into risk, stronger supplier relationships. Resilience and low carbon tend to go hand in hand, companies are just starting to realize it.
The ones pulling ahead are embedding sustainability into commercial decisions, not treating it as a parallel exercise. When you do that, the business case takes care of itself, more stable input costs, less regulatory exposure, fewer supply chain surprises. This does not only make a climate case, but also a procurement one.
The practical starting point is to focus where the commercial and sustainability cases already align and build from there.
Looking ahead, how do you expect regulation and reporting requirements around supply chain emissions to evolve over the next three-to-five years?
At the corporate inventory level, CSRD is already driving significant change in Europe, and as large buyers
face stricter obligations, those requirements will cascade down supply chains. In food and beverage specifically, we’ll see increasing alignment around product carbon footprints, with standards like PACT and TfS shaping what acceptable data looks like, and EU programs such as Digital Product Passports, CBAM (for fertilizers) and PPWR (for packaging waste regulation) setting the stage for mandatory reporting.
Companies who invest now in accessing primary supply chain data and building audit-ready reporting infrastructure will be well positioned to stay ahead of these developments, as well as future potential emissions reduction mandates. Those who still rely on spend-based estimates and annual surveys will find themselves significantly exposed: the time to build the foundation is now, not when the regulation lands.
If you could give one piece of practical advice to supply chain leaders in the food industry who are just starting their decarbonization journey, what would it be?
Creating a heatmap is a good place to start. Map your emissions hotspots, identify the suppliers who rep-resent the majority of your footprint, and focus your energy there first. You’ll learn more from one structured pilot with those suppliers than from six months of scoping exercises.
Progress comes from being directionally correct and action-oriented, not from waiting until the data is perfect or the strategy is fully formed. The suppliers, the regulators, and the climate aren’t waiting.
Sam Stark
Founded in 2020 by former Goldman Sachs strategist Sam Stark, Green Project was created to help decarbonize global supply chains and give businesses practical tools to measure, manage, and reduce their environmental impact. The company delivers end-to-end decarbonization through scalable supplier engagement and action, verified data, and renewable energy procurement, enabling companies and their suppliers to operationalize climate action together.