1. “It’s not a priority right now”: When should companies start decarbonizing?

In short: sooner than it usually feels. The issues tied to climate data don’t follow your internal priority list. Energy costs, customer requirements, and regulation are coming either way.

The objection is understandable. Order volumes, skilled labor shortages, supply bottlenecks: at mid-sized companies, there’s rarely a moment when nothing urgent is on the table. Next to all that, a carbon footprint can easily look like a requirement with no obvious benefit.

The problem is that the topic doesn’t go away when you put it off. It comes back later, usually under more time pressure and at a higher cost. One example is your own progress over time. If a customer wants to know how much you’ve reduced your emissions in recent years, you need comparative figures from exactly those years. Companies that start their carbon accounting late can’t prove progress, even if it happened.

Prioritizing is still the right call, as long as it’s based on numbers. An initial carbon footprint shows where the relevant emissions, costs, and risks lie. From there, you can decide which few measures deliver most of the impact and which can wait. These often include measures that make a noticeable difference in the short term, for example on energy costs.

2. “We’re still waiting for clear requirements”: Do you need a decarbonization strategy without a legal obligation?

In short: yes, if customers, banks, or tenders ask for climate data. And they increasingly do, regardless of what lawmakers currently require.

There’s a real reason behind this objection. Sustainability regulation is in flux: thresholds for reporting obligations have been raised, deadlines postponed, and reporting content scaled back. If you base your planning on the law, you’re planning against a moving target.

But the law has long since stopped being the only source of requirements. A large share comes through the supply chain. Corporations that have set climate targets also need to reduce emissions from the goods and services they buy. To do that, they need data from their suppliers, which they request through supplier questionnaires, framework agreements, or tenders. Banks, in turn, assess climate risks in their loan portfolios and ask for emissions data during financing discussions.

This shifts the question. Instead of “What do lawmakers require?” it becomes: What information do our customers and lenders need, and does a solid data foundation give us an advantage?

That’s why it makes sense to set up a carbon footprint without waiting for the final legal situation. Methodologically, it follows the GHG Protocol, which is the established standard regardless of individual laws. It becomes more accurate with every update: primary data replaces estimates, and assumptions are checked against real values. Along the way, it also shows where energy, materials, or process steps in your own operations cost more than they need to.

3. “Nobody cares anyway”: Who asks for climate data?

In short: large customers, tendering organizations, and banks, increasingly with concrete requirements for quality and comparability. If you only start when the request arrives, you usually have too little time for reliable figures.

For many companies, the statement is actually true at the moment. Not every customer is openly asking for emissions data yet, and the topic barely plays a role in day-to-day business.

That typically changes with a single request. An important customer needs your components’ product carbon footprint for its own Scope 3 reporting. A public tender calls for a climate target and proof of emissions. Before renewing a credit line, the bank sends an ESG questionnaire.

At this point, a quick Excel estimate rarely suffices. What’s needed are traceable values, a clear methodology, and data for all relevant sites. Building that within a few weeks is expensive, stressful, and error-prone. If in doubt, the contract goes to a competitor who was able to respond faster.

Preparation here mainly means building the data foundation before anyone asks: Which data is where, who’s responsible, and how does it all come together? Once these questions are settled, you can respond to requests calmly and with reliable figures.

4. “We don’t have the resources”: How much effort does a carbon footprint take?

In short: far less than it feels like, as long as you don’t tackle everything at once. Most of the effort comes from poor processes that start from scratch every year.

Climate management can quickly look like a huge extra project. Corporate footprint, product carbon footprints, maybe a life cycle assessment, plus climate targets, measures, and reporting. If you plan all of that at the same time, you really won’t have the capacity.

But nobody expects that either. A sensible starting point is a company-level carbon footprint, the corporate carbon footprint. It shows where the largest emissions lie and therefore where resources are actually worth investing. Instead of tackling ten things at once, you focus on the biggest levers.

You don’t have to cover every detail yourself. Methodological expertise, for example on assigning emission factors or defining Scope 3 boundaries, can be brought in selectively from external consultants. Internally, what you mainly need are clear responsibilities and a process that can be repeated every year.

That’s exactly where most of the effort arises. When Excel files are passed around by email, consumption data is painstakingly pieced together, and emission factors are assigned manually, every footprint takes a lot of time all over again. With clear processes and software such as the VERSO Climate Hub, this can be standardized so the footprint doesn’t turn into a major project again every year.

5. “The others aren’t doing it either”: Is climate action a competitive advantage?

In short: yes, especially when it isn’t yet standard in your industry. At the same time, competitors are often doing more than is visible from the outside.

At first glance, the statement sounds reassuring. If nobody in the market is moving, there seems to be no reason to rush ahead.

Whether it’s true, however, is hard to judge from the outside. A decarbonization strategy rarely features on the homepage, internal climate targets aren’t necessarily announced publicly, and a PCF often only becomes an issue when a customer specifically asks for it. Assuming competitors are doing nothing because you can’t see anything often means underestimating the situation.

And if the others really are doing nothing, that’s your opportunity. As long as reliable CO₂ data, a transparent climate target, or PCFs for the most important products aren’t a given in an industry, good preparation lets you build a head start. It becomes visible the moment an important customer requests climate data, a tender calls for concrete targets, or the bank asks about them. That’s when it becomes clear who’s prepared.

Companies that start early can set themselves apart with their data instead of playing catch-up later. Reliable figures and a clear strategy are strong arguments in sales conversations, in tenders, and with investors.

6. As a service provider, we hardly have any emissions”: Do service providers need a carbon footprint?

In short: yes. Service providers often have low direct emissions, but as with most companies, the largest share of their carbon footprint lies in Scope 3, meaning purchased services, business travel, and IT.

The objection usually comes from companies without a plant and without production. And for part of the footprint, it’s true. The GHG Protocol, the common standard for carbon accounting, distinguishes between three scopes: Scope 1 covers direct emissions, for example from your own heating systems or company vehicles. Scope 2 covers emissions from purchased electricity and heat. Scope 3 covers all other indirect emissions along the value chain. For service providers, Scope 1 and 2 are often genuinely small.

But that says little about the overall footprint. For most companies, whether in industry, retail, or services, Scope 3 accounts for by far the largest share of emissions.

Where service providers’ Scope 3 emissions lie depends on the business model:

• A consulting firm with a lot of travel often has its largest emissions in flights and train journeys to clients, not in the office.
• A software company generates a large share of its emissions through the cloud infrastructure it purchases, and less at its own site.
• A financial services provider often has its largest emissions in the companies it finances or invests in.

Companies that only account for Scope 1 and 2 therefore usually see just a fraction of their carbon footprint, whether they’re service providers or manufacturers. A good starting point is the Scope 3 categories that are clearly relevant to your business model: business travel, employee commuting, purchased services and IT, and for financial companies, financed emissions.

7. “We have no influence on Scope 3”: How can Scope 3 emissions be reduced?

In short: through procurement, supplier selection, and product design. Companies don’t control Scope 3 emissions directly, but they influence them through many of their own decisions.

Scope 3 covers the indirect emissions that arise in the upstream and downstream value chain, meaning at suppliers, in logistics, or during the use of your own products. It’s true that you don’t cause these emissions yourself. That you can’t influence them is only half true.

That’s because many levers lie within your own company:

• which materials are used
• which suppliers and partners you work with
• what requirements you place on suppliers
• how products are designed and how many emissions are already embedded in them

Quick wins are rare in Scope 3, and little can be steered at the push of a button. In practice, “We have no influence on that” therefore often means: The topic is complex, and we don’t have a good approach for it yet.

A good approach is to make the topic smaller and more concrete. A hotspot analysis shows which commodity groups and suppliers account for the largest share of your Scope 3 emissions. For these, it pays to improve data, sharpen requirements, and look at alternatives. Because Scope 3 makes up the largest part of the carbon footprint at many companies, this is also where the greatest reduction potential lies. Our practical guide to sustainable supply chains shows how to involve suppliers in a structured way.

8. “It brings us no benefits, only costs”: Does decarbonization pay off economically?

In short: often yes, because the data collected for a carbon footprint also reveals costs and inefficiencies. Not every measure pays off immediately, but looking only at the investment falls short.

Decarbonization costs money, and there’s no sugarcoating that. Data collection, software, consulting, and measures all come with costs, and some investments only take effect over years.

If you only look at this side, however, you overlook what changes elsewhere. One example: A company calculates a product’s carbon footprint and takes a closer look at its materials and bill of materials. This reveals that less material could be used in some places. CO₂ was the trigger; the result is lower emissions and lower material costs.

Similar effects show up in many places:

• Logistics data collected for the carbon footprint uncovers inefficient routes.
• Material flow data makes offcuts and scrap visible, which easily get lost in cost accounting.
• Supply chain analysis shows where dependencies on individual suppliers become an economic risk.
• Reliable emissions data helps you answer tenders and custome

This turns the carbon footprint or PCF into an analysis tool for your own operations. The more worthwhile question is therefore: Which costs, risks, or inefficiencies become visible once we truly understand our emissions?r requests quickly and on a solid basis.

9. “We offset everything anyway”: Is offsetting enough for climate action?

In short: no. Offsetting balances out emissions on paper but doesn’t reduce them. It has its place at the end of a reduction pathway, for the remainder that can’t be avoided.

With offsetting, a company buys certificates from climate protection projects, for example in reforestation or renewable energy, and counts the associated savings against its own emissions. These projects can be worthwhile. But they don’t change anything about the emissions in your own company and supply chain, which continue to occur.

Regulation now also draws clear lines here. Since September 27, 2026, the EU Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, EmpCo for short, has applied. It prohibits advertising a product as “climate neutral” or “carbon neutral” if this claim is based on offsetting.

Credible climate targets reverse the logic anyway. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) requires deep emission reductions across all scopes. Offsetting is only intended for residual emissions that can’t be avoided, and even then through the permanent removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere rather than arbitrary offset certificates.

So the order is clear: reduce first, then offset the unavoidable remainder. If you want to safeguard climate claims in your communications, you’ll find more in our article on the fife biggest greenwashing- traps.

Conclusion: Why the request comes anyway

None of the nine objections are made up. Resources are scarce, laws keep changing, Scope 3 is hard to manage, and decarbonization costs money. People who say these things are usually describing quite honestly how the topic feels right now: big and hard to get a handle on.

On one point, however, the objections change nothing. At some point, someone will ask for the numbers, whether it’s an important customer, a tender, or the bank. That request doesn’t depend on whether the topic is an internal priority right now or what competitors are doing. If you’ve started by then, you can respond calmly and with reliable data.

Getting started doesn’t mean doing everything at once. Three steps are enough to begin:

1. an initial carbon footprint that shows where your largest emissions lie
2. prioritization of the few levers with the greatest impact
3. a process that can be repeated every year without starting from zero again

You wanna start now? Feel free to contact us!

One data foundation for PCF, LCA, EPD, and CCF

PCF, LCA, EPD, and CCF do not compete with each other; they answer different questions. Which tool you need depends on the occasion, and over time you will often need several of them: a PCF for a customer today, an LCA for a redesign tomorrow, and later an EPD for a tender. The better you understand the differences, the more precisely you can deliver what is needed without wasting effort.

What connects all four is the data behind them: they rely on largely the same product data or build on one another. Once you have reliably collected a product’s CO₂ value, you have already completed a large part of the work needed for the LCA, and those results in turn form the basis for an EPD. The real effort rarely lies in the individual proof point, but in building a robust, traceable data foundation. If the data is scattered or incomplete, every new request starts from scratch. If it is well-structured and available, the right proof point can be derived depending on the occasion.

This is exactly where the VERSO Climate Hub comes in: It brings product calculations, from PCF to LCA, together on one shared data foundation.

* This information is summarized editorial content and should not be construed as legal advice. VERSO accepts no liability.