Food and Drink Carbon Data: How to Turn It Into Savings

Carbon data used to have one main job: a figure calculated once a year for a sustainability report or disclosure requirement. The UK Carbon Data Benchmark 2026, a Censuswide survey of 502 senior UK decision-makers commissioned by Zevero, shows that has changed. 

From those surveyed, credible carbon data was needed for an average of two in five commercial opportunities that businesses pursued in the past year. Across all sectors, nearly two-thirds of businesses (63%) lost or delayed an opportunity in the past two years, with incomplete, inconsistent or inaccessible carbon data as a contributing factor.

This blog covers how food and drink businesses in the benchmark use carbon data to cut costs, where the results fall short, and which practices link to lower operating and procurement costs.

What the benchmark measured

Carbon data refers to the emissions figures a business produces, such as its total footprint and the footprint of individual products. For food and drink businesses, it draws on ingredients, agricultural supply chains, packaging, manufacturing, energy use and logistics, alongside information submitted by suppliers.

The survey covered senior managers and above at UK companies with 100 or more employees, and fieldwork ran from 28 August to 9 September 2026. Most climate and sustainability benchmarks only survey sustainability professionals. This one deliberately reached the people who control budgets, supplier lists and tenders: 79% of respondents work outside sustainability, in functions including general management, finance, operations, procurement, commercial and product. Other sectors covered include technology and IT, manufacturing and industrial goods, financial services, consumer goods, professional services, retail, engineering and construction, and healthcare and pharmaceuticals. Food and drink businesses (the survey category is food and beverage) made up 10% of the sample (50 of 502 respondents).

How do food and drink businesses use carbon data?

Food and drink businesses stand out on cost. 56% name reducing operating costs as one of their top three reasons to use carbon data, against 41% in other sectors, the highest share of any sector surveyed. Demand is in line with other sectors: credible carbon data was needed on 39% of their commercial opportunities, against a 40% average.

Most report results, but fewer report full ones. 80% say carbon data has fully or partly helped them reduce operating or procurement costs in the past two years, and 32% say fully. Separately, 44% have used it to win or retain a customer, contract or tender, and 38% have pursued two or more goals with carbon data that they have not yet achieved, against 21% in other sectors.

Carbon data plays a smaller part in their supplier, product and logistics decisions than it does in other sectors. 24% say it does not regularly influence any of their decisions on suppliers, product design, or operational planning, transport and logistics, against 10% in other sectors. Only 18% say it almost always shapes operational planning, transport and logistics (32% in other sectors), and 14% say it is routinely included in major decisions across several functions (27% in other sectors).

George Wade, co-founder and chief commercial officer at Zevero, said: “Food and drink businesses are already getting real value from carbon data. Most have found savings with it, and many are using it to win and keep customers. The opportunity now is to go further: to put figures the business trusts in front of the people choosing suppliers, developing products and planning logistics. That is where the next round of savings, and the next contract wins, will come from.”

Why does slow carbon data cost money?

The report does not break its speed and cost figures down by sector, so the figures in this section and the next cover all UK businesses surveyed unless stated.

Among businesses that collect emissions data, a credible figure takes 9.1 days on average to reach the person who needs it. Only 13.5% can provide one within the same working day, while 42% need a week or more. The wait begins after emissions have been calculated. 

Holding more data does not shorten that wait. Businesses that take a month or more to produce a figure collect roughly as many types of carbon data as those that answer the same day. The benchmark suggests the delay comes from ownership and systems rather than volume.

In the past two years, 72% of businesses have had to repeat work because of carbon data gaps, and 69% have seen a commercial or operational decision delayed. In food and drink, 78% say gaps like these have contributed to repeated work and 64% to a lost or delayed opportunity (in line with the all-sector figure). The survey asked whether gaps in carbon data had required work to be repeated.

Which practices are linked to lower costs?

The benchmark identifies three practices associated with stronger commercial outcomes: giving decision-makers same-day access to credible figures, collecting emissions data directly from suppliers, and using carbon data in business decisions. Same-day access and supplier data show the clearest differences on cost.

The third row looks at one type of decision, operational planning. Across decisions as a whole, the picture is weaker: businesses that embed carbon data in decisions are only three points ahead of compliance-only businesses on reduced costs, a gap the report does not mark as statistically significant. All of these are associations drawn from self-reported survey answers. The benchmark does not put a pound figure on cost reductions.

Supplier data has room to grow. Fewer than half of companies collect emissions data directly from suppliers, and 67% have struggled to compare suppliers or products on carbon in the past two years.

How can food and drink companies cut costs with carbon data?

The benchmark closes with a roadmap. The steps below adapt it to the cost angle.

1. Measure time-to-answer. Track how long a customer, tender or lender request for carbon data takes to answer. If it exceeds one working day, set a target.
2. Name an owner and a sign-off route. Make one person or team responsible for the figures, with clear rules for how they affect decisions, as with financial figures. Only 19% of businesses that collect carbon data treat it as a standard input with a defined owner.
3. Connect the systems. Keep carbon data in one system of record linked to finance, procurement and operations systems. Among businesses with disconnected systems, 81% report having delayed a decision, against 60% of others.
4. Start with one live decision. A supplier review, a product change or a transport and logistics decision gives a concrete test. Across all sectors, businesses that build carbon data into decisions are twice as likely as reporting-only businesses to have brought a lower-carbon product to market.
5. Test your confidence. Check whether you can evidence your last three external carbon statements in writing. Confidence stays high even among businesses that have lost or delayed opportunities because of carbon data, so how sure the team feels is not the test.
6. Prioritise supplier data. Collect supplier-specific information directly where possible, rather than estimating from spend or industry averages (see how spend-based and activity-based methods compare), and use it to compare suppliers.

How Zevero can help

Zevero helps businesses turn emissions reporting into decision-ready insight. Corporate carbon footprinting covers Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions measurement with a methodology aligned to the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064-1, giving you granular insight into your carbon footprint. The product carbon footprint measures product-level emissions from raw materials to disposal, in line with the GHG Protocol and ISO 14067, which supports food and drink businesses responding to product-specific customer requests. Get in touch to see how Zevero can support decision-ready carbon figures.