Up to about 17 percent of retailers’ Scope 3 emission reductions could be
enabled by applying cost saving or neutral levers.
Reduction potential,¹ %
Highlighted levers in Chapter 4
Cost saving or neutral²
Cost saving or neutral²
Cost saving or neutral²
Cost prohibitive
Cost prohibitive
Cost prohibitive
A
B
C
D
Advocate and support, >$0/Mt
in tiers 4+ and >$50/Mt across
all tiers, %
Lead and scale,
$0/metric ton
(Mt) in tiers 1
and 2,³ %
Collaborate and catalyze, $0–$50/Mt
in tiers 1–3, %
Convene value chain, $0/Mt
in tiers 3+, %
Reduction theme
Reduction potential
Transitioning to
clean and renewable
energy
16.7
0.2
1.4
7.7
7.4
Reducing farming
emissions from
livestock management
<0.1
2.7
9.1
4.4
16.2
Adopting regenerative
practices in plant
basedagricultural
inputs
8.9
<0.1
5.0
0.1
3.8
Increasing circularity
and recycling
7.5
0.1
0.1
2.7
4.6
Reducing waste and
increasing process
efficiency
6.0
0.6
4.5
0.1
0.8
Reducing emissions
in transportation
1.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
1.4
Switching from
animal proteins to
plant alternatives
(feed or product)⁴
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
1.3
<0.1
Total reduction
potential
55–65%
1–2%
11–15%
19–23%
20–24%
¹Based on baseline emissions, reduction potentials, and costs of levers only for packaged products as received by retail store; does not include losses, consumer,or end-of-life emissions and levers.
²Cost neutral is defined as break-even ($0/Mt CO₂ abated).
³Calculated based on levers that sit within retailers’ tiers 1 and 2 supply network and levers that are “in the money” as well as cost neutral (ie, break-even).
⁴Reduction potential for the theme. Switching from animal protein to plant alternatives is calculated using beef category as proxy, assuming 4% adoption rate
of alternative meat by 2030 and assuming an emission reduction potential of ~80–85% in beef.
McKinsey & Company