Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon and Microsoft have similar-sounding 2030 commitments and very different routes to them. Because Scope 3 dominates their footprints, those routes arrive at suppliers as requests for data, targets, clean electricity and audits. This guide sets out the four targets, the seven areas suppliers are asked about, and what to build first if the request has landed on your desk.
Four sections, from targets to the removals market
The four targets, and where they differ
The headline commitments look alike. The chosen route to them is what reaches suppliers.
What unites them is structural: Scope 3 is the overwhelming majority of their footprint, and AI-driven data centre expansion is pushing capital goods and purchased goods upward. No amount of internal effort closes that gap, which is why the requirement travels down the supply chain.
What suppliers are actually asked for
The ask has moved well beyond signing a code of conduct.
Microsoft is the sharpest case: its supplier code of conduct includes a clause requiring suppliers, when asked, to move to 100% carbon-free electricity for the goods and services they provide to Microsoft by 2030, with separate guidance on how that electricity may be sourced. Treat it as a commercial condition rather than an aspiration.
If you are the supplier: what to build first
Three things serve every customer, so they are the right first investment.
- Emissions data you can disaggregate. A company-wide total will not satisfy these requests. You need to allocate to a customer, a product or a site, and to explain the allocation method.
- Evidence for clean electricity claims. Contracts, certificates and retirement records — kept, not reconstructed later. Check in advance which sourcing methods the customer accepts: annual matching, hourly matching, and unbundled certificates are not treated equally.
- The ability to be audited and to remediate. A corrective action plan you can produce quickly matters more than a perfect first score.
What happens if you decline? Rarely an immediate loss of business. More often the requirement appears as a scoring criterion in the next sourcing round — which means an honest current position plus a credible plan is usually enough, while silence is not.
Carbon removal, and why these buyers matter to the market
The hyperscalers are the largest buyers of engineered removals, and their purchasing is shaping what counts as quality.
Because their residual emissions are large and their net-zero claims are scrutinised, these companies buy removals rather than avoidance credits, often as long-term offtake agreements for capacity that does not exist yet. That has two effects worth understanding even if you never buy a credit:
- It has pushed the market’s definition of quality towards measurable, durable removal with verified delivery, rather than projected avoidance.
- It has made the distinction between reduction and neutralisation explicit in corporate reporting — reductions in the value chain first, removals only for what remains.
For suppliers, the practical read-across is that offering your customer “offset” instead of reduction is unlikely to be accepted.
What suppliers ask when the request arrives
A customer is asking for our emissions data. Where do we start?
With annual electricity and fuel consumption, and the records that support them. Most requests resolve to either a product-level footprint or your company total allocated by an activity measure. Getting the underlying consumption data and its evidence in order comes before choosing a methodology.
Will renewable energy certificates satisfy the requirement?
Sometimes, but not universally. Requirements are moving towards matching clean electricity to consumption by hour and by grid, and towards demonstrating that new generation was actually added. Confirm which sourcing methods your specific customer accepts before signing anything.
What happens if we cannot meet the requirement?
Usually not immediate loss of business. The requirement more often appears as a criterion in the next sourcing decision. A stated current position with a credible improvement plan is generally workable; no response is what causes problems.
Why do these companies buy carbon removals rather than cheaper offsets?
Because their claims are heavily scrutinised and avoidance credits are widely criticised for weak additionality and permanence. Buying durable, measurable removals is a defensibility decision, and it has pushed the wider market in the same direction.