Problems

Three problems, one under-resourced function.

01 — Physical climate resilience

Climate exposure starts upstream

Most companies model climate risk where they have visibility — distribution, logistics, owned facilities. They miss raw material sourcing, which is where ecosystem depletion and climate sensitivity actually bite. A company can have a well-mapped logistics risk profile and still be blind to the fact that a critical input comes from a single region facing severe water stress. The blind spot comes from how risk assessment is scoped: it follows the org chart, not the material flow.

Why it matters

Cost — supply interruption and input price volatility hit margin directly.
Timeline — this is a current operating risk, not a 2050 scenario.
Compliance — regulators increasingly ask for upstream exposure, not just direct operations.

The approach

Combine geospatial and satellite data, supply chain mapping, and frontier model synthesis to stitch together fragmented supplier and sourcing information and surface exposure patterns a spreadsheet exercise would miss. The insight — that raw material exposure is the underweighted risk — comes from natural capital and EP&L methodology. The tooling makes it tractable at speed.

Illustrative — method, not a delivered client result

The kind of finding this surfaces: mapping raw material sourcing against climate scenarios points to risk mitigation opportunities in the region of 10–15% of annual procurement costs, without adding headcount.

02 — Scope 3

Your Scope 3 roadmap is probably solving the wrong problem

Two failures compound. First, the data is bad and chasing better data is a dead end — suppliers have little incentive to measure rigorously, and what comes back is incomplete and inconsistent. Second, and more important, the leverage usually isn't in the supply chain at all. Emissions are driven by what is asked of suppliers: overproduction, excess inventory, days of inventory carried, logistics timing, merchandising decisions, weak demand forecasting. Pushing suppliers toward green energy yields something, rarely a lot. Fixing your own planning and production discipline yields more, and reduces working capital at the same time.

Why it matters

Regulators want Scope 3 transparency; “our suppliers won't tell us” isn't an answer.
Budget spent on supplier engagement programmes with low ceilings is budget not spent on the operational drivers.
The operational fixes pay back twice — emissions and working capital.

The approach

Grade and synthesise what supplier data exists, model the gaps with multivariate weighting — production process, company size and maturity, geography, energy mix — then analyse production-to-sales ratios, inventory turns, replenishment cycles, and demand forecasting accuracy to locate the real leverage. Deliver a defensible emissions signature and a reduction plan aimed at the drivers that actually move it.

Illustrative — method, not a delivered client result

The kind of finding this surfaces: a consumer goods business assumes its Scope 3 problem is supplier energy. Production-to-sales ratio and inventory turn analysis traces a majority of the footprint to carrying excess stock and inefficient replenishment. The fix reduces emissions and frees working capital.

03 — Regulatory velocity

Regulation is moving faster than your ability to respond

Climate disclosure requirements land continuously — CSRD, ISSB, California, SEC, and whatever follows — each with different scope, data requirements, and timelines. Three failures stack: teams don't know with confidence which rules apply to them, they can't map requirements to their actual operations and data, and they don't have the reporting infrastructure or the bandwidth to build it in the window available.

Why it matters

Regulatory risk with real consequences — missed deadlines and misstatements carry teeth.
Late or thin disclosure invites investor and stakeholder questions.
Every quarter of delay compounds against the next wave of requirements.

The approach

Synthesise the regulatory landscape against a specific company footprint — sector, geography, structure, size — to determine what genuinely applies. Map requirements against existing data and processes to identify gaps before an audit does. Sequence a phased build rather than a full infrastructure rebuild. Frontier models compress work that would otherwise take a compliance team months.

Illustrative — method, not a delivered client result

The kind of finding this surfaces: a multinational manufacturer facing several new disclosure regimes in the same window, with no reporting infrastructure, reaches a phased compliance roadmap in weeks rather than a six-month scramble — without hiring a dedicated compliance officer.