What happens if you do nothing – and CO₂ data is missing?

CO₂ data is rarely the main topic.
Most of the time, it just appears somewhere in a request.

Sandra knows these situations from two perspectives:
a short time in procurement – and many years later as Managing Director at natureOffice.
Today, we’re simply talking to her about it.

Question: Sandra, many years ago you worked briefly in procurement. What role did CO₂ data play back then?
Sandra: None at all.
It simply wasn’t part of day-to-day business. Not in tenders, not in conversations. It just wasn’t a factor.

Question: And today?
Sandra: Today it’s the exact opposite – and yet, at first, nothing really happens.

I mainly see this through our work with clients. They tell us about these situations all the time. CO₂ data suddenly shows up, sits somewhere in the request – but it rarely triggers an immediate reaction.

And then there are those moments when things suddenly become very urgent.
Because a value is needed after all. Or because a request becomes more specific than expected.

Question: What do you mean by that?
Sandra: Well, if a value is missing, nothing really happens at first.

Offers are still submitted, projects move forward, business relationships continue. There’s no point where someone suddenly says: “We can’t proceed without this.”

Question: So there’s no clear moment when it becomes critical?
Sandra: Exactly.

There’s no tipping point. No clear threshold.

And in many situations, the lack of a corporate carbon footprint (CCF) – and even more so a product carbon footprint (PCF) – can simply be explained away. With a bit of context, a bit of explanation as to why the data isn’t available yet.

That works surprisingly well for quite a long time.

As a result, the way CO₂ data is handled – or rather, not handled – remains without consequences for quite a while. At least on the surface.

Question: And yet something is changing, right?
Sandra: Yes, that’s exactly the point.

Nothing happens – but something shifts in the background.

CO₂ data is suddenly part of the picture. Not as a central criterion, but as an additional piece of information that helps with comparison.

And that’s where it becomes visible.
Some suppliers simply provide that information – others don’t.

It’s not a hard exclusion.
But it does affect perception.

Not because the number is perfect.
But because it’s there.

Question: What does that mean internally for companies?
Sandra: The effort shifts inward.

As long as the data isn’t structured, every request is handled individually. People gather information, calculate under time pressure, coordinate internally.

At first, that feels like an exception.
But it keeps happening.

And with every new request, the process starts from scratch again.

From the outside, you don’t really see this.
There’s just an offer.

But internally, a pattern emerges.
And that takes time – especially because it has to be reorganized every single time.

Question: When does it become a problem?
Sandra: Not at a single point.

It’s more the accumulation.
A follow-up question here, a bit more effort there, an offer that’s slightly harder to compare.

Individually, none of it is critical.
But over time, it changes the way things work.

And at some point, you realize:
it would have been easier to set this up properly from the start.

Question: What does it ultimately come down to?
Sandra: In the end, it’s not about completeness.

It’s about being able to work with the data.
Whether it’s understandable.
And whether you can provide it again when it’s needed.

It’s not the individual number that matters.
It’s how you handle it.
As so often in life. 😉