Supply Change

Apple is a clear leader, and it is the only company to have set goals that are both ambitious and near-term for emissions reductions and renewable energy in both its own operations and its supply chain. Through significant renewable energy investments, PPAs, and high impact utility partnerships Apple has locally matched the electricity demand of its own operations with 100% renewable energy. Through its Supplier Clean Energy Program, Apple reports adding nearly 16 GW of new renewable energy in its supply chain, showing the key role that ambitious RE targets and direct financial support play in manufacturing regions’ energy transitions. Apple has also been using its influence to push governments to increase the deployment of renewable energy in its supply chain.

Microsoft was one of the top performers within its own operations, with an ambitious 24/7 renewable energy target, but still lags behind competitors Apple and Google in sourcing its renewable energy using high impact PPAs or onsite power generation. However, although Microsoft has set a meaningful scope 3 emissions reduction target, it has yet to set a renewable energy target for its supply chain to drive that reduction. Microsoft has one of the greatest disparities between its operations grade and its supply chain management grade, reflecting a lack of supply chain transparency and a failure to disclose the levels of renewable energy in its supply chain. To drive scope 3 emissions reductions and help promote the energy transition, Microsoft should set a 100% supply chain renewable energy goal and require that suppliers set their own renewable energy targets, ensuring that energy is local and additional to the grid.

Google scored highly within its own operations, emerging as a leader in renewable energy with its pledge to run on 24/7 carbon free energy by 2030 -- an important step to grow local renewable energy and storage capacity. However, Google has yet to include its supply chain in its 100% renewable energy target, making sufficient scope 3 emissions reductions more difficult and less likely to be achieved. Meaningful engagement has led to a high proportion of suppliers reporting emissions data and setting emissions reductions targets, but a lack of supply chain transparency makes it unclear what impact that engagement is having on energy use.

HP has set ambitious absolute emissions reductions targets across its value chain, with emissions targets close to a 1.5 C-aligned pathway. HP’s 2025 renewable energy target for its own operations sends a strong message. However, the brand’s current renewable energy ratio relies heavily on RECs rather than high-impact sourcing. For the 2025 target to be impactful, the company needs to focus on sourcing renewable energy that is local and additional to the grid. In its supply chain, HP was the only brand to disclose data on the energy and renewable energy ratio of its suppliers. HP engages its suppliers specifically on renewable energy and incentivizes action by tying procurement decisions to sustainability, resulting in a high proportion of suppliers with renewable energy commitments. HP has also been active within the US on climate advocacy, supporting the Inflation Reduction Act as part of the Clean Energy Buyers Association, and jointly urging congressional leadership on clean energy and climate action.

Amazon’s current supply chain commitments and actions are not commensurate with the urgency of the moment or the scale of its climate impact. Amazon’s net-zero target, set for 2040, is too late to be aligned with a 1.5 C scenario and lacks the essential pathway of an absolute emissions reduction target. Amazon does have a timely goal for 100% renewable energy in its own operations, and does report signing significant numbers of high-impact sourcing deals, but should go a step further and commit to 24/7 carbon-free energy to match its competitors’ level of ambition. The company has not set a goal for renewable energy in its supply chain, and does not appear to engage actively with its suppliers on target setting or procurement. Amazon scores poorly on transparency for both its own emissions and its supply chain’s emissions, energy data, and electricity data, sharing only limited data online and failing to make CDP reports publicly available.

Sony has moved its net zero target for its own operations forward by ten years to 2030, and for its supply chain from 2050 to 2040, but its commitments still fail to meet the scale of the climate emergency. Sony’s scope 3 ambition is still lacking, and its absolute emissions reduction targets are concerningly low, failing to set a clear pathway to meaningful impacts on climate. Sony has set sufficiently near-term renewable energy targets within its own operations, but it is less clear how much of this power will be additional to the grid, and the company still lacks RE targets for its supply chain. While it is positive that Sony is reporting engagement with its suppliers on target setting and reporting, it is clear that significantly greater engagement on clean energy procurement is required to impact supply chain emissions. Sony has taken important steps, however, on renewable energy advocacy as part of the Japan Climate Initiative, calling for greater ambition from the Japanese government to increase availability of clean power.

Dell is among the lower performing US brands, falling behind competitors HP and Microsoft in its climate commitments and action on renewable energy. Dell’s net-zero target date of 2050 for scope 1, 2, and 3 is too late to be in line with a 1.5 C warming pathway, but it has set a commendable short-term goal of 50% emissions reduction in scope 1 and 2 by 2030. The company needs to back this up with an ambitious scope 3 reduction target along the same time frame. Dell has set a longer-term 100% RE goal for 2040, which it should expedite, and Dell’s current RE ratio of 54% comes primarily from higher-impact sources. However, there is currently no commitment to extend this commitment to the supply chain, or any data on the current energy mix. Dell engages with its suppliers through training and reporting, but it is not discernible that the company requires or supports its suppliers to set RE or emissions targets, or procure renewable energy. Within its own operations, Dell has prioritized improving the recyclability and repairability of products, and the reduction of materials emissions.

For its own operations, Lenovo aims to reduce emissions 50% by 2029, but its net zero emissions target of 2050 is too distant, and does not include its supply chain emissions. The company does not have meaningful targets for either renewable energy or greenhouse gas emissions for its supply chain, and does not provide any financial support to increase renewable energy capacity. While Lenovo does utilize 75% of renewable energy for its own operations, it is not adding meaningful renewable energy capacity to the grid, and instead sources renewable energy through low-impact contracts. Lenovo also falls behind its competitors in advocacy for more strategic widespread climate change mitigation.

LG has set a competitive target of carbon neutrality by 2030, including a 50% absolute emissions target, significantly ahead of its competitor Samsung. However, LG falls behind competitors in supply chain decarbonization, with no absolute reduction targets for its supply chain. With a 100% renewable energy target by 2050 and only 1.3% renewable energy usage, LG is lagging on renewable energy in its own operations and has no target to increase renewables in its supply chain. LG provides minimal support in its supply chain to add renewable energy capacity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Samsung’s recent commitment to power its operations with 100% renewable energy and achieve net zero is a step forward. However, the target date of 2050 is far too late, leaving Samsung lagging decades behind competitors including Microsoft, Google, and Apple. Samsung also relies heavily on RECs to achieve its current renewable energy ratio of 20.48%, while Google and Apple have committed to sourcing renewable energy that is local and additional to the grid. Samsung engages with its suppliers to promote reporting, but unlike HP it does not require suppliers to set emissions reductions targets or actively promote renewable energy by tying procurement decisions to environmental standards. Despite its prominent place among South Korean companies, Samsung does not apply significant advocacy pressure to advance renewable energy or climate goals.