Corporate sustainability has become closely connected to business operations, supply chains, financial performance, and regulatory compliance. Companies are increasingly expected to measure emissions, assess environmental risks, and provide reliable information about their activities. Collecting that information, however, is only part of the work. Businesses also need to understand what the findings mean for their decisions and where they can achieve measurable improvements.

In a conversation with Net Zero Compare, Lubomila Jordanova, founder of Plan A and co-founder of the Greentech Alliance, discussed the practical challenges of corporate decarbonization. Drawing on her experience with major companies, climate technology startups, and sustainability software providers, she explained why emissions data remains difficult to collect, how businesses can engage suppliers more effectively, and what makes sustainability technology commercially viable.

Jordanova also reflected on her experience at Diginex, which acquired Plan A in early 2026. During the interview, she confirmed that she had recently stepped down as Diginex CEO and moved into an advisory role with the company's board.

🎥 Watch the Full Interview: In this episode of the Net Zero Compare Podcast, Lubomila Jordanova discusses corporate carbon accounting, Scope 3 emissions, sustainability regulation, and the challenges of implementing climate technology. She shares examples from her work with companies across different industries and examines how organizations can connect environmental objectives with commercial priorities. Watch the full conversation for additional context on supplier engagement, technology selection, and the practical realities of decarbonization.

How corporate sustainability became a business responsibility

When Jordanova founded Plan A in 2017, digital carbon accounting was still an emerging field. She recalls that some businesses questioned whether measuring emissions should be their responsibility at all, rather than something handled by governments or environmental organizations. Climate change was not yet widely understood as an issue requiring changes to corporate operations.

European sustainability legislation has since helped establish expectations around environmental reporting and corporate accountability. Technology has also made emissions measurement more accessible, allowing companies to collect information, identify emissions sources, and monitor their environmental performance through digital platforms.

These developments have changed how businesses approach sustainability. Environmental considerations now affect procurement, investment, product development, and other operational decisions. Jordanova believes the next challenge is understanding the commercial implications of those decisions and identifying where environmental improvements can also strengthen business performance.

Where corporate sustainability data falls short

Despite advances in reporting technology, Jordanova identified three persistent problems: uneven sustainability knowledge within organizations, inconsistent supplier data, and difficulties connecting environmental information to business outcomes.

The first often begins inside the company. Sustainability managers or senior executives may understand environmental requirements, but employees in other departments do not necessarily have the knowledge needed to collect appropriate information or recognize the implications of their decisions. This can affect everything from supplier selection to product development, particularly when employees lack a shared understanding of what the organization is trying to measure.

The second problem concerns data quality, especially for Scope 3 emissions. Suppliers have different levels of sustainability expertise and may use different methods to collect and report information. Some provide detailed data, while others depend on estimates or have limited reporting capabilities. The challenge is not always finding information, but establishing whether data from different sources can be compared meaningfully.

Finally, companies may produce detailed sustainability reports without fully understanding how the findings relate to their operations or financial performance. Jordanova argued that organizations should examine the costs and potential benefits of environmental initiatives, rather than treating data collection as the final objective.

Scope 3 emissions: Why supplier education matters

Scope 3 emissions are particularly difficult to measure because they involve activities across a company's value chain, outside its direct operations. For businesses with extensive supplier networks, gathering reliable information requires coordination between organizations with different resources, capabilities, and levels of environmental expertise.

Jordanova described supplier education as an essential starting point. Before requesting detailed emissions information, companies should establish a common understanding of sustainability terminology and explain why particular data matters. This includes introducing concepts such as Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions, alongside the commercial implications of sustainability requirements.

She referred to Plan A's experience working with companies such as BMW and Decathlon, which depend on extensive international supplier networks. Their suppliers operate across different markets and face varying environmental challenges. A standardized questionnaire alone is unlikely to resolve differences in knowledge, measurement methods, or reporting capabilities.

Jordanova recommended explaining requirements in terms relevant to each supplier's operations. Giving suppliers an opportunity to describe their existing knowledge and capabilities can help identify gaps before introducing additional reporting expectations. She also emphasized explaining the business case for sustainability and the importance of avoiding unsupported environmental claims.

Improving data quality through a phased approach

Jordanova described a 20/80 approach to supplier engagement. She suggested beginning with approximately 20% of suppliers that are already more advanced or engaged in sustainability measurement, using their information to establish a stronger initial data foundation.

Companies can then work progressively with the remaining suppliers, which may need more education, support, and time to improve their reporting capabilities. Approximations may be necessary during the early stages, with the aim of refining or replacing them as better information becomes available. Rather than expecting every supplier to provide equally precise data immediately, the process allows companies to improve their inventories as supplier capabilities develop.

The 20/80 split is Jordanova's suggested implementation approach, not a universal carbon accounting standard. Companies must still consider their emissions hotspots, reporting obligations, and data quality requirements when deciding which suppliers to prioritize.

Making decarbonization a company-wide responsibility

Many of the decisions affecting corporate emissions are made outside sustainability departments. Procurement teams influence supplier selection, finance departments evaluate investments, and product development teams make decisions about materials and design. Operations teams also control activities that directly affect a company's environmental performance.

Jordanova observed that some companies initially treated sustainability primarily as a marketing responsibility. As regulatory expectations and scrutiny of environmental claims increased, businesses began establishing dedicated sustainability departments with responsibilities extending across other functions.

She also described a more integrated model in which sustainability expertise exists within individual departments. Under this approach, procurement, finance, operations, and sales teams have access to specialists who understand the environmental implications of their decisions.

This model does not necessarily require companies to eliminate central sustainability teams. Instead, it distributes responsibility for implementation while maintaining access to specialist knowledge. The people making operational decisions can then consider environmental requirements alongside the financial and practical factors they already manage.

How smaller suppliers can prepare for sustainability requirements

Large companies increasingly request emissions data, reduction targets, and ESG information from their suppliers. These requests can be difficult for smaller businesses that lack dedicated sustainability departments or extensive compliance resources.

Jordanova acknowledged that the appropriate response depends heavily on the industry. Automotive suppliers may face requirements connected to manufacturing standards and product design, while fashion businesses encounter different expectations concerning materials, environmental claims, and product information.

She recommended evaluating regulatory developments alongside ordinary business planning. Companies should identify which requirements apply to their operations, examine relevant implementation timelines, and compare those timelines with their product development and sales cycles. This can help them anticipate obligations that may affect products or services already under development.

A manufacturer developing products over five years, for example, may need to account for regulatory changes that take effect before its next product reaches the market. A software company introducing new products every few months may face different considerations relating to data, product information, and environmental claims.

Smaller suppliers do not necessarily need extensive sustainability departments to begin preparing. They do, however, need to understand which requirements affect their business and when additional investment or specialist support may become necessary.

Sustainability regulation: Balancing accountability and complexity

European sustainability regulation has established a more structured approach to environmental reporting and corporate accountability. It has also created challenges for businesses that must interpret requirements, collect information, and coordinate compliance across departments.

Jordanova argued that regulation can provide a useful framework for companies that would otherwise struggle to understand sustainability expectations. At the same time, she acknowledged that implementation can become unnecessarily demanding. She described businesses facing reporting requirements involving hundreds of indicators and, in some cases, large teams preparing annual disclosures.

These demands can be difficult to reconcile with commercial priorities, particularly when companies do not understand how the information contributes to their operations. The debate around the EU's sustainability reporting simplification measures reflects this tension between establishing meaningful accountability and keeping reporting obligations manageable.

Jordanova sees value in common frameworks but believes their implementation must be understandable across different business environments. Requirements that are manageable for a multinational corporation may create very different challenges for a smaller organization operating in a single market.

Environmental claims need reliable evidence

Jordanova identified environmental claims as an area where clearer requirements can benefit both businesses and consumers.

Companies sometimes promote products using broad descriptions such as environmentally friendly or sustainable without explaining which characteristics support those claims. A product may use paper packaging, for example, while other environmental impacts remain unclear. Consumers may consequently struggle to understand what a particular claim actually means.

Jordanova argued that more consistent requirements can help businesses understand what evidence they need and make environmental information easier to evaluate. Companies should therefore ensure that their communications accurately reflect the available data rather than relying on packaging, terminology, or marketing language alone.

Separating commercial value from compliance obligations

Changing regulations can complicate long-term sustainability planning. Businesses may invest in reporting systems or environmental initiatives only to find that particular requirements are subsequently delayed, simplified, or revised.

Jordanova argued that companies should evaluate the business case for sustainability alongside their compliance responsibilities. Environmental information can reveal opportunities to improve products, manage risks, strengthen customer relationships, or develop new commercial applications. Compliance teams should understand how the information they produce contributes to these decisions, rather than treating reporting as an isolated administrative task.

This does not mean every compliance activity will generate a measurable financial return. Some obligations must be fulfilled regardless of their immediate commercial benefits. Organizations can nevertheless distinguish between activities necessary to meet regulatory requirements and additional initiatives that may improve operational or financial performance.

Jordanova referred to an analysis involving several thousand businesses and described potential revenue opportunities of 20% to 30% associated with sustainability use cases. The interview did not establish the methodology or baseline behind this figure, so it should be understood as her reported experience rather than a generally applicable forecast.

Why promising climate technologies struggle to scale

Through the Greentech Alliance, Jordanova has gained exposure to a network of approximately 5,000 climate and sustainability companies. She emphasized that the sector includes businesses with fundamentally different products, operating models, and growth requirements.

Climate technology encompasses carbon removal, software platforms, renewable energy, waste management, and solutions for predicting environmental hazards. Applying the same commercial expectations to all these businesses can overlook important differences in how they operate and what they need to succeed.

Jordanova observed that companies using established technology and familiar business models may find it easier to attract investment. Access to capital, previous entrepreneurial experience, and technology with recognizable performance indicators can help investors assess commercial potential.

Other solutions depend heavily on local infrastructure and cooperation between several stakeholders. She described an example involving organic waste management in an Italian village, where a solution connects local waste collection with agricultural applications.

Such projects may address important environmental problems but face different barriers to expansion. Replicating the solution elsewhere may require new municipal relationships, infrastructure, or changes to accommodate local regulations. Their success in one community does not necessarily mean they can be introduced elsewhere using the same approach.

Investors and customers therefore need to assess climate technologies against the particular problems they address, rather than assuming that every solution should follow the same growth model.

What companies should look for when choosing sustainability technology

Businesses selecting sustainability software can choose from platforms covering carbon accounting, ESG reporting, supplier management, climate risk, and other functions. Jordanova recommended looking beyond product features and examining the people behind the technology, evidence of successful implementation, and the provider's understanding of its customers' operating environment.

Look for demonstrated results

Jordanova regularly asks climate technology companies to explain how they have solved a significant problem for an individual customer at scale. A detailed implementation example can show how a product performs within an actual organization, which departments use it, and whether adoption has expanded beyond the initial application.

She cited Plan A's relationship with BMW, explaining that it began with one department and subsequently expanded across approximately 20 to 30 entities and different business functions. For Jordanova, this broader adoption provides evidence that a system can meet different operational needs rather than remaining limited to one application.

She also discussed Greyparrot, a company using AI to analyze waste streams and support improvements in recycling operations. Its work illustrates a different application of climate technology, but the same evaluation principle applies: buyers should examine what a solution has achieved and whether those results are relevant to their own circumstances.

Consider the people and the operating environment

Jordanova emphasized that technology does not exist independently of the people building and delivering it. A provider needs to understand its customers' operational challenges and work effectively with the employees responsible for implementation. Technical capabilities alone do not establish whether a product will fit an organization's processes.

She also highlighted the importance of understanding the wider business environment, including regulation, environmental conditions, competing technologies, and relevant stakeholders.

As an example, she discussed Glint Solar, a Norwegian company developing technology that helps solar project developers plan projects, assess potential returns, and visualize development options. Jordanova explained that the company's understanding of the broader solar development ecosystem contributed to her decision to join its advisory board.

For buyers, these considerations can help establish whether a potential technology partner understands the conditions affecting its customers and can support implementation beyond the initial purchase.

The next stage of sustainability technology: Consolidation

One of Jordanova's final observations concerned the growing number of specialized sustainability platforms. Companies can now use separate tools for carbon accounting, decarbonization, ESG reporting, supply-chain assessments, human rights due diligence, and other compliance functions. While this creates more choice, it can also leave organizations managing multiple providers and disconnected systems.

Jordanova expects consolidation to become an increasingly important development in the sustainability technology market. She drew on her experience following Plan A's acquisition by Diginex, where she oversaw several products addressing different sustainability and compliance requirements. These included carbon accounting, decarbonization, investor-focused ESG information, human rights assessments, and supply-chain assessments.

She sees potential value in working with providers that can address several related needs through a coordinated technology offering. Such an approach may simplify the management of information and processes, although a broader platform is not automatically suitable for every organization. Businesses still need to assess whether its individual capabilities meet their requirements and can be implemented effectively within existing operations.

What businesses should take from the conversation

Jordanova's experience illustrates why corporate sustainability requires more than specialist knowledge and reporting software. Reliable emissions data depends on cooperation across departments and supply chains, while meaningful decarbonization requires businesses to identify which changes are feasible within their operations.

Her observations also provide a practical basis for evaluating sustainability investments. Companies need to distinguish regulatory obligations from additional commercial opportunities, assess technology against demonstrated results, and recognize that suppliers and technology providers may have very different capabilities.

As the sustainability technology market develops, integrated solutions may make it easier to coordinate related activities. The value of those systems will ultimately depend on whether they meet a company's actual requirements and help employees make informed decisions.

For more information about Lubomila's work, visit the Greentech Alliance and Plan A.

Explore more articles and podcast conversations at Net Zero Compare, or subscribe to our newsletter for sustainability insights and interviews.