Skip to main content
Back to Blog
Sustainability

The Net-Zero Supply Chain Is a 10-Year Build — Here's a Realistic Roadmap

By Yash Dhote · · 13 min read · Updated

The European 3PL I think is closest to a real plan runs 1,200 trucks, three Mediterranean ocean lanes, and a small but growing intermodal book between Antwerp, Milan and Madrid. Their head of sustainability sent me the 2026-2050 capex deck in March. I keep coming back to it because it is one of the few I have read that does not pretend the hard part is somewhere comfortably in the next CEO's term. I write the EcoFreight emissions methodology side of these reviews — see my author page for context — and the comments below are mine, not the customer's.

I am going to walk through their plan by decade — what they have already accepted as locked-in, what they think 2030-2035 will force them to commit, and what they openly cannot solve yet. I will mark the points where I disagree with them, because there are several. Their numbers come from the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (90% absolute by 2050, neutralize the residual), the IEA Net Zero Emissions Scenario, and the regulation text that is now law: ReFuelEU Maritime for ocean fuel, the parallel ReFuelEU Aviation for air cargo. The opinions are mine.

2026-2030: what you already lost the chance to skip

This is the decade for which there are no more shortcuts. If you have not started the measurement work, you are behind — not on net-zero, on the audit. CSRD double-materiality assessments are being signed off now. The 3PL's 2024 baseline lands at 412,000 tonnes of CO2e across Scopes 1, 2 and 3, with Scope 3 Category 4 (upstream transportation) at roughly 84% of the total. That ratio is normal for an asset-light operator. It also means the company's net-zero plan is, in practice, a plan to decarbonize fuel that other people's vehicles burn — which is the politest description of Scope 3 work I can offer.

The SBTi near-term target — 42% absolute reduction by 2030 from a 2019 baseline, aligned with a 1.5°C pathway — is the binding constraint here. The 3PL set their target in 2023 and got it validated. The math: 412 kt today, baseline 540 kt in 2019, target 313 kt by 2030. That is 99 kt to take off the table in roughly four years. Route optimization and load factor improvements get you to maybe 8-12%. Eco-driving programs land another 3-5%. Electrification of the last-mile diesel book (about 180 of those 1,200 trucks operate inside city zones) probably closes 6-8%. Add it up and you reach the high teens. The remaining gap is bigger than what efficiency can do.

So where does the rest come from? Modal shift. Their intermodal book is the lever — every container they move from road to rail on the Antwerp-Milan corridor cuts that lane's per-tkm emissions by roughly 70%. The deck assumes rail share grows from 9% of tonne-kilometres in 2024 to 22% by 2030. I have spent the last year being skeptical of intermodal projections from 3PLs (most of them have a politely-named line for "infrastructure availability assumed"), but Antwerp-Milan is one of the rare corridors where the rail capacity exists and the modal cost economics have actually flipped in rail's favor since the 2023 EU ETS extension to road fuel. So I will allow this one.

The 2026-2030 window is also where the company has to start blending fuels they cannot yet buy at price. ReFuelEU Aviation kicks in at 2% SAF in 2025, climbs to 6% in 2030, then 20% by 2035 and 70% by 2050. ReFuelEU Maritime is structured slightly differently — it is a greenhouse-gas-intensity target, starting at -2% versus a 2020 baseline in 2025 and reaching -80% by 2050 — but the practical effect is the same. You buy molecules that cost two to four times what HFO or jet-A costs, and you write the difference off as the price of compliance. The 3PL has budgeted EUR 4.2 million for SAF and biomethanol blend premiums across 2026-2030. I think that number is light by about 40%. Their procurement team thinks it is light by 15%. Reality will sort us out.

One last thing about this decade. Almost everyone I review with is tempted to plug the gap with offsets. Most voluntary carbon credits are worthless. That is the polite version. The 3PL ran a portfolio review in 2024 and retired most of their REDD+ credits after the Guardian / SourceMaterial reporting on Verra; they kept a small allocation in biochar and direct air capture removals at roughly USD 200-600 per tonne. That is the right answer. If your "net-zero plan" depends on $5 nature-based credits, you do not have a net-zero plan, you have a press release with a maturity date. For the longer argument see my credits and greenwashing post and the Verra REDD review.

2030-2035: the capex decade

This is the window that matters most. I am going to argue this as plainly as I can, because the consultant version of this argument tends to drown in qualifications.

Heavy assets — trucks, ships, terminal equipment — get bought roughly every 8-12 years. The trucks rolling off the line in 2032 will still be in service in 2042. The vessels chartered on long-term contracts in 2033 will be on the water in 2048. Every capex decision made between 2030 and 2035 either commits a piece of the business to a 2050-compatible fuel pathway or it locks in a stranded asset. There is no soft middle. That is the part the 2026-2030 efficiency story tends to hide — efficiency is reversible. Capex is not.

For the 3PL, the 2030-2035 deck shows three commitments that have to clear FID in this window:

  1. Fleet renewal to battery-electric and hydrogen for road. The plan is 70% of the 1,200-truck fleet on zero-tailpipe powertrains by 2035. At today's prices that is roughly EUR 380 million in vehicle capex over five years, before depot charging infrastructure. They are betting on battery cost curves continuing down (current Class 8 BEV prices are 1.6-2.0x diesel; the IEA assumes parity by 2030 on a TCO basis for routes under 500 km, which I think is two years optimistic but directionally correct).
  2. Methanol dual-fuel for the Mediterranean lanes. Three vessels, all on long-term charter. The conversion economics — roughly EUR 18-22 million per vessel for retrofit to bio/e-methanol — work only if you assume green methanol pricing lands somewhere in the EUR 800-1,200 per tonne range by 2032. Today it is EUR 1,400-1,800 and supply is rationed.
  3. A first off-take agreement for green ammonia. This is the one I keep circling back to. The 3PL has signed a non-binding heads-of-terms with one of the European green-ammonia developers for delivery starting 2034. Their planned volume is 18,000 tonnes per year, which is comically small against IRENA's projection that maritime alone will need 150 million tonnes per year of green ammonia by 2050 to fully decarbonize (IRENA, Innovation Outlook: Renewable Ammonia, 2022). But the off-take matters because it gives the developer the FID confidence to start their electrolyzer build. Without anchor buyers, the projects do not get built.

I have watched two green-ammonia projects miss their FID date in the last 18 months. The third one matters — not in a generic "we need projects to succeed" sense, but specifically: if the Iberian green-ammonia hub does not clear FID by Q3 2027, the entire 2030-2035 deck I just walked through has to be replanned around bio-methanol, which has its own feedstock constraints. This is the gap in my own confidence that I want to name plainly. I do not know if the projects will land. The signals I track — power purchase agreement signings, electrolyzer manufacturing capacity, EU Innovation Fund disbursements — were better in 2024 than in 2025. They need to be better in 2026 than they were in 2024.

The green hydrogen cost band is the other variable. Today: USD 4-8 per kg, with the spread driven mostly by renewable electricity costs and electrolyzer load factor. The IEA Net Zero Scenario assumes USD 1.5-2.5 per kg by 2030 (which I think is too aggressive) and USD 1-1.5 by 2050 (probably right). If the 2030 number lands closer to USD 3 — which is what BloombergNEF's most recent scenarios suggest — every downstream e-fuel (e-methanol, e-ammonia, synthetic jet) is priced 30-50% higher than the 3PL's deck assumes. That changes the modal-shift math, the SAF math, and the offtake math simultaneously. It does not break the plan, but it costs another EUR 60-80 million in compliance spend across 2035-2045.

2036-2050: what we still cannot solve

Long-haul ocean and long-haul air are the problems I do not think will be solved on the SBTi timeline. I want to be careful here — "not solved" does not mean "no progress." It means the residual emissions in 2050 will be larger than the 10% the SBTi framework allows you to neutralize with carbon removal, unless something changes in the deployment curve that I cannot currently see.

The math, briefly. ReFuelEU Maritime targets a -80% greenhouse-gas-intensity reduction by 2050. That is not 90% absolute. For a 3PL whose ocean book grows 4-5% per year in tkm, an 80% intensity cut leaves you with absolute emissions in 2050 that are still roughly 25-30% of your 2019 baseline — unless you also shrink the activity. Most freight operators have no scenario in which their activity shrinks. The activity grows. So the gap between regulatory compliance (intensity-based) and SBTi compliance (absolute) widens every year through 2050. The neutralization tail has to cover that.

The carbon removal market that has to do the neutralizing is currently about 0.6 million tonnes per year of high-quality, permanent removal (DAC, biochar, mineralization, ocean alkalinity enhancement) at prices ranging from USD 100 to USD 1,200 per tonne. For the 3PL's 2050 residual — call it 35,000 tonnes of CO2e — that is a EUR 15-30 million annual line item, indefinitely. They have budgeted EUR 7 million in the 2050 base case. I think they will end up at EUR 22 million. Neither of us knows.

The hardest pieces — what I do not have a good answer for, and neither does anyone I trust:

  • Trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific air cargo. ReFuelEU Aviation's 63% SAF blend by 2050 requires roughly 100x today's global SAF production. The Power-to-Liquid pathway needs around 5-7 TWh of dedicated renewable electricity per million tonnes of SAF. The arithmetic exists. The buildout pace does not. I do not think the 63% number will be hit. I think we land at 35-45%.
  • Deep-sea bulk and tanker fleets on routes where green ammonia bunkering infrastructure does not yet exist. The first ammonia-ready vessels are now being delivered. The bunkering ports outside Northern Europe and a few Asian hubs are not on a credible 2035 timeline.
  • The Scope 3 reporting gap for sub-contracted carriers. The 3PL knows the emissions of its 1,200 trucks. It does not know — not really — the emissions of the 4,000+ subcontracted vehicles it puts loads on each year. Primary data from carriers is improving, but the long tail of small-fleet operators still reports through modelled defaults. That is where most of the residual measurement uncertainty lives.

What an auditor actually wants to see

I have sat on the assurance side of about a dozen SBTi-aligned plans. The three things that consistently separate the credible ones from the cosmetic ones:

First, the abatement curve has to be visible. Not the cumulative number — the year-by-year line, with capex pinned to specific commitments and an explicit dependency map between rows. If the plan's 2032 emission cut depends on an electrolyzer that has not cleared FID, the auditor wants to see that dependency named. The 3PL's deck does this. Most do not.

Second, the residual has to be honest. A 5% residual in 2050 is more credible than a 1% residual, because the 1% is almost always hiding optimism somewhere in the offshore-wind buildout. The SBTi standard allows up to 10% for a reason.

Third, the carbon-credit strategy has to distinguish between removals and avoidance from the first slide. If your plan blends them — "we'll use a portfolio of offsets and removals to neutralize the gap" — the auditor will flag it and you will rewrite. Neutralization, in the SBTi vocabulary, means durable removal only. Avoidance credits are not in that vocabulary. Some firms run a separate "beyond value chain mitigation" portfolio for avoidance credits, which is fine; what is not fine is treating them as net-zero contributions.

Where to start

If you are operating a freight business and you do not yet have your 2024 or 2025 baseline locked, that is the first thing. The EcoFreight calculator uses GLEC Framework v3.2 emission factors at the shipment level, which is the methodology auditors are now expecting for primary disclosures. If your team needs to wire it into a TMS rather than click through the calculator, the REST API covers the same engine and the 3PL migration story walks through what that looks like end-to-end. If you want the underlying factor sources — the IMO study figures, the GLEC default load factors, the ISO 14083 data quality tiers — the methodology page spells it out. And if you want a clearer view of which pieces of this roadmap are voluntary versus already-in-force law for your operating geography, the regulatory compliance overview is the place to start. The 3PL I have been describing built their 2026-2030 spend almost entirely around regulation that is already binding. That is the right order of operations.

One honest gap I cannot solve

The plan above assumes the carbon-removal market scales roughly an order of magnitude in eighteen years. I do not know if it will. Today high-quality removal supply sits around 0.6 Mt/year; to neutralize the residual emissions of even the asset-light 3PL I have been describing, the market needs to deliver tens of millions of tonnes per year at prices that have not yet been demonstrated outside small Frontier-style offtake deals. If removal supply does not scale, the 2050 residual cannot be neutralized within the SBTi 90/10 framework, and the plan moves from "net-zero with caveats" to "low-carbon, residual unmitigated." I think we will get there. I am not certain.