Search Results

Case Studies | Tuesday July 28, 2026

Strengthening Signify’s Sustainability Strategy through Expert Review

Preview

Introduction

BSR partnered with Signify to conduct an external expert review of its 2030 sustainability program. Through a structured review process involving subject matter experts across climate, nature, human rights, regulation, and futures, BSR provided targeted recommendations on the program’s targets, implementation considerations, and alignment with evolving sustainability expectations. The engagement helped Signify refine its sustainability program ahead of board review and launch and strengthen alignment between business objectives and evolving regulatory requirements.

Background

Signify, the world leader in lighting, sought to define the next version of its sustainability program, Brighter Lives, Better World 2030, to support its long-term business goals. As sustainability expectations from regulators, customers, and investors continue to evolve, the company wanted to ensure the program reflected clear ambitions and was positioned to deliver long-term value.

Like many multinational companies, Signify was already implementing regulatory requirements such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and preparing for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). At the same time, the company must navigate differing regional regulations and operational realities across global markets.

The Challenge

As Signify prepared to finalize its 2030 sustainability program, it faced several key challenges:

• Ensuring alignment with rapidly evolving sustainability standards and regulatory expectations 
• Validating whether its strategic priorities and targets reflected leading practice
• Strengthening internal coherence across key sustainability pillars for the company (circular economy, climate action, nature, workforce, and social impact)
• Testing the strategy’s resilience against future disruptions and emerging trends 
• Setting enterprise-level sustainability goals that accommodate varying regional requirements
• Designing a sustainability program that helps customers advance their own sustainability ambitions

BSR’s Response

BSR convened a panel of subject matter experts in climate, nature, human rights, regulations, and futures and facilitated a structured review process. This process focused on evaluating the program’s structure, priorities, and implementation considerations across Signify’s key sustainability pillars. Specifically, BSR:

• Conducted an expert assessment of the draft program to evaluate alignment with peer positioning, emerging trends, and stakeholder expectations
• Facilitated a working session with Signify’s program leads to test assumptions and identify areas for refinement
• Applied insights from BSR’s Sustainable Futures Lab to stress-test key elements of the strategy against potential disruptions
• Developed an annotated strategic framework with targeted recommendations to strengthen goals, targets, and overall narrative

BSR encouraged Signify to further strengthen the connection between sustainability commitments and long-term business value. The review process also helped Signify refine priorities and address implementation considerations across different markets and regulatory contexts.

“The most valuable aspect of the process was the opportunity to engage directly with each BSR topic expert. Gaining access to their insights, questions, and constructive feedback meaningfully strengthened the proposal. Their perspectives helped refine our thinking and ultimately shaped a more robust and well-grounded final version of our new 2030 program.

This collaboration prompted us to take a fresh, critical look at the metrics and targets associated with our material topics. It also encouraged us to explore additional areas that could meaningfully enhance our 2030 sustainability program. As a result, our program is now more comprehensive, forward looking, and aligned with the emerging expectations of our stakeholders.”

–Maurice Loosschilder, Global Head of Sustainability, Signify

Outcomes

The engagement helped Signify strengthen its 2030 sustainability program ahead of launch by providing independent validation, practical recommendations, and insights related to emerging trends.

Key outcomes included:

• Improved clarity and alignment across sustainability priorities and increased focus on priorities tied to areas where Signify can have the greatest direct impact
• Strengthened goals and targets informed by evolving regulations and stakeholder expectations, with consideration for risks and opportunities for innovation and impact 
• Greater confidence among Signify’s leadership and board in the credibility and resilience of the program
• Stronger alignment between sustainability commitments and long-term business value
• Enhanced understanding of sustainability trends, best practices, and stakeholder expectations related to priority topics
• Increased ability to meet growing market and regulatory expectations

“We felt confident moving forward with the updated sustainability program because the process allowed us to incorporate a diverse range of stakeholder considerations and viewpoints. Having the chance to test, stress-check, and refine our draft targets and strategic direction with people who bring varied expertise ensured that we addressed the right questions. This breadth of input gave us assurance that the program was both credible and ready for launch.”

 –Maurice Loosschilder, Global Head of Sustainability, Signify

Conclusion

By integrating external expertise and structured dialogue into the strategic development process, Signify strengthened its ability to deliver a robust, future-ready sustainability program aligned with business priorities and changing stakeholder expectations. The process highlighted the value of combining internal ownership with external perspectives to ensure strategies are both ambitious and practical.

As sustainability expectations continue to evolve, many multinational companies are reassessing how sustainability strategies are validated, refined, and implemented across global markets. For organizations with mature sustainability programs, targeted expert review can help strengthen strategic alignment, pressure-test priorities, and prepare sustainability commitments for leadership, investor, and stakeholder scrutiny.

BSR works with companies across industries to develop, review, and strengthen sustainability strategies through expert input, stakeholder perspectives, and implementation-focused guidance.

People

Heather Cofer

Preview

Heather Cofer leads People Operations for BSR’s U.S. employees. She is responsible for employee relations, leave and accommodations, benefits administration, policy development, and HR compliance, with a focus on delivering an exceptional employee experience, building trusted relationships, and driving operational excellence.

Before joining BSR, Heather built extensive HR experience across the retail, technology, consulting, and high-growth startup sectors. She specializes in People Operations, employee relations, HR compliance, and process improvement, and is passionate about creating practical people solutions that strengthen organizations while supporting employees throughout their careers.

Heather holds a degree in Paralegal Studies, providing a strong foundation in employment law, compliance, and risk management that complements her work in People Operations.

People

Cole Thomson

Preview

Reports | Friday July 10, 2026

Social Impact and Sustainability Professionals at a Crossroads: Profiles and Practical Steps to Build Workforce Resilience

Preview

Companies are navigating an operating environment defined by evolving global regulation, geopolitical uncertainty, and changing business priorities. As companies adapt, corporate social impact and sustainability professionals are playing an increasingly strategic role in sustaining business initiatives by anticipating emerging risks and responding to ongoing change. 

BSR's latest research suggests that the effectiveness of these functions depends not only on individual expertise, but also on the organizational conditions that enable the work. Through four practitioner profiles, the findings examine how professionals experience their roles based on their ability to influence decisions, the organizational support available to them, and the demands placed on their work, providing insight into how companies can strengthen workforce and organizational resilience. 

Drawing on quantitative and qualitative research from corporate professionals across global regions, the report provides actionable recommendations for companies to equip their social impact and sustainability professionals to succeed in their roles and position them to navigate an evolving business landscape. 

Case Studies | Tuesday July 7, 2026

Strengthening Stakeholder Engagement Through Lived Experience Expertise: A Consultation Model for Technology Companies

Preview

Insights+ | Tuesday June 30, 2026

Volatility Changes the Playbook, Not the Goal

Preview

Sustainability FAQs | Sunday June 28, 2026

Scaling Scope 3 Interventions for Climate and Nature: What Companies Need to Know Now

Preview

Introduction

Implementation of Scope 3 interventions, or activities reducing or removing emissions within a company’s value chain, is entering a new phase. 2026 marks a pivotal year for Scope 3 interventions, with major updates to leading climate standards and guidance (including new rules within SBTi’s V2 standard), alongside an expanding ecosystem of frameworks, initiatives, and regulations. Evolving approaches to accounting, quantification, and value chain collaboration are unlocking opportunities for companies to scale emissions reductions and removals across their supply chains. 

Scope 3 interventions are becoming an increasingly important way to accelerate progress toward climate targets, particularly where companies have limited direct control over emissions but significant influence through sourcing, procurement, and customer relationships. However, expectations on quality, traceability, and claims from regulators, investors, and civil society organizations are rising. Companies now need to navigate how to scale credible, measurable action across their value chains, not just decide whether to act. 

What initiatives are shaping the Scope 3 interventions landscape? 

A wide ecosystem of initiatives now support Scope 3 interventions, each playing a distinct role: 

• Accounting and disclosure frameworks, such as the GHG Protocol (with its recent land and removals guidance, LSRG), AIM Platform, and TCAT, define how companies can communicate progress and impact. 
• Intervention and certification frameworks, such as Gold Standard, SustainCERT, Verra S3S, and AIM Platform, enable companies to design, quantify, and verify value-chain interventions.
• Policy and regulatory frameworks, such as the EU’s CRCF and Article 6, shape the quality, integrity, and availability of mitigation outcomes. The CRCF is expected to influence the quality and supply of carbon removals in Europe, while Article 6 establishes rules for international accounting of emissions reductions and removals.
• Target-setting frameworks, such as SBTi (and the now released draft ISO Net Zero standard), define how to credibly account for reductions and removals in setting and implementing targets.

Together, these initiatives are creating clearer rules for how companies can design, scale, and report Scope 3 interventions. For a complete look at the landscape of initiatives now supporting Scope 3 interventions, access BSR’s guide.  

What are the latest trends in Scope 3 interventions?

Several clear trends are emerging: 

• Certified Scope 3 interventions are gaining traction and are now clearly separated from carbon credits and removals. Traditional carbon credits and removals have a clear, defined role outside a company’s value chain—SBTi’s V2 Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER) approach has helped crystallize that. Scope 3 interventions are scaling in parallel, with a growing role and distinctive mechanisms.   
• Physical traceability is becoming the anchor of credibility. GHG Protocol and SBTi guidance increasingly require linkage of companies’ Scope 3 interventions to their supply chains, while offering established concepts such as “supply sheds” as a way around the real challenge of full traceability across supply chains. 
• Co-claiming (multiple actors reporting or communicating benefits associated with the same intervention) and co-investment (multiple value-chain actors sharing the cost of interventions) are normalizing. Companies, farmers, and downstream actors are increasingly expected and are able to share responsibility and benefits across value chains. 
• Contribution approaches (focusing on financing mitigation beyond a company’s direct inventory reductions and advancing global climate goals) are replacing neutrality claims. Carbon credits are not going away, but their use is shifting and clarifying from supporting carbon neutrality claims to enabling contribution-based approaches (e.g., in line with SBTi’s latest suggestion of Ongoing Emission Responsibility and frameworks that expand impact statements).  
• The quality bar for landscape interventions is rising. In agriculture, frameworks such as the EU’s CRCF are raising expectations around permanence, leakage, and monitoring of carbon removals on land systems. The social and environmental integrity of climate and nature solutions, whether within or outside the value chain, is under increased scrutiny. 
• Multiple pathways for measuring Scope 3 interventions are emerging. Physical accounting, unit-based approaches, and reporting frameworks coexist, with varying levels of maturity and acceptance. This provides companies at all levels of maturity an opportunity to measurably act on Scope 3, including those with limited resources or at the beginning stage of engaging with their supply chain. 

While convergence is increasing, the landscape is complex due to the plethora of initiatives with different levels of alignment. 

What do changes in Scope 3 interventions mean for companies? 

These shifts fundamentally change how companies can act on Scope 3 emissions through certified interventions. 

First, the opportunity to reduce emissions at scale is growing. Scope 3 interventions offer one of the few scalable pathways for companies to influence emissions that occur outside their direct operational control. New tools and frameworks enable companies to scale interventions across supply chains, including through partnerships with farmers and customers. For example, for food and agriculture businesses, this creates a pathway to address emissions at scale. The GHG Protocol’s LSRG introduction of a “removal” accounting category allows companies to focus on reductions while also engaging on removals, which further reduces their impacts. This supports companies in achieving Scope 3 targets while simultaneously creating more resilient and regenerative sourcing landscapes. 

Second, accounting guidance, environmental claims requirements, and regulations are tightening. Scrutiny from regulators, investors, NGOs, and customers is increasing. Claims of emissions reduction and carbon removal must be defensible, and poorly structured approaches carry reputational risk. 

Third, the system is still evolving. Different futures are possible, from business convergence around physical accounting to fragmented landscapes with competing approaches. The choices companies make today will influence which direction the market takes, underscoring the importance of collaboration and alignment in the business community to promote consistency and interoperability. 

What actions can companies take to advance Scope 3 strategies? 

Despite evolving guidelines, companies have a clear "no-regret" path forward. Success will depend on working collaboratively across the value chain to identify and implement the right interventions in the right places. These interventions should be grounded in science, aligned with business priorities, and supported by sufficient resources. As companies advance their Scope 3 strategies, five priorities stand out: 

1. Scale physically linked value chain interventions: Prioritize actions within sourcing regions and supply sheds that are within your supply chain, even when traceability is not yet perfect. This remains the most credible, widely supported, and lowest-risk approach for driving measurable impact. 

2. Anchor in robust accounting: Align with GHG Protocol guidance (including land and removals) to ensure emissions and removals are measured consistently and conservatively. 

3. Separate inventory and contribution: Clearly separate Scope 3 inventory reductions, value chain interventions, and climate contributions beyond the value chain. Transparent accounting and communication will help maintain credibility and avoid overstated claims. 

4. Build partnerships across the value chain: Scaling impact requires collaboration. Co-investment with farmers, suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders can unlock the resources, incentives, and capabilities needed to accelerate implementation. 

5. Prioritize quality and credibility: Focus on high-quality interventions, aligned with emerging supply-focused standards such as CRCF, with strong safeguards on permanence and traceability. 

What can companies expect next on Scope 3 interventions?  

• GHG Protocol sets the foundation for accounting and reporting: As guidance evolves, GHG Protocol is expected to continue serving as the primary framework for accounting land-sector emissions, removals, and Scope 3 impacts, providing the basis for credible measurement and disclosure. 
• SBTi’s Corporate Net Zero Standard V2 clarifies its approach to Scope 3 interventions, allowing market instruments to be leveraged to advance in-value-chain decarbonization through Scope 3 interventions. This update includes a hierarchy of three categories of action, all of which include market instruments as an acceptable option as part of a balanced strategy. 
• Continued shift away from ‘offsetting’ as a practice: Companies are increasingly focusing on reducing emissions and scaling removals within their value chains, while using carbon credits separately to support broader climate goals beyond their inventories, such as in SBTi’s new OER framework. However, companies cannot apply credits for Scope 3 emissions reductions. 
• Increasing normalization of co-claiming across value chain tiers: As multiple actors invest in the same interventions, co-claiming approaches, supported by transparent, layered reporting, are likely to become more common across value chain tiers. 
• Regulation will play a growing role in defining quality and credibility: Emerging policy frameworks, particularly in Europe, are expected to shape expectations around the integrity, accounting, and use of removals and other climate interventions within value chains. 
• Companies will continue to test different implementation models: While many organizations are prioritizing physically linked interventions and accounting approaches, others are exploring unit-based systems and alternative mechanisms for allocating impacts. The practices adopted by early movers will help shape emerging norms for measuring, reporting, and communicating Scope 3 progress. 

As scrutiny of Scope 3 emissions intensifies, leading companies will need to move beyond measuring emissions to determining how best to increase reductions and removals across their value chains. BSR supports members at every stage of the journey, from assessing value chain impacts to designing and implementing interventions that support long-term climate, nature, and social objectives. Through this integrated approach, companies can strengthen resilience, address interconnected climate and nature risks, and create economic and environmental value across their value chains.

Reports | Thursday June 25, 2026

A More Pragmatic Era for Sustainability: Time to Act

Preview

People

Christine Lamontagne

Preview

Sustainability FAQs | Tuesday June 23, 2026

Managing AI’s Environmental Impacts

Preview