A Guide to Building a Net Zero Strategy for U.S. Businesses
- Gasilov Group
- Mar 27
- 6 min read
Net zero is not a marketing slogan. For U.S. companies facing regulatory scrutiny, investor pressure, and changing market dynamics, it is a strategic responsibility. Momentum is building across jurisdictions. California has passed binding emissions legislation that affects firms beyond its borders. The Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing to finalize climate disclosure requirements. Multinational buyers are embedding emissions data into supplier selection. In short, expectations are shifting faster than most companies are prepared for.
Yet many organizations still treat net zero as an aspirational goal or a future consideration. That mindset creates exposure. Stakeholders now expect clear targets, credible roadmaps, and measurable execution. Businesses that delay risk losing access to capital, talent, and market relevance.
A defensible net zero strategy cannot be bolted onto existing operations. It must be embedded in core decision-making, backed by real data, and implemented with discipline. The good news is that several U.S. companies are already showing what this looks like in practice.
Start With a Materiality-Based Emissions Baseline
The first step is not setting a target. It is understanding the specific sources of your emissions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3. A credible strategy starts with a materiality-based emissions inventory. This means prioritizing emissions that are most relevant to your operations, customers, and supply chain relationships.
For example, Intel has mapped emissions across its full semiconductor lifecycle. Most of its footprint is in Scope 3, specifically in supplier energy use and downstream device electricity consumption. This clarity has enabled focused interventions in chip design and procurement standards.
In contrast, a logistics company may find that emissions from fuel and customer deliveries dominate its footprint. In both cases, the strategy must reflect the reality of the business model, not just reporting requirements.
Set Targets With Built-In Accountability
Science-based targets are now the benchmark. The Science Based Targets initiative offers a framework for aligning corporate goals with a 1.5 degree pathway. As of early 2025, thousands of global firms have submitted targets, yet many stop short of addressing Scope 3 or rely heavily on offsets. These omissions are becoming red flags for regulators and institutional investors.
General Motors has taken a more comprehensive approach. Its carbon neutrality commitment includes Scope 3 emissions, supported by clear milestones for electric vehicle production, battery sourcing, and supplier engagement. The credibility of the plan is rooted in its operational alignment, not just its ambition.
The key is transparency. Stakeholders need to see how targets will be met using tools available today. That means limiting dependence on future technologies or offset markets and focusing instead on measurable actions within the company’s control.
Operationalize Through Governance and Incentives
Strategy alone will not deliver results. To be effective, net zero must be integrated into how the business operates. That includes governance structures, capital allocation frameworks, procurement policies, and executive incentives.
Microsoft has established an internal carbon fee that applies to all business units. The funds are used to finance renewable energy, carbon removal, and supplier engagement programs. This internal price on carbon shifts decision-making at the business unit level and embeds emissions considerations into everyday operations.
Another effective lever is talent. Climate commitments are increasingly a factor in employer reputation. A clear, transparent strategy can support recruiting and retention, especially in technical and engineering roles where demand is outpacing supply.
Addressing Scope 3 with Focus and Pragmatism
Scope 3 emissions remain the most difficult to address, yet they often represent the majority of a company’s carbon footprint. These emissions are embedded in purchased goods, logistics networks, product use, and end-of-life treatment.
Despite the complexity, tools are improving. The Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program helps freight-intensive companies benchmark and reduce transportation emissions. Sector-specific guidance from the GHG Protocol and advances in supplier data platforms offer practical starting points.
The path forward is not to boil the ocean. Leading companies begin by mapping value chain hotspots, then prioritizing suppliers and product categories based on material impact. Incremental visibility builds momentum. Data gaps are not an excuse for inaction.
Translate Strategy Into Execution
Once a target is set and material emissions are mapped, the focus must shift to delivery. Companies that succeed treat net zero as an operational transformation. This includes adjusting procurement criteria, modernizing supply chains, and investing in low-emissions technologies across facilities, fleets, and product lines.
Walmart offers a notable example. Through its Project Gigaton initiative, the company has engaged thousands of suppliers to avoid one billion metric tons of emissions from its value chain. Walmart provides tools and incentives for suppliers to act, but it also embeds climate considerations into buying decisions. The result is a distributed yet disciplined execution model that leverages Walmart’s scale without centralizing all action.
Mid-market companies can apply the same principle. Partnering with suppliers on emissions tracking, switching to renewable procurement agreements, or rethinking packaging design are all actionable first steps. What matters is aligning incentives and decision rights with emissions goals.
Leverage Policy Tailwinds
Policy shifts are creating new risks and new opportunities. The Inflation Reduction Act has unlocked substantial funding for clean energy, manufacturing, and emissions reduction technologies. Companies that move early can benefit from tax credits, grant programs, and federal procurement standards that increasingly favor low-carbon solutions.
At the state level, California’s Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act will require emissions disclosures from firms operating in the state with over one billion dollars in annual revenue, starting in 2026. This regulation is likely to drive broader voluntary adoption as companies seek to standardize disclosures and avoid patchwork reporting burdens.
These trends are not limited to compliance. They shape capital flows, cost structures, and competitive positioning. Companies that anticipate regulatory direction can reduce risk, access funding, and shape emerging industry standards.
Positioning for Strategic Advantage
Net zero is often viewed defensively, as a risk to be managed. But companies that lead tend to see the opportunity. Consumer preferences are shifting. Corporate buyers are embedding climate performance into RFPs. Asset managers are reallocating capital based on emissions exposure.
Consider the example of Tesla. While often viewed through the lens of technology, its success has been underpinned by policy foresight, vertically integrated emissions management, and early credibility on climate alignment. Tesla’s position is not only due to product innovation but also to how the company strategically aligned itself with climate-driven tailwinds in capital markets and regulation.
Not every company is a Tesla. But every company can identify where its core capabilities intersect with climate-linked market shifts. Whether through supply chain resilience, product differentiation, or access to green financing, the potential for strategic upside is real.
Why the Time to Act is Now
Delaying action has a cost. Data systems take time to build. Supplier engagement requires sustained effort. Internal incentives must evolve gradually. The sooner companies begin, the more room they have to set their own course, rather than reacting to mandates or market pressures.
Yet the path is not one-size-fits-all. Each business needs a roadmap that fits its sector, footprint, and strategy. The real challenge is not committing to net zero, but translating that commitment into credible, measurable execution. That is where targeted, informed support can accelerate progress.
Our team helps companies design and implement net zero strategies grounded in material emissions data, commercial priorities, and operational feasibility. We partner at every stage, from diagnostics to delivery. If your organization is serious about leading on climate while protecting long-term value, we invite you to connect.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and why does Scope 3 matter most?
Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned sources. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from purchased energy. Scope 3 covers all other indirect emissions, such as supply chain, product use, and end-of-life. For many U.S. businesses, Scope 3 accounts for over 70 percent of total emissions.
How can companies set credible net zero targets?
Use the Science Based Targets initiative to align with the 1.5 degree pathway. Include all relevant scopes. Avoid overreliance on offsets. Define clear timelines and metrics, and connect targets to operational levers.
What policies should U.S. businesses monitor?
Track the SEC’s climate disclosure rule, California’s corporate emissions laws, and provisions under the Inflation Reduction Act. These policies are shifting reporting norms, investment incentives, and buyer expectations.
How do leading companies address Scope 3 emissions?
They begin by mapping emissions hotspots, prioritizing key suppliers, and embedding emissions into procurement criteria. Tools like SmartWay, the GHG Protocol, and supplier data platforms help drive early progress.
What are the risks of delaying net zero planning?
Delays can lead to higher compliance costs, reputational damage, reduced access to capital, and weaker positioning in supply chains. Early movers gain more flexibility and influence over emerging standards.
