PepsiCo says more ingredients were sustainably sourced in 2025, but Scope 3 emissions reporting remains incomplete

PepsiCo, the maker of Pepsi-Cola and Frito-Lay snacks, said it increased the share of ingredients it sources using sustainability standards in 2025, but it has not yet provided a full set of emissions data for its wider value chain. The latest update comes as food and beverage companies face rising expectations from investors, regulators, and customers to quantify and report climate impacts beyond their own factories.

In the reporting referenced by Supply Chain Dive, PepsiCo said the portion of sustainably sourced ingredients rose by about four percentage points in 2025. The metric is meant to capture progress in supply chain practices, such as sourcing requirements tied to land use, farming conditions, and other sustainability goals that can vary by commodity and region.

At the same time, PepsiCo has not yet documented Scope 3 emissions metrics, the figure notes. Scope 3 refers to greenhouse gas emissions that occur across a company’s supply chain and through the use of its products, rather than only the emissions from direct operations and purchased energy. For consumer goods makers, Scope 3 often represents a large share of the climate footprint because it includes activities such as agricultural production and upstream materials.

Scope 3 reporting has become a central focus for large corporations because it provides a more complete view of emissions where many of the biggest drivers sit, especially for companies whose inputs depend on crops and other natural resources. Investors and lenders have increasingly asked issuers to explain how they are measuring these emissions, what methodologies they use, and how they plan to reduce them.

PepsiCo’s combination of an improved sustainable sourcing figure with an incomplete Scope 3 snapshot illustrates a common sequencing challenge in corporate sustainability programs. Companies may be able to measure progress on sourcing policies and supplier compliance faster than they can produce robust, auditable emissions inventories across thousands of farms, processors, transport routes, and product use cases.

Within the broader retail and consumer sector, the gap between sustainability efforts and emissions disclosure can affect how stakeholders judge credibility. Many frameworks for climate disclosure require not just qualitative commitments, but also quantitative metrics, described boundaries, and regular updates. When companies delay or omit specific emissions measures, market attention often turns to whether the underlying data collection and supplier engagement are keeping pace with the stated sustainability ambitions.

The reporting does not clarify when PepsiCo expects to publish Scope 3 emissions metrics, nor does it specify whether the company is working from modeled estimates, partial coverage, or a yet-to-be-finalized methodology. It also does not say how the company’s sustainable sourcing gains will translate into emissions outcomes, such as reductions in agricultural-related emissions.

Going forward, what to watch is whether PepsiCo follows up with a defined emissions reporting timeline and methodology for Scope 3, including the extent of coverage and how it will track progress over time. Stakeholders will also be looking for whether the company links its sourcing improvements to measurable climate results, rather than treating sustainability progress and emissions disclosure as separate tracks.