Waiting on decarbonization is getting expensive

For a while, waiting looked like the safe option on decarbonization. McKinsey's September 2026 report, "The sustainability reset", suggests that is no longer true.

The cost of defaults

Under the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, importers without verified supplier data fall back on default emissions values. McKinsey finds that relying on those defaults can raise CBAM bills by up to 60%. The defaults are set to be conservative, so a company that has not done the data work pays for it.

A supply squeeze on green steel

The second finding concerns availability. McKinsey expects demand for green steel to outrun supply by about a third by 2030. Companies that have committed to lower-carbon materials, and those that will need them for regulatory or customer reasons, will be competing for a limited pool.

That changes the logic of waiting. A buyer that delays until green steel is plentiful may find that it is not, and that earlier movers have already secured the supply.

Verified supplier data pays back

Across both points, McKinsey identifies verified supplier data as a high-return investment. It reduces CBAM costs directly by replacing defaults with actual figures. It shows which suppliers are already lower-emission, which matters when supply is tight. And it underpins credible Scope 3 reporting.

Why waiting costs more now

The common thread is that the costs of inaction are becoming concrete. They show up in a CBAM bill, in a supply contract that cannot be signed, in a reporting gap that is harder to close later. These are not distant climate risks; they are line items.

What moving early looks like

Moving early does not mean solving everything at once. It means starting with the suppliers and materials where the stakes are highest: getting verified data, understanding where reductions are possible, and agreeing who pays for them.

Carbon3's approach is built for that step. Buyers co-fund verified reductions at their suppliers, and those reductions are recorded as inset credits, tied to the value chain where they happen. Insetting is not offsetting, and inset credits are not CBAM certificates. What they provide is a clear record of reductions that buyers helped pay for, at the suppliers they depend on.

McKinsey's framing of a "reset" fits. The question is shifting from whether to act to how much more it costs to act later.