How are retailers setting and reporting on sustainability targets for their physical stores?

Agnè Baltakienė · 03 Oct 2026

Retailers set and report on sustainability targets for physical stores by tracking measurable metrics across energy use, carbon emissions, waste, and materials, then disclosing progress through established frameworks like GRI, CDP, or TCFD. Most large retail brands now publish annual sustainability reports that include store-level data alongside supply chain and logistics figures. The sections below unpack the specific metrics, frameworks, and challenges that shape how retailers approach this reporting in practice.

What sustainability metrics do retailers typically track for physical stores?

Retailers typically track energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3), water use, waste volumes, and the sustainability credentials of in-store materials and fixtures. These metrics form the core of most physical store sustainability programs, giving brands a measurable baseline from which to set targets and report progress.

On the energy side, store-level electricity consumption is usually the starting point. Lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration are the biggest contributors in most retail formats. Many brands now monitor this in real time using smart energy management systems that flag inefficiencies across their store portfolio.

Greenhouse gas emissions are typically split into categories. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from on-site combustion, like gas heating. Scope 2 covers purchased electricity. Scope 3 is broader and includes everything from product manufacturing and logistics to the materials used in store fit-outs. For large retailers, Scope 3 often accounts for the overwhelming majority of their total carbon footprint, which is why supply chain choices carry so much weight in sustainability planning.

Beyond emissions, retailers increasingly track:

Waste sent to landfill versus recycled or reused
Water consumption per square metre of retail space
The recyclability or certified sustainability of store fixtures and display materials
Packaging volumes at the point of sale

How do retailers set science-based sustainability targets for stores?

Retailers set science-based sustainability targets by aligning their GHG reduction goals with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which validates that a company’s targets are consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This gives targets external credibility and a clear methodology rather than leaving brands to define ambition levels themselves.

The process typically starts with a full emissions baseline across all Scopes. From there, brands calculate the rate of reduction required to stay within their allocated carbon budget, set a target year (usually 2030 or 2050), and break the overall goal down into operational categories, including stores, logistics, and supply chain.

For physical stores specifically, targets often focus on switching to 100% renewable electricity, improving energy efficiency per square metre, and reducing the carbon intensity of fit-out materials. Some retailers also set interim targets, checking progress every two to three years rather than waiting until a final deadline.

Binding internal targets with a fixed baseline year are more effective than aspirational pledges. Setting a measurable reduction percentage against a specific year, rather than a vague commitment to “improve,” gives teams something concrete to work toward and report against.

What sustainability reporting frameworks do retail brands use?

Retail brands most commonly use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the CDP climate disclosure platform, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), and the UN Global Compact framework to structure and communicate their sustainability reporting. Many large retailers use a combination of these rather than a single standard.

GRI is the most widely adopted framework globally. It provides standardized disclosures across environmental, social, and governance topics, making it useful for comparing performance across companies and sectors. Retailers often use GRI as their primary reporting backbone and layer in additional frameworks on top.

CDP focuses specifically on climate, water, and forests. Submitting to CDP involves responding to a detailed questionnaire and receiving a public score, which institutional investors and procurement teams increasingly use to assess a brand’s climate ambition and transparency.

TCFD is gaining traction as regulators in the EU and UK move toward mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. It asks companies to report on governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics related to climate change, with a particular focus on how climate risk affects business operations and financial performance.

The UN Global Compact provides a broader ethical and sustainability framework, covering human rights, labor standards, environmental responsibility, and anti-corruption. Brands that sign up commit to annual progress reports and align their targets with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

How does store design and fixtures affect a retailer’s sustainability targets?

Store design and fixtures directly affect a retailer’s sustainability targets because the materials used in fit-outs, displays, and visual merchandising contribute to Scope 3 emissions and influence how much waste a store generates over its lifetime. Choosing lower-impact materials at the design stage is one of the most effective levers retailers have for reducing their physical store footprint.

Fixtures and display units are replaced regularly as part of seasonal refreshes or brand resets. If those materials are not recyclable or sourced sustainably, the cumulative environmental impact across hundreds of stores becomes significant. Retailers with ambitious sustainability targets increasingly specify recyclable materials, certified packaging, and low-emission production processes when briefing suppliers.

Mannequins and display forms are a good example of where material choices matter. Products made from recyclable materials, using water-soluble paints and low-emission manufacturing processes, produce a lower carbon footprint than alternatives made from fiberglass or polyurethane, which are harder to recycle and more energy-intensive to produce. For retailers tracking their full Scope 3 emissions, this difference shows up in the numbers.

Store lighting, flooring, and energy systems also play a role. LED lighting, energy-efficient HVAC systems, and smart building controls can significantly reduce a store’s Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and these improvements are often easier to quantify and report than supply chain factors.

What challenges do retailers face when reporting store-level sustainability data?

The biggest challenges retailers face when reporting store-level sustainability data are data fragmentation, inconsistent measurement across locations, and the difficulty of capturing Scope 3 emissions from suppliers and fit-out materials. For large retailers operating hundreds or thousands of stores, collecting reliable, comparable data at the individual store level is genuinely complex.

Data fragmentation is common when stores operate across different countries, landlords, or lease structures. A retailer may own some stores outright and lease others, making it harder to access utility data directly. In leased premises, energy bills often go to the landlord rather than the tenant, creating a gap in the retailer’s own emissions records.

Scope 3 reporting adds another layer of difficulty. To accurately report on the carbon footprint of store fixtures, display materials, or packaging, a retailer needs emissions data from its suppliers. Many suppliers, particularly smaller ones, do not yet measure or disclose this information, leaving retailers to use estimates or industry averages instead of actual figures.

Standardization is also a challenge. Without a single mandatory reporting framework, retailers may measure and disclose metrics in ways that are not directly comparable to competitors or industry benchmarks. This makes it harder for investors, customers, and regulators to assess genuine progress versus selective disclosure.

Which retailers are leading on physical store sustainability commitments?

Several large retail brands have made measurable, publicly reported commitments to reducing the environmental impact of their physical stores, covering energy use, emissions, materials, and supply chain transparency. While specific rankings shift as reporting evolves, the retailers setting the pace tend to share a few common characteristics: binding science-based targets, third-party verified reporting, and a clear focus on Scope 3 as well as Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

Fashion and apparel retailers have been among the most active, partly because their store fit-out cycles are frequent and their supply chains are complex. Several major brands have committed to 100% renewable electricity across their store portfolios, published detailed annual sustainability reports aligned with GRI or CDP, and set interim targets with public progress updates.

Grocery and general merchandise retailers have focused heavily on energy efficiency, given the scale of their store estates and the energy demands of refrigeration and lighting. Some have moved toward net-zero targets for their own operations while working to reduce supplier emissions through procurement standards.

What separates leading retailers from the rest is not just the ambition of their targets but the quality of their reporting. The most credible commitments are time-bound, measured against a fixed baseline, independently verified, and disclosed in enough detail that progress can be tracked year on year.

For retailers looking to improve the sustainability credentials of their in-store displays and visual merchandising, the choice of supplier matters. We at IDW Display build our entire operation around measurable sustainability commitments, from our sustainability approach covering GHG reduction targets and renewable energy use, to recyclable polystyrene mannequins produced with water-soluble paints and low-emission processes. If you want to talk through how your display choices affect your Scope 3 reporting, get in touch with us and we can walk you through the specifics.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do we get started if we have no existing sustainability data for our stores?

Start by conducting an energy and emissions audit across your store estate, using utility bills, landlord data, and any existing energy management systems to establish a baseline. Even imperfect data is a valid starting point — the SBTi and GRI both acknowledge that baseline years can be revised as measurement improves. Prioritise getting Scope 1 and 2 figures in place first, then work progressively toward Scope 3 data collection by engaging your key suppliers. Many retailers begin with a pilot across a handful of stores before rolling out consistent measurement across their full portfolio.

What is the difference between a sustainability target and a sustainability commitment, and does it matter?

A sustainability target is specific, measurable, and tied to a defined baseline year and deadline — for example, reducing store energy consumption by 40% against a 2020 baseline by 2030. A commitment is often a broader directional pledge, such as ‘we aim to become a net-zero business,’ without the same level of specificity. The distinction matters significantly for reporting credibility: investors, regulators, and frameworks like CDP and TCFD increasingly scrutinise whether disclosed goals are genuinely time-bound and verifiable, or simply aspirational language. Binding targets with clear methodologies are far more defensible under third-party verification.

How often should retailers update or revise their store-level sustainability targets?

Most retailers review progress against targets annually, which aligns with the cadence of sustainability reporting cycles under frameworks like GRI and CDP. However, targets themselves typically run over multi-year periods — 2030 and 2050 are the most common endpoint years — with interim milestones set every two to three years to track trajectory. If a retailer significantly expands its store estate, changes its baseline methodology, or acquires new brands, it may need to restate its baseline and recalibrate targets accordingly. Transparency about any restatements is important for maintaining credibility with stakeholders.

Can smaller or mid-sized retailers realistically adopt the same reporting frameworks as large retail brands?

Yes, though the level of detail and resource required scales with company size. GRI, for example, offers both comprehensive and referenced disclosure options, meaning smaller retailers can report on the metrics most material to their operations without producing a full enterprise-level report. CDP also has a simplified questionnaire pathway for smaller organisations. For retailers not yet ready for full framework adoption, starting with an internal sustainability scorecard that tracks core metrics — energy, waste, and emissions — builds the data discipline needed to transition into formal external reporting over time.

What is the most common mistake retailers make when reporting on store sustainability?

The most common mistake is focusing exclusively on Scope 1 and 2 emissions — which are easier to measure — while underreporting or omitting Scope 3, which typically represents the largest share of a retailer’s total carbon footprint. This creates a misleading picture of overall progress and leaves significant reduction opportunities unaddressed, particularly in store fit-outs, display materials, and supply chain choices. A related mistake is disclosing metrics without a fixed baseline year, which makes it impossible for external stakeholders to independently verify whether claimed improvements represent genuine progress or a change in measurement methodology.

How can retailers get better Scope 3 emissions data from their display and fixture suppliers?

The most effective approach is to make emissions data a formal part of the supplier briefing and procurement process — treating it the same way you would quality standards or lead times. Ask suppliers directly whether they measure and can provide product-level carbon footprint data, and give preference in sourcing decisions to those who can. Where supplier data is unavailable, industry-average emission factors from databases like the Ecoinvent or the UK Government’s GHG conversion factors can serve as interim estimates, though these should be flagged as approximations in your reporting. Over time, working with suppliers who are themselves investing in emissions measurement will improve the accuracy and credibility of your Scope 3 disclosures.

Will sustainability reporting for physical stores become mandatory, and how should retailers prepare?

Mandatory climate-related disclosure is already becoming a reality for large companies in several markets. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires detailed sustainability reporting from large EU companies and, progressively, from smaller ones and non-EU companies with significant EU operations. In the UK, TCFD-aligned reporting is already mandatory for large listed companies and is expanding in scope. Retailers should prepare by strengthening their internal data collection systems now, aligning voluntarily with established frameworks like GRI and TCFD, and ensuring their reporting is independently verified — so that when mandatory requirements arrive, the transition is an evolution rather than a rebuild from scratch.