You Pivoted Into Sustainability, They Pivoted Sustainability Into the Business

This week is a double issue. Two contributors, no coordination, no awareness of each other. They submitted the same week and landed on a similar topic from opposite ends. Gabrielle Lewis wrote about getting in. Bridget Ferrari wrote about what you find when you do. Make of that what you will, but our read is that this is what the field is actually thinking about right now. Gabrielle Lewis is a Senior Manager of Sustainability at Amazon Global Procurement, where she leads social responsibility strategy and supplier compliance across North America and Latin America. Bridget Ferrari is a procurement and supply chain sustainability leader in the pharmaceutical industry and co-lead of the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Initiative’s Decarbonization Team where she works with industry peers to advance common approaches, build supplier capability, and strengthen the integration of Scope 3 into procurement practices and action. For this article and many more, subscribe to https://www.sustainabilitydecoded.com/

by Field Decoder - Gabrielle Lewis

I didn’t plan to work in sustainability.
It wasn’t on a vision board. It wasn’t part of a long-term strategy. It wasn’t even something I saw myself pivoting into. When I started my career at Amazon, I fully expected to go deeper into my tech bag, especially after earning my second master’s in data science and analytics. If I’m keeping it 100, sustainability felt like one of those big, important ideas that lived somewhere in the background. It was relevant, sure, but not something I saw myself building a career in.

And then I interviewed for a role.

A role that made complete sense for my background. I knew how to position myself. I knew how to connect the dots. I walked in confident.

But by the end of the conversation, everything shifted.

I was asked, “Would you consider a role in sustainability?”

I paused, not because I wasn’t interested, but because I didn’t fully understand what that meant.

Sustainability is one of those words that sounds clear until you’re actually in it. It can mean environmental work, social responsibility, compliance, strategy, or economic impact. It can mean all of it, depending on who you ask. At the time, I didn’t know which version they meant.

But I said yes anyway.

I stepped into the role as an engagement lead, supporting both social responsibility and environmental initiatives. Which sounds exciting, until you realize that means you’re now sitting in the middle of two complex, highly technical spaces. You are surrounded by people who have been doing this work for years, and you are expected to connect it all in a way that actually drives impact.

No pressure.

So I did what I’ve learned to do in moments like that. I got curious, and I got to work. I asked a lot of questions. I listened more than I talked. And I focused on understanding not just what we were doing, but why it mattered.

And that’s when something clicked.

At its core, sustainability isn’t abstract. It’s about protecting people.

Because no matter how you frame it, we all have to live here. And the moon? It’s not ready for us anytime soon.

About six months in, things got real. I was asked to lead a large, highly visible organizational goal. This was the kind that shows up in leadership reviews and carries real pressure.

And I remember thinking, okay… it’s time to lock in.

Because while I had learned a lot, I was still learning. I didn’t feel like the expert. But I also knew I didn’t need to be. So instead of trying to know everything, I focused on building around the people who did.

I leaned into subject matter experts, the people who understood the technical details, the regulations, and the nuances. I partnered closely with cross-functional teams who each owned a piece of the puzzle.

And I focused on what I do best: connecting those dots and building something that could actually work at scale.

Structure. Clarity. Execution.

Because strategy doesn’t matter if it can’t be implemented. And slowly, things started to move. Not because I had all the answers, but because I knew how to bring the right people together and create a system where their expertise could translate into results.

And we delivered.

We exceeded the goal ahead of schedule and built a model that could scale beyond a single initiative. Somewhere in the middle of all of that, I realized something I didn’t expect.

I loved this work.

Not just the mission, but the challenge of it.

Because sustainability is complex. It sits inside systems that were not originally designed to prioritize people or the planet. And the work is figuring out how to change that without breaking everything else in the process. That intersection of impact, strategy, and execution is where I thrive. After more than 15 years in my career, this was the role that clarified that for me.

Now, when I talk to people who are interested in sustainability, I hear the same hesitation:

“I don’t have the background.”
“I’m not an expert.”
“I wouldn’t even know where to start.”

And every time, I think, neither did I. I didn’t come in as the expert. I came in willing to learn, willing to ask questions, and willing to build.

It needs people who care about humans, communities, and the ecosystems that sustain all of us. I’m usually not the SME. And that’s not a gap. It’s an advantage. My brain doesn’t stay in one lane. It moves across systems, patterns, and perspectives quickly. That means I see connections others might miss. That ability to zoom out, connect dots, and build across disciplines has been one of my greatest strengths in this work. Because I know how to bring experts together. I know how to translate complexity into something actionable. I know how to build structures that allow impact to scale.

And that’s what sustainability actually requires.

So if you’ve been thinking about moving into sustainability, but you’re hesitating because you don’t feel ready yet, this is your sign.

You don’t need to have it all figured out. You just need to be willing to step in and figure it out. Because this work matters.

It matters for the people in our supply chains.
It matters for the communities we live in.
It matters for the planet we all depend on.

And we’re going to need more people who care enough to do something about it. So if you feel that pull,

Lock in and move.

by Field Decoder - Bridget Ferrari

The work of sustainability is moving into operations. That shift is already underway. But this is where many organizations are stalling; not because the work is in the wrong place, but because the systems and decision structures it depends on haven’t changed.

Despite the noise that sustainability and climate work is slowing down or going quiet, the work itself isn’t going away. What is changing is how the work shows up and how it gets executed.

For years, sustainability teams were responsible for setting targets, building strategies, and reporting progress. That work created direction and, in many cases real, yet limited, momentum.

However, this was never a long-term solution. Delivering Near-Term and Net Zero commitments requires organizations to make climate-relevant decisions as part of everyday work. Most organizations are too large and operationally complex for a small, centralized team to drive change at the scale and speed required. Progress ultimately depends on how decisions are made across the business.

Responsibility has begun to shift accordingly. Procurement is expected to address Scope 3. Operations are expected to improve efficiency. Finance is expected to navigate evolving disclosure and risk requirements while supporting the transition. R&D is expected to design new products consistent with how materials are reused and recycled across the product lifecycle.

This is typically how change usually rolls out. It starts with leadership, moves through pilot efforts, and expands as teams adopt new ways of working. However, given that only roughly 18% of companies with Net Zero targets reporting being on track to achieve their commitments, something isn’t working.

Where climate strategy execution differs is the pace and complexity. Emissions reduction expectations are increasing quickly, and the underlying decisions are more complex than most organizations are set up to handle. The rate of change required is outpacing the organization’s ability to upskill and operationalize it.

The gap is not intent; it is a missing assumption—that the teams now responsible for delivery understand how climate fits into their decisions and have the systems and policies in place to act on it. Most companies have not yet updated their systems, processes, or employee capabilities to support consistent, confident decision-making.

Procurement is where this becomes most visible. Scope 3 emissions are driven by what companies buy. Procurement teams are in a position to translate climate targets into market signals—demand for lower-emission products, different specifications, and new ways of working with suppliers. But procurement has not been set up to play that role.

Sourcing decisions are still driven by the same traditional criteria: cost, quality, and delivery. These criteria are deeply embedded in how decisions get made. Climate-related criteria has been added in some cases, but usually as a separate input rather than something fully integrated into the decision itself.

In practice, emissions data may be reviewed, but there is often no clear expectation for how it should influence the outcome. There is no consistent approach to evaluating trade-offs between cost and emissions, and no shared understanding of when a lower-emission option should be selected. Decisions follow the structure that already exists.

When there is pressure on cost, timelines, or supply continuity, teams default to the criteria that are most clearly defined and consistently measured. In most cases, that still means cost, quality, and delivery. This is not a failure of procurement or the teams involved; it is the result of a system operating as designed.

There is a second layer to this gap that is less visible, but just as important. Even when organizations begin to adjust processes and expectations, the people making these decisions are often not equipped to act on them.

Most employees are not deeply knowledgeable about the drivers of climate change and emissions—and they don’t need to be. But they do need to understand how climate considerations apply within the scope of their role. That connection is often missing.

For procurement, that means understanding how to evaluate emissions alongside cost. For finance, how to assess climate-related investments. For operations, how performance expectations translate into day-to-day decisions.

Without that translation, employees are left with information, but no clear way to use it.

The same pattern shows up across functions. Finance teams are asked to support climate-related investments, but often without clear criteria for how those investments should be evaluated or prioritized. Operations teams are expected to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, but performance management systems may not reflect those expectations. R&D teams are expected to develop lower-emission products, but often without clear guidance on how to evaluate trade-offs or the data needed to inform those decisions.

In each case, responsibility has shifted, but the underlying decision frameworks—and the capability to use them—have not.

This is where climate ambition and Scope 3 efforts begin to stall. Companies have invested in emissions inventories, supplier engagement, and data quality. In many cases, the data is sufficient to indicate which options are higher or lower emissions.

What is missing is a consistent way to use that information in decisions, and the capability within teams to act on it.

Without that, emissions data sits alongside the process rather than inside it. It is reviewed, but it does not change the outcome. Improving the data makes the gap more visible, but it does not change how decisions are made.

Most organizations are not starting from zero. They have targets, baseline data, and a general understanding of where emissions sit within their value chain.

The constraint is not awareness; it is that climate has not been translated into how decisions are structured, evaluated, and measured—and that the people making those decisions have not been equipped to act on it.

Addressing this does not require building entirely new processes. It requires being explicit about how climate fits into the systems and processes that already exist and ensuring that employees can apply that in practice.

In procurement, that means defining how emissions are considered alongside cost, quality, and delivery in supplier selection, clarifying how trade-offs should be handled, and connecting climate-related decisions to commercial outcomes.

In finance, it means establishing clear criteria for evaluating climate-related investments and incorporating those into capital allocation decisions. In operations, it means aligning performance metrics with the outcomes the organization is trying to achieve. In R&D, it means developing new products that are designed with reduced climate impact from the start through innovative processes, how materials are reused and recycled across the product lifecycle, and supplier engagement models that enable co-development of lower-emission solutions and integrate lifecycle considerations into product design decisions.

These are practical adjustments to how decisions are made every day.

The shift of climate strategy into functional groups was necessary. It placed accountability with the functions that have the most influence over outcomes, but it also made the problem more visible. Climate is no longer an abstract goal owned by another group; it shows up as a set of trade-offs that someone has to navigate and own.

At this stage, progress depends less on additional data or more detailed roadmaps, and more on whether organizations are willing to adapt how decisions are made—and invest in the capability of the people making them.

Without those changes, climate strategies will continue to operate in parallel to the business with limited impact on outcomes. With them, procurement becomes an accelerator, not a bottleneck, and the same systems that drive cost, quality, and performance can also drive emissions reductions.

And that is what turns strategy into execution.