As we move into 2026, the sustainability conversation in business travel is still a mixed bag. Some organisations remain focused on standard CO₂ reporting, some have progressed to more granular CO2 reporting, and others are taking that data and actively turning it into actions. And then there are those with already mature programmes in place – carbon budgets, carbon pricing, year-on-year reduction targets, investment in SAF and/or high-quality carbon offsetting.
What has undeniably changed is that sustainability is now firmly on the agenda. It features in over 90% of client RFPs and re-bids, and for many organisations it has shifted from a “nice to have” to a business requirement. Add in growing GHG disclosure obligations, and it’s clear that the pressure to move from intention to delivery is only increasing.
Setting targets, however, is the easy part. Turning them into meaningful outcomes is where organisations often struggle. In corporate travel, that starts with understanding who is travelling, why, and how often – and ensuring travel is purposeful. That insight opens the door to real reduction opportunities: fewer but more productive trips, viable modal shifts from air or car to rail, choosing direct over indirect flights, and making more informed supplier choices. The tools now exist to support this, from granular analytics to bespoke scenario modelling that shows exactly where emissions can be reduced based on real travel patterns.
So why do so many organisations still see limited year-on-year progress in travel emissions? A common misconception is that reducing emissions means restricting travel and therefore harming the business. In reality, a well-managed, data-led travel programme can reduce emissions and, in many cases, costs too, without negatively impacting business productivity. Another barrier is leadership. Without strong endorsement from the top, net-zero goals often fail to translate into actions.
This is where carbon data needs to be treated less like a reporting requirement and more like financial data. Just as travel budgets are actively managed throughout the year, carbon budgets should be too. Live, multi-modal data allows travellers and bookers to see the emissions impact of their choices before decisions are locked in. Take, for example, the difference between flying and taking the train, which can be up to 80% more carbon efficient on viable routes. I often call this “visual guilt”: awareness that gently nudges behaviour and builds better habits over time. This can be very effective without having to rule by the stick, which is certainly the approach I prefer.
In 2026, sustainability maturity isn’t about having more targets. It’s about using data to guide decisions, embedding reduction into everyday travel behaviour, and treating sustainability as an opportunity, not a constraint, to support wider business goals.
Skip to content
