물류 탄소 회계 서비스 시장 : 서비스 유형별, 조직 규모별, 도입 형태별, 최종 이용 산업별, 용도별, 판매 채널별 - 세계 예측(2026-2032년)

The Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market was valued at USD 1.26 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 1.35 billion in 2026, with a CAGR of 7.28%, reaching USD 2.06 billion by 2032.

An urgent introduction explaining why logistics carbon accounting has become foundational infrastructure for supply chain resilience regulatory alignment and stakeholder trust

Logistics carbon accounting has evolved from a compliance-oriented checkbox to a strategic capability for organizations seeking operational resilience, regulatory readiness, and reputational differentiation. As supply chains become more interconnected and emissions disclosure expectations rise, logistics teams are no longer peripheral to sustainability strategy; they are central to measuring, reducing, and reporting greenhouse gas outputs across complex transport and warehousing networks. This shift demands systematic data practices, cross-functional governance, and technology-driven visibility to translate transportation activity into credible emissions narratives.

With increasing scrutiny from regulators, customers, and investors, companies must reconcile disparate data sources, harmonize activity-based emissions calculations, and prioritize interventions that deliver measurable reductions. The practical challenge lies in converting shipment-level, modal, and facility-level inputs into accurate Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 accounting that withstands third-party verification. To address this, organizations are adopting integrated carbon data platforms, embedding monitoring capabilities into fleet telematics, and formalizing processes for supplier collaboration and data sharing.

Transitioning from ad hoc estimations to robust carbon accounting unlocks multiple benefits: clearer decision-making for modal shifts and consolidation strategies, improved accuracy in carbon pricing scenarios, and demonstrable progress against sustainability commitments. This introduction frames the broader narrative: logistics carbon accounting is foundational infrastructure for modern supply chains, requiring both cultural change and pragmatic deployment of analytical and operational tools.

A detailed examination of converging technological regulatory and commercial forces that are transforming how logistics carbon accounting is implemented and leveraged for value

The logistics carbon accounting landscape is undergoing rapid transformation driven by converging technological, regulatory, and commercial forces. Advanced analytics and real-time monitoring are enabling a transition from periodic reporting to continuous performance management, turning carbon data into an operational KPI rather than a retrospective compliance artifact. As a result, sustainability teams are collaborating more closely with operations and procurement to embed decarbonization into routing, carrier selection, and warehousing strategies.

Meanwhile, regulatory frameworks and corporate commitments are catalyzing demand for consistent, auditable methodologies. Companies are standardizing emissions protocols and investing in data integration initiatives to eliminate reconciliation gaps between transportation management systems, telematics, fuel cards, and emission factors databases. This interoperability push is accompanied by increased interest in hybrid deployment models that balance cloud agility with on-premise security for sensitive logistics data.

Commercial incentives are also shifting. Buyers and consumers are assigning greater value to demonstrated emissions performance, and carriers that can provide verifiable carbon reports gain preferential access to contracts and volume. Consequently, service providers are augmenting advisory offerings with outcome-oriented services such as carbon reduction consulting and offsetting guidance, aligning incentives across the value chain. These combined shifts are making carbon accounting a value-driving capability rather than a compliance-only activity.

An evidence-based review of how tariff changes and trade policy dynamics are reshaping routing sourcing and inventory decisions with direct consequences for logistics carbon intensity

Recent tariff actions and trade policy adjustments have immediate and cascading effects on logistics emissions through altered routing, modal choices, and inventory strategies. Tariff-induced shifts in sourcing patterns frequently lengthen supply chains, increase transit times, and necessitate additional buffering inventory, which together elevate the carbon intensity of logistics operations. Procurement teams that respond to tariff volatility by moving manufacturing closer to consumption centers may reduce transportation emissions, yet such reshoring decisions often carry their own emissions trade-offs related to production energy mix and facility efficiency.

As companies respond to tariff uncertainty, they are increasingly modeling carbon implications alongside cost and lead-time scenarios. This integrated approach reveals that tariff changes can accelerate investments in nearshoring, multimodal optimization, and freight consolidation, while also increasing interest in carbon reduction interventions such as fleet electrification and fuel efficiency programs. Importantly, the ripple effects of tariff policies also influence carrier networks and capacity availability, which can force carriers and shippers to reconfigure routes in ways that temporarily raise emissions intensity.

To manage this complexity, logistics and sustainability leaders are incorporating tariff scenarios into carbon accounting frameworks and stress-testing supply chain configurations for emissions resilience. This ensures that tactical responses to trade policy shifts are evaluated not only on cost and lead times, but on their long-term carbon implications and alignment with corporate sustainability commitments.

A comprehensive breakdown of service deployment industry application organization size and sales channel segments exposing where capabilities are strongest and where gaps persist

Analyzing the market through the lens of service type reveals distinct capability clusters and adoption pathways. Carbon Data Management, which includes Analytics and Visualization and Data Integration, is foundational for organizations that require consolidated emitter-level visibility; Carbon Emission Reporting, encompassing Real Time Monitoring and Regulatory Reporting, addresses the need for timely compliance and operational oversight; Carbon Footprint Assessment provides scenario-based evaluations for strategic planning; Carbon Offsetting Consultation supports corporate neutralization strategies while Carbon Reduction Consulting helps prioritize operational levers for measurable impact. When considering deployment mode, Cloud Based SaaS solutions, offered via Private Cloud or Public Cloud, provide scalability and rapid feature delivery, Hybrid approaches balance flexibility with data sovereignty, and On Premise deployments suit organizations with stringent control requirements. Examining end user industries highlights differences in adoption drivers and data complexity across Food And Beverage, Healthcare, Logistics And Transportation, Manufacturing, and Retail And Ecommerce, with each sector presenting unique modal mixes and regulatory pressures. The application dimension-Scope 1 Accounting, Scope 2 Accounting, and Scope 3 Accounting-defines the technical rigor and cross-functional data dependencies required, particularly for upstream and downstream emissions capture. Organization size influences resource allocation and implementation timelines; Large Enterprises often invest in integrated platforms and dedicated sustainability analytics teams, while Small And Medium Enterprises prioritize vendor partnerships and out-of-the-box solutions that minimize internal overhead. Finally, sales channel dynamics shape market access and service customization, where Channel Partners, Direct Sales, and Online Platforms each deliver differing levels of consultative support and integration services.

Understanding these segmented perspectives enables providers and buyers to map capability requirements to practical deployment patterns, accelerating adoption in areas where technology maturity, data availability, and regulatory pressure converge.

Regional adoption patterns and strategic priorities across the Americas Europe Middle East and Africa and Asia-Pacific that influence how carbon accounting is localized and scaled

Regional dynamics significantly influence adoption patterns, driven by regulatory environments, infrastructure maturity, and commercial priorities. In the Americas, corporate disclosure expectations and purchaser demand are driving investment in end-to-end carbon visibility and supplier engagement programs, with particular emphasis on integrating fleet telematics and carrier reporting. Europe, Middle East & Africa reflects a heterogeneous environment where stringent EU regulations, national decarbonization initiatives, and emerging market infrastructure constraints combine to create differentiated demand for localized reporting frameworks and hybrid deployment models. In the Asia-Pacific region, rapid economic growth, diverse energy mixes, and a growing emphasis on regional trade corridors are driving pragmatic solutions that prioritize scalability and cost-effectiveness, while also accelerating interest in modal shifts and port efficiency improvements.

These regional distinctions require tailored approaches: some markets prioritize regulatory compliance and verification, others prioritize operational interventions that reduce emissions intensity, and still others focus on cost-effective deployments that can scale across distributed supplier networks. As a consequence, solution providers are adapting localization strategies for data models, emissions factors, and integration patterns to align with regional practices and stakeholder expectations. Cross-regional coordination remains critical for multinational organizations seeking consistent reporting and centralized governance while accommodating local nuances.

An analysis of how vendors and advisory firms are structuring integrated data analytics reporting and consulting offerings to accelerate logistics carbon accounting maturity

Leading companies in the logistics carbon accounting space are positioning their offerings around integrated data capabilities, regulatory reporting support, and outcome-driven consulting. Providers are differentiating by bundling analytics and visualization with data integration services to reduce the time to operational insight. Others are emphasizing real-time monitoring tied to telematics and transportation management systems to enable near-instantaneous emissions tracking and to support tactical decision-making on routing and carrier selection. Advisory firms are layering carbon reduction consulting and offsetting strategies onto analytics platforms to provide end-to-end programmatic support, from baseline assessment to verification-ready reporting.

Partnership ecosystems are also a focal point for competitive positioning. Strategic alliances with telematics vendors, freight forwarders, and software integrators expand data sources and accelerate implementation. There is a notable trend toward subscription-based services that combine software access with managed data services, which appeals to organizations that lack in-house data engineering resources. Meanwhile, companies targeting large enterprises are offering robust customization, governance frameworks, and audit trails, while those serving smaller organizations emphasize ease of use and preconfigured workflows. Across the provider landscape, the emphasis is on enabling measurable operational improvements and credible reporting rather than delivering siloed tools.

Clear pragmatic recommendations for leadership to build data governance systems phased implementations and partnership strategies that deliver measurable emissions reductions in logistics

Executives should prioritize building a unified data architecture that consolidates transportation management systems, telematics, fuel consumption records, and supplier-reported inputs to create a single source of truth for emissions calculations. Establishing cross-functional governance that includes procurement, operations, sustainability, and IT ensures that data ownership, quality controls, and reporting responsibilities are clearly defined. Leaders must also adopt a phased implementation approach: start with high-impact routes and carrier relationships to demonstrate early emissions reductions, then scale methodologies and integrations across the network.

Investment decisions should favor solutions that provide both immediate operational value and long-term scalability, such as cloud-enabled analytics with optional hybrid deployments for sensitive data. Incorporate tariff and trade scenario planning into emissions modeling to anticipate how sourcing and routing changes will affect carbon intensity. Cultivate strategic partnerships with carriers and technology vendors to secure richer data flows and to pilot reduction initiatives like modal shifts and electrification. Finally, communicate metrics that matter to stakeholders by aligning carbon KPIs with procurement and logistics performance indicators, using transparent methodologies that facilitate verification and stakeholder trust.

A transparent explanation of the multi-method research approach combining interviews ecosystem mapping technical evaluation and validation processes to ensure analytical rigor

The research synthesis relies on a structured methodology that combines qualitative interviews, vendor and user ecosystem mapping, and comparative analysis of technical approaches to emissions accounting. Primary inputs include interviews with logistics and sustainability leaders, vendor product literature, and publicly available regulatory guidance to ensure alignment with recognized emissions protocols. Analytical approaches emphasize reconciliation of operational data streams, assessment of integration patterns between transportation management systems and telematics platforms, and evaluation of deployment models against data governance and security requirements.

Validation mechanisms include cross-referencing interview findings with observed product capabilities, testing representative data integration flows, and reviewing documented use cases for evidence of measurable operational impact. Comparative analysis assesses vendor positioning along criteria such as real-time monitoring capability, integration breadth, reporting rigor, and advisory services. Throughout the research, careful attention is paid to methodological transparency and replicability, enabling buyers to map findings to their internal data architectures and governance constraints.

A concise set of concluding observations stressing the strategic necessity of integrated data governance and pragmatic operational pilots to scale logistics carbon accounting

The cumulative message of this analysis is that logistics carbon accounting is both a necessary compliance function and a strategic capability that can deliver tangible operational improvements. Organizations that prioritize data integration, governance, and targeted pilots will unlock clearer routing decisions, improved carrier engagement, and more credible reporting. Moreover, the confluence of regulatory pressure, buyer expectations, and evolving carrier services means that early investment in robust accounting practices will create competitive advantage rather than merely satisfy disclosure requirements.

Operationalizing carbon accounting requires a balanced investment in technology, process, and partnerships. Companies should focus on pragmatic wins that build momentum, such as improving fleet fuel efficiency, consolidating loads, or collaborating with carriers on verified emissions data. At the same time, leadership must institutionalize governance and metric alignment to ensure sustained progress. In sum, logistics carbon accounting is an actionable lever for reducing emissions, enhancing resilience, and aligning supply chain strategy with broader corporate sustainability objectives.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Definition
• 1.3. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.4. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.5. Currency Considered for the Study
• 1.6. Language Considered for the Study
• 1.7. Key Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

• 2.1. Introduction
• 2.2. Research Design
  • 2.2.1. Primary Research
  • 2.2.2. Secondary Research
• 2.3. Research Framework
  • 2.3.1. Qualitative Analysis
  • 2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis
• 2.4. Market Size Estimation
  • 2.4.1. Top-Down Approach
  • 2.4.2. Bottom-Up Approach
• 2.5. Data Triangulation
• 2.6. Research Outcomes
• 2.7. Research Assumptions
• 2.8. Research Limitations

3. Executive Summary

• 3.1. Introduction
• 3.2. CXO Perspective
• 3.3. Market Size & Growth Trends
• 3.4. Market Share Analysis, 2025
• 3.5. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2025
• 3.6. New Revenue Opportunities
• 3.7. Next-Generation Business Models
• 3.8. Industry Roadmap

4. Market Overview

• 4.1. Introduction
• 4.2. Industry Ecosystem & Value Chain Analysis
  • 4.2.1. Supply-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.2. Demand-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis
• 4.3. Porter's Five Forces Analysis
• 4.4. PESTLE Analysis
• 4.5. Market Outlook
  • 4.5.1. Near-Term Market Outlook (0-2 Years)
  • 4.5.2. Medium-Term Market Outlook (3-5 Years)
  • 4.5.3. Long-Term Market Outlook (5-10 Years)
• 4.6. Go-to-Market Strategy

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Consumer Insights & End-User Perspective
• 5.2. Consumer Experience Benchmarking
• 5.3. Opportunity Mapping
• 5.4. Distribution Channel Analysis
• 5.5. Pricing Trend Analysis
• 5.6. Regulatory Compliance & Standards Framework
• 5.7. ESG & Sustainability Analysis
• 5.8. Disruption & Risk Scenarios
• 5.9. Return on Investment & Cost-Benefit Analysis

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Service Type

• 8.1. Carbon Data Management
  • 8.1.1. Analytics And Visualization
  • 8.1.2. Data Integration
• 8.2. Carbon Emission Reporting
  • 8.2.1. Real Time Monitoring
  • 8.2.2. Regulatory Reporting
• 8.3. Carbon Footprint Assessment
• 8.4. Carbon Offsetting Consultation
• 8.5. Carbon Reduction Consulting

9. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Organization Size

• 9.1. Large Enterprises
• 9.2. Small And Medium Enterprises

10. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Deployment Mode

• 10.1. Cloud Based SaaS
  • 10.1.1. Private Cloud
  • 10.1.2. Public Cloud
• 10.2. Hybrid
• 10.3. On Premise

11. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by End User Industry

• 11.1. Food And Beverage
• 11.2. Healthcare
• 11.3. Logistics And Transportation
• 11.4. Manufacturing
• 11.5. Retail And Ecommerce

12. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Application

• 12.1. Scope 1 Accounting
• 12.2. Scope 2 Accounting
• 12.3. Scope 3 Accounting

13. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Sales Channel

• 13.1. Channel Partners
• 13.2. Direct Sales
• 13.3. Online Platforms

14. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Region

• 14.1. Americas
  • 14.1.1. North America
  • 14.1.2. Latin America
• 14.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 14.2.1. Europe
  • 14.2.2. Middle East
  • 14.2.3. Africa
• 14.3. Asia-Pacific

15. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Group

• 15.1. ASEAN
• 15.2. GCC
• 15.3. European Union
• 15.4. BRICS
• 15.5. G7
• 15.6. NATO

16. Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market, by Country

• 16.1. United States
• 16.2. Canada
• 16.3. Mexico
• 16.4. Brazil
• 16.5. United Kingdom
• 16.6. Germany
• 16.7. France
• 16.8. Russia
• 16.9. Italy
• 16.10. Spain
• 16.11. China
• 16.12. India
• 16.13. Japan
• 16.14. Australia
• 16.15. South Korea

17. United States Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market

18. China Logistics Carbon Accounting Service Market

19. Competitive Landscape

• 19.1. Market Concentration Analysis, 2025
  • 19.1.1. Concentration Ratio (CR)
  • 19.1.2. Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)
• 19.2. Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, 2025
• 19.3. Product Portfolio Analysis, 2025
• 19.4. Benchmarking Analysis, 2025
• 19.5. Accenture plc
• 19.6. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
• 19.7. Deutsche Post AG
• 19.8. ENGIE SA
• 19.9. IBM Corporation
• 19.10. Kuehne + Nagel International AG
• 19.11. Oracle Corporation
• 19.12. Persefoni AI, Inc.
• 19.13. SAP SE
• 19.14. Schneider Electric SE
• 19.15. Sphera Solutions, Inc.