Thomas Palm writes about product compliance and sustainability in manufacturing, especially how suppliers can provide product-level carbon-footprint data and use shared product information to guide reporting, sourcing, and design decisions.
Thomas Palm is useful for explaining supplier product data for carbon footprints, compliance, and sourcing decisions.
Best for
A supplier-facing software vendor in product carbon, compliance, or product data management.
Not for
Consumer sustainability campaigns or neutral comparisons of competing compliance software vendors.
Key takeaways
Carbon footprints should be built from suppliers' own data, not estimates.
Voluntary supplier requests quickly become mandatory.
Compliance and sustainability are the same data problem sitting on different floors.
Check first: Confirm audience composition, post performance, and booking process before contacting them.
Main ideas
Carbon footprints should be built from suppliers' own data, not estimates · Voluntary supplier requests quickly become mandatory · Compliance and sustainability are the same data problem sitting on different floors
Thomas Palm writes about product compliance and sustainability in manufacturing.
Their posts connect supplier-level product data to practical questions: how manufacturers calculate carbon footprints, meet reporting requirements, and make decisions about materials and sourcing.
The examples center on automotive supply chains, including Ford’s Kuga product-carbon-footprint initiative, and on the gap between compliance and sustainability teams.
The posts identify IPOINT as a partner in the Ford initiative and describe its product-data approach.
Palm’s distinctive contribution is to show what product data can do beyond completing a report.
They explain that much of a vehicle’s footprint occurs upstream, then trace how primary supplier data can support product-level carbon calculations.
They also link compliance and sustainability work, which often run in separate teams, arguing that shared material and supplier data can feed multiple reporting outputs and inform product choices.
Their examples extend the business case beyond emissions: a substance-level view of a product can help assess critical-material exposure, tariffs, and supply-chain resilience.
Several posts revisit the Ford Kuga case from different angles.
Read them for a practical account of why manufacturers may need better product data and how it could inform decisions.
Thomas Palm's ideas circle one argument: product-level environmental and material data should come from suppliers' own measurements and live in a single shared foundation serving compliance, sustainability, and product decisions at once.
Read more
Across the posts, they argue that estimated, spend-based carbon accounting produces a number but not control; requests for supplier data harden from voluntary pilots into conditions for staying on a supplier list; and compliance and sustainability teams holding the same material data rarely talk to each other. The examples stay concrete — a Ford car line, the thousands of parts in a steering wheel, and the tax risk of not knowing where a critical metal came from.
Carbon footprints should be built from suppliers' own data, not estimates
Thomas Palm argues that top-down, spend-based carbon numbers only give a company a sense of its impact, while primary supplier data lets it manage that impact.
Read more
Because most of a vehicle's footprint accrues before assembly — which they put at 70 to 90 percent, across materials, components, and deliveries — OEMs with net-zero commitments have to collect granular, bottom-up figures from their suppliers rather than model them centrally. In their telling, the conditions that make this workable are standardization and low friction: a Catena-X certified tool means a supplier calculates once and hands the same figure to any OEM, requires no lifecycle-assessment specialist, and runs as standard software rather than an IT project.
Ford's Kuga line is described as the first car line whose product carbon footprint is calculated entirely from primary supplier data, using iPoint's Product Sustainability Core. The tool was offered free for six months to participating Ford suppliers.
The same Ford Kuga case names iPoint as the partner in two posts and 'Assent (formerly IPOINT)' in a later one, so the company reference shifts across the posts.
Voluntary supplier requests quickly become mandatory
Palm addresses the objection directly: suppliers are busy, and waiting to see whether a data request sticks is understandable.
Read more
They say they have seen this pattern before in the industry — requirements start as pilots or voluntary asks and then become compulsory, at which point a supplier that cannot supply the data risks no longer being considered a supplier at all. They add a second pressure: the supplier is accountable for the accuracy of the numbers it submits, which is the argument for a certified, standardized calculation method rather than a one-off spreadsheet.
Palm raises the supplier's question — 'can we not just wait and see?' — acknowledges the hesitation, then points to the six-month free window Ford suppliers were offered as a head start before the requirement hardens.
Compliance and sustainability are the same data problem sitting on different floors
Palm's recurring organizational observation is that compliance teams — with chemistry expertise, material declarations, and IMDS submissions — and sustainability teams — reporting to auditors and banks alongside the finance function — work from the same material, supplier, and product data without realizing it.
Read more
As reporting grows, that separation produces two versions of the same facts, reconciled by hand whenever a material or a regulation changes, and breaks once a company moves past one product and one spreadsheet. Their answer is one shared data core with one governance logic, generating whichever output is required — IMDS, Catena-X, CSRD, digital product passports, or internal KPIs — from the same source.
Palm pictures a compliance team with chemistry doctorates in lab coats next to the manufacturing line, while the sustainability team sits with the CFO. At an annual event, a keynote on the two functions converging drew the reaction that talking to compliance counterparts was 'blasphemy.' A steering wheel containing thousands of parts illustrates the scale problem.
Palm frames the shift as a change in the question a company asks: from 'are we compliant?' and retrospective reporting to 'how do we build a better product?' The contrasts are explicit — not retrospective reporting but forward-looking decisions; not outsourcing expertise to a consultant who fills in forms but builds no internal capability; not siloed teams but a shared foundation that compliance, sustainability, procurement, and product teams can all use.
Read more
The stated payoff is the ability to test changes at the material and substance level, then act on sourcing, material choice, and geography to change energy and transport impacts.
Palm illustrates the difference with questions about swapping one material for another, sourcing locally instead of shipping by air, and running a factory on renewables. These decisions steer next year's product rather than restate last year's footprint, with a five-step sequence running from connecting material-level data to changing design and sourcing.
Product data is a business-risk question, not only a compliance one
One post widens the argument beyond carbon and regulation.
Read more
The automotive companies Palm talks to worry less about fines than about being unable to answer basic questions about their own products.
Tariffs and supply-chain resilience make it important to know how much of a critical metal or material a product contains and where it originated: an unknown origin can mean the whole product is taxed, and costs escalate quickly.
Palm's answer is to model the product at substance level during design, so environmental regulation, supply-chain resilience, and geopolitical requirements can be weighed against each other.
Palm illustrates that failing to quantify the amount of a critical material from a given origin exposes the entire product to taxation. The practical loss is not a penalty but the ability to steer the business.
This is the clearest single explanation of what product carbon footprint work looks like in practice: why the upstream supply chain dominates a vehicle’s footprint and what it takes to replace estimates with supplier-level data.
Read more
Start here for the concrete case rather than the general argument.
Thomas Palm describes Ford making its Kuga line the first car line whose product carbon footprint is calculated entirely from primary supplier data, then explains why that matters: 70 to 90 percent of a vehicle’s footprint occurs before the assembly line, across materials, components, and deliveries.
The post details what suppliers would face: iPoint’s Product Sustainability Core is Catena-X certified, so a supplier calculates once and can hand the same standardized figure to any OEM; the tool is positioned as standard SaaS that requires neither LCA specialists nor an IT project; and participating Ford suppliers get it free for six months.
The key point is timing: requirements like this start as voluntary asks and harden into minimum conditions for staying on a supplier list.
At that point, suppliers are also accountable for the accuracy of their numbers.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for a webinar or co-authored article aimed at tier-one and tier-two suppliers, not OEM sustainability teams. The strongest angle is data readiness under a deadline the supplier does not control: what “calculate once, report to any OEM” means operationally, and what a supplier needs in place before a voluntary request becomes a gate.
It answers the question behind almost every product-data problem: why do compliance and sustainability keep producing separate versions of the same facts?
Read more
This recurring idea across Thomas Palm’s posts is framed through the organization chart, not the software.
The observation is organizational, not technical.
Compliance teams sit next to the manufacturing line with chemistry expertise; sustainability teams sit with finance because they report to auditors and banks.
They work on different floors and reporting cycles, yet both depend on the same material data, supplier information, and product-level detail.
Thomas Palm says a keynote on the two functions converging struck some attendees as near-blasphemy.
The post traces the current moment to companies discovering that cheap, spend-based estimates may satisfy reporting requirements but cannot support decisions.
A steering wheel containing thousands of parts illustrates the scale; the practical failure is two versions of reality that teams reconcile by hand whenever a material or regulation changes.
The proposed answer is one shared data core, with one governance logic feeding IMDS, Catena-X, CSRD, and internal KPIs.
For brands planning a campaign
Good raw material for a co-authored article on breaking down the compliance/sustainability divide, aimed at manufacturers that already run both functions. It supports a practical framing: the data sustainability managers need is often already formatted and checked by compliance teams, rather than a product announcement.
This short post shows why manufacturers also care about tariffs, critical materials, and supply-chain resilience. It’s the best starting point for readers who want to understand why product data is a commercial question.
Thomas Palm says the automotive companies they speak with worry about more than fines.
If a manufacturer cannot quantify how much of a critical metal or material it has and where it came from, the entire product can be taxed and costs can escalate quickly.
The result is a loss of the ability to steer the business.
The proposed capability is to model a product at substance level and test alternatives during design, weighing environmental regulation, supply-chain resilience, and geopolitical requirements against each other.
For brands planning a campaign
Strong thought-leadership hook for procurement, trade-compliance, and product-design leaders who may not see themselves as sustainability buyers. A webinar could take one product and show the same substance-level model answering both a tariff question and a carbon question.
This is the clearest statement of the shift the other posts argue for: reporting as a backward-looking exercise versus modeling as a forward-looking one.
Read more
The numbered list lays out the sequence in plain steps.
The post contrasts top-down spend-based estimates, which produce a theoretical number that gives a sense of impact, with material-level data that lets a company manage it.
Thomas Palm describes a shared data foundation connecting material data, supply-chain data, and process information under one logic, then generating whatever output is required — product carbon footprints, IMDS submissions, digital product passports, CSRD reporting — without rebuilding each report.
The practical payoff is the ability to make different sourcing, materials, and geography decisions to change energy and transport impacts.
The five steps run from connecting material-level data across the two functions to building one foundation instead of parallel silos, generating outputs from that single source, locating where impact actually lives, and using the model to change design and sourcing decisions.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful as the spine of a co-authored article or workshop: measure versus manage, followed by the five-step sequence as a self-assessment checklist. It pairs naturally with the compliance/sustainability silo argument; combining them avoids two pieces making the same point.
Product carbon footprints built from primary supplier data4
Compliance and sustainability should run on one data foundation3
The shift from voluntary to mandatory supplier requirements2
Impact intelligence: manage impact, not just measure it2
Supply chain resilience, tariffs, and critical materials1
Product carbon footprints built from primary supplier data
Palm’s most repeated subject is the shift from estimated, spend-based carbon accounting to product-level footprints calculated from suppliers’ own data.
Read more
A Ford Kuga example runs through three posts: the Kuga line is presented as the first car line where 100% of the product carbon footprint is calculated from primary supplier data, with 70–90% of a car’s impact happening upstream of the assembly line. The posts highlight Catena-X certification, no need for LCA specialists, a standard SaaS tool rather than an IT project, and six months free for participating Ford suppliers.
Palm builds each post as a short case: context bullets on Scope 3, a “big news” claim, numbered reasons behind the choice, then a direct “what this means to you” section.
Two posts name iPoint as Ford’s partner for the Kuga initiative, while a third names “Assent (formerly IPOINT)” for the same work. The company reference changes across the posts, and several posts repeat near-identical structure and wording.
For brands planning a campaign
A software vendor can offer suppliers a ready-made case study: a webinar or co-authored article showing what a verified primary-data requirement looks like, why bottom-up data beats estimates, and how to check readiness.
The shift from voluntary to mandatory supplier requirements
Palm repeatedly warns suppliers that OEM data requests start as pilots or voluntary asks and quickly become compulsory.
Read more
Suppliers unable to provide the data then risk losing their place in the supply chain. The posts also stress that suppliers are accountable for the accuracy of their submissions, which Palm uses to argue for standardized, certified calculation rather than one-off spreadsheets.
Palm addresses suppliers directly, raises the objection (“can we not just wait and see?”), acknowledges the hesitation, then answers with an industry pattern they say they have seen before.
Palm bases the claim on similar past cases they say they have seen, not on a cited regulation, deadline, or enforcement action. Ask for the specific examples or evidence behind it.
For brands planning a campaign
Urgency is Palm’s strongest lever with a supplier audience. A vendor can build a supplier-readiness webinar or checklist around the claim that waiting to see is the costly option.
Compliance and sustainability should run on one data foundation
Palm argues that compliance teams (chemistry, material declarations, IMDS) and sustainability teams (CFO reporting, auditors, banks) sit in different parts of a company while relying on the same material and supplier data.
Read more
The posts describe one shared data core with one governance logic producing many outputs—IMDS submissions, Catena-X, CSRD reporting, digital product passports, and internal KPIs—instead of parallel tools and manual reconciliation that break when scaled beyond a single product.
Palm uses a concrete image—the PhD-holding compliance team in a lab coat near the line, versus the sustainability team sitting with the CFO—and recounts an audience reaction (“that’s blasphemy”) to show how recent the change is.
The convergence story is also the vendor’s product argument, so these posts read partly as marketing for iPoint’s platform rather than neutral commentary.
For brands planning a campaign
A co-authored article on breaking down the compliance/sustainability silo suits a thought-leadership partnership: the vendor can supply the organizational argument, while Palm brings field detail about where teams get stuck.
Impact intelligence: manage impact, not just measure it
Palm contrasts backward-looking reporting, spreadsheets, and outsourced consultant forms with a forward-looking model that lets teams ask what changes if they swap a material, source locally instead of shipping by air, or run a factory on renewables.
Read more
The impact-intelligence framing combines a shared data foundation and a digital twin of the product to steer sourcing and design decisions, not just report past performance.
Palm structures the argument as paired contrasts: not retrospective reporting but forward-looking decision-making; not outsourcing expertise but building internal capability; not siloed teams but a shared foundation.
For brands planning a campaign
This is the corpus’s closest thing to an editorial thesis. It works as a webinar theme about moving from reporting obligations to product decisions that a brand and partner can develop together.
Supply chain resilience, tariffs, and critical materials
One post moves beyond carbon: the automotive companies Palm talks to worry less about fines than about being unable to answer basic questions about their products.
Read more
Tariffs and resilient supply chains make it important to know which critical metals and materials a product contains and where they come from.
Unknown origin can mean the whole product is taxed, with costs escalating quickly.
Palm’s answer is substance-level product modeling that lets teams test alternatives during design.
For brands planning a campaign
For buyers not yet persuaded by sustainability, this post offers a resilience-and-cost framing a vendor can use to widen a partnership’s audience beyond the already-convinced.
Thomas Palm’s posts centre on IPOINT, the product-compliance and sustainability software business they write about, and the organisations it works with.
Read more
Ford appears across three posts as the launch case for supplier-level carbon footprint data.
Palm cites Catena-X certification as the basis for standardised calculations and IMDS as one reporting output fed by shared material data.
Ask Palm to disclose any sponsorship, affiliate or investment relationships.
IPOINT
Employment
Palm writes about IPOINT and its product sustainability work, using “we at IPOINT”, “our solution” and “our big annual event”, and saying, “Stoked to be working on this with the team at IPOINT”.
Read more
They describe the company’s Catena-X-certified tool, Impact Intelligence, and its work with Ford.
No job title is stated.
One post names the business as Assent, formerly IPOINT.
Original disclosure
Stoked to be working on this with the team at IPOINT :)
Ford’s Kuga line is presented as the first car line whose product carbon footprint is calculated entirely from primary supplier data.
Read more
Palm describes the company’s partnership behind it: “We have been partners with Ford for years, first on compliance, then on sustainability.” The partnership is framed as IPOINT’s, and Ford suppliers are offered the tool free for six months.
Original disclosure
We have been partners with Ford for years, first on compliance, then on sustainability.
IMDS appears as a reporting output companies must produce from their material data — “material compliance data through IMDS” and “imds professional GmbH & Co KG submissions” — alongside product carbon footprints and CSRD reporting.
Read more
Palm presents it as one of several destinations for a shared data core, not as a partner or client.
Thomas Palm's posts form a running argument about where product carbon and material data should come from.
Read more
Start with the three posts on Ford's Kuga line: they argue that most of a car's footprint is decided before assembly and that the figures should come from suppliers' own measurements rather than top-down estimates.
Next, read the posts about compliance and sustainability teams working from the same material data in different parts of a company, followed by the shorter post that treats unknown critical materials and origins as a tax and supply-chain risk, not just a reporting question.
Three creators cover related ground from other angles: one writes from inside the software that produces these footprints, one from an enterprise platform serving many industries, and one from the circular-economy side of carbon accounting.
Both write about product carbon footprints in the automotive supply chain and the same underlying problem: OEM customers are asking suppliers for PCF figures, those figures have to follow Catena-X and IMDS rules, and the necessary data already sits in material and substance records.
Read more
Steinbrecher lays out battery-passport and Catena-X reporting obligations side by side and writes about testing material-level queries for PFAS and rare earth metals.
Steinbrecher writes from inside the software-building work, joining developer sessions and describing internal analyses and prototypes that let non-experts query material data with an LLM. Palm makes outward-facing arguments to suppliers about what an OEM requirement will mean for them, building each around a customer case rather than a product build.
Both tie sustainability measurement to enterprise software and the same regulatory landscape—CSRD, the GHG Protocol, and the argument that companies should steer business value from sustainability data rather than only report it.
Read more
Ko Atilano's workshop framing—that financial and carbon impact have to be mapped together through an ERP data approach—is close to Palm's claim that one shared data core should feed many outputs.
Ko Atilano works at platform level across many industries and sectors on SAP sustainability solutions.
Their posts—a role-and-portfolio announcement and a Climate Week recap—approach the subject through event and career framing rather than a single product case.
Palm stays within automotive material and carbon data, building each post around a named customer example.
Both question whether current carbon accounting rules produce numbers a company can act on, and both work through concrete EU instruments—the Digital Product Passport and CSRD—as forces reshaping how product-level environmental data gets reported.
Read more
Rappa's point that reuse and refurbishment go unrewarded by the GHG Protocol sits alongside Palm's point that spend-based estimates give a sense of impact but no way to manage it.
Rappa focuses on circularity: reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and how manufacturing emissions should be shared across a product's successive owners, largely in the built environment and through policy analysis.
Palm focuses on primary supplier data and material-level product modeling in automotive manufacturing.
Rappa names and links the reports they respond to; Palm builds cases from customer examples.
Thomas Palm’s posts suit a thought-leadership brief on product carbon-footprint compliance: they explain supplier data needs, connect compliance with sustainability, and use Ford’s Kuga initiative as a concrete example.
Read more
Before booking, ask for recent LinkedIn audience and performance results, plus documented survey data or another source showing manufacturing roles and seniority relevant to the webinar or article brief.
No published sponsorship policy, media kit, rate card, or partnership inquiry route appears in the posts, so ask for the booking process before proceeding.
Read more
Thomas Palm writes as part of the iPoint team; one post refers to the company as Assent, formerly IPOINT.
They promote iPoint's Product Sustainability Core and Impact Intelligence software to automotive suppliers and OEMs.
The Ford Kuga posts spell out the vendor arrangement in unusual detail: a Catena-X certified calculation method, a standard SaaS tool that needs no LCA expertise and no IT implementation, and six months free to participating Ford suppliers.
For a manufacturing software company considering a thought-leadership partnership, these posts show the ground they can cover with authority: material-level product compliance and carbon-footprint data.
Any co-created asset would sit close to the employer's product narrative, so agree on that fit in advance.
Campaign need: a supplier-facing software vendor in product carbon footprint calculation, material compliance, or product data management wants a thought-leadership partnership aimed at automotive tier-one and tier-two suppliers, delivered as a 45-minute webinar plus one co-authored article.
Read more
Thomas Palm is a strong fit because the posts already contain the argument a vendor would otherwise have to build from scratch.
Ford's Kuga line is presented as the first car line whose product carbon footprint is calculated entirely on primary supplier data; 70 to 90 percent of a vehicle's footprint happens upstream of the assembly line; the iPoint Product Sustainability Core tool is Catena-X certified, so a supplier calculates once and hands the same standardized figure to any OEM; it is positioned as standard SaaS that needs no LCA specialists and no IT project; and participating Ford suppliers get it free for six months.
These are specific claims a supplier audience can act on, not general sustainability messaging.
The urgency framing matters too: requirements start as voluntary asks and harden into a condition for staying on a supplier list, at which point the supplier is accountable for the accuracy of the numbers it submits.
That gives a webinar a reason to attend now rather than later.
The compliance-and-sustainability silo argument—compliance teams sitting near the line with chemistry expertise, sustainability teams sitting with the CFO, both working from the same material and supplier data without talking—is the natural spine for a co-authored article aimed at manufacturers who already run both functions.
Conditions to settle first.
They write as part of the iPoint team, and one post refers to the company as 'Assent (formerly IPOINT)', so any co-created asset sits next to the employer's product narrative.
Agree positioning and disclosure before commissioning, and do not commission an arms-length review of competing tools.
Negotiate the format and terms directly before commissioning.
When to choose a specialist
Campaign need: a consumer or general-interest sustainability campaign—for example, a consumer app, retailer, or NGO wanting content on personal carbon footprints and everyday low-carbon choices, with the creator fronting consumer-facing video.
Read more
This is a poor fit.
Every post is written for manufacturers: material declarations and IMDS submissions, CSRD reporting, Catena-X certification, product carbon footprints calculated from supplier-level data, and tariffs on critical metals tied to origin.
The posts do not address individual consumers.
Ask for audience composition and post-performance data before booking if reach or seniority matters.
A second campaign need that should be turned down: independent comparison or neutral buying advice across competing product-compliance and product-carbon-footprint software vendors.
Thomas Palm's posts promote iPoint's Product Sustainability Core and Impact Intelligence directly and spell out the vendor's terms in detail.
A sponsor expecting a balanced vendor landscape is briefing the wrong position, and the resulting asset would read as product marketing rather than editorial assessment.
A worked campaign example
Angle: 'Before your OEM asks: what primary-data product carbon footprint readiness looks like.'
Audience: tier-one and tier-two automotive suppliers, particularly material compliance, product sustainability, and procurement leads who already handle IMDS declarations.
Format: a 45-minute webinar with 15 minutes of Q&A, followed by a co-authored article carrying the same argument for people who miss the session, plus a one-page supplier readiness checklist as the handoff.
Run of show.
Open with the Kuga arithmetic: 70 to 90 percent of a vehicle's footprint happens upstream, so an OEM with a net-zero commitment has to move past high-level estimates to supplier-level data.
Next, explain what 'calculate once, report to any OEM' means in practice—Catena-X certified calculation, no requirement for in-house LCA specialists, no IT implementation.
Then take the objection head-on: a supplier can wait and see, but the pattern in this industry is that voluntary requests become minimum requirements, and at that point the supplier is on the hook for the accuracy of the numbers it submits.
Close with the checklist: where material-level data currently lives, which suppliers can produce primary data today, and what a single shared foundation would need to cover for IMDS, Catena-X, CSRD reporting, and internal KPIs.
The article then carries the organizational argument—that the material data sustainability teams need is often already formatted and checked on the compliance side—and gives it room a 45-minute session cannot.
Ground rules. Disclose Thomas Palm's iPoint role in the first minute and on the article byline, agree with iPoint which product claims the partner may repeat, and treat the six-months-free Ford supplier arrangement as context rather than the campaign's call to action, since that arrangement belongs to Ford and iPoint and not to a new partner.
Choose Steinbrecher when the campaign needs to get into the calculations, not the OEM story around them.
Read more
Their posts examine two obligations converging on automotive suppliers — the battery passport, with its product carbon footprint, and the wider Catena-X and IMDS push for primary PCF data — and distinguish them by scope: Catena-X covers cradle-to-gate across the whole automotive supply chain, while the battery regulation adds end-of-life phases and requires primary data for production and placing on the market.
They also spell out what suppliers must do when things change: recalculate a portfolio after a material or site energy-mix change, a move in production to another country, or a change of supplier, and report through more than one channel because no consolidation is coming soon.
A second strand explores taking routine material questions off compliance specialists by letting other stakeholders query composition data with LLMs, including a PFAS analysis across own and purchased parts and a check of where rare earth metals sit.
If the webinar aims to help suppliers understand scope and verification differences and leave knowing what to recalculate and when, this is the closer match.
These posts assume readers already work inside the frameworks.
Unlike the Kuga arithmetic, they offer no one-line explanation of the stakes for a general supplier audience, nor an OEM-named partnership to anchor a co-authored article.
The material-intelligence post describes an internal proof of concept with developer teams and colleagues from IPOINT and Assent, making the productivity claim a work in progress, not a delivered result.
This direction trades the ready-made OEM narrative for deeper calculation detail.
Ask whether a vendor partner is willing to co-author something more technical than a supplier-readiness primer.
Choose Atilano when the target reader is a sustainability or finance leader inside a large enterprise, rather than a tier-one or tier-two supplier, and the campaign wants to argue that carbon and financial data belong in the same system.
Read more
Their posts describe an SAP sustainability role working with CSRD, EU Taxonomy, Omnibus, GHG Protocol and ISSB/IFRS, plus a Climate Week workshop on closing the gap between footprint measurement and execution by mapping financial, operational and carbon impact together through ERP data. If the webinar promises that you cannot manage what you cannot measure, and targets corporate buyers evaluating sustainability software at platform level, this framing fits their decision better than a supplier-level parts discussion.
Thomas Palm's posts focus on career and event material, not a sustained argument a partner can build a session around.
They offer no supplier-level detail on product carbon footprint calculation, material or substance data, or automotive supply-chain context such as Catena-X certification or IMDS submissions.
The vendor would need to supply most of the substance for a co-authored article, which would read as enterprise software positioning rather than supplier-readiness content.
The posts also name a specific employer and internal teams; settle positioning and disclosure before commissioning.
Rappa is the right alternative when the campaign focuses on accounting rules.
Read more
Their posts argue that the GHG Protocol does not yet reward reuse, repair and refurbishment: manufacturing emissions go entirely to the first owner, even when a product is refurbished or resold.
They cover the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's proposal to amortize those emissions across a product's expected lifetime so multiple owners share them.
They also map the 2025 EU pipeline — the Circular Economy Act, ESPR and Digital Product Passports, and CSRD's first disclosures of circular economy performance — and connect it to work at Rheaply helping companies run reuse events and measure embodied carbon.
Choose this for sustainability teams in advanced manufacturing or the built environment when the message is that reporting structures, not intentions, determine whether circularity gets adopted.
Thomas Palm's posts focus on circular economy policy and emissions-accounting methodology, not collecting product carbon footprint data from suppliers; they do not touch Catena-X, IMDS or the battery passport.
Both date from early 2025, making them a fit for policy anticipation rather than current supplier obligations.
They also do not mention an OEM partnership or supplier-facing commercial experience.
Choose this angle for a policy-literacy speaker, and ask the vendor to supply the automotive supplier specifics.
This page draws on the full text of seven LinkedIn posts published by Thomas Palm.
They cover product carbon footprints calculated from primary supplier data, Ford's Kuga line, supplier readiness for OEM data requests, material and substance-level product modeling, and the split between compliance and sustainability teams inside manufacturers.
No publication dates appear in the posts, so they are presented as one body of argument rather than a chronology; several of them revisit the Ford Kuga example from different angles.
Similar-creator comparisons draw on two LinkedIn posts each from Angelika Steinbrecher (October and September 2026), Jaime Martin Ko Atilano (April and September 2026), and Valentina Rappa (January and February 2025).
Palm's posts contain no long-form articles, videos, or transcripts, so the topic, format, and audience notes rest on LinkedIn posts alone.
They also do not establish signature books, shows, or earlier career work beyond these posts; that part of a name search remains an open gap rather than a finding.
