Tag <span class=carbon footprint" src="/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cropped-office-building-secondary-1.jpg">

Tag carbon footprint

How to Set Carbon Reduction Goals

The SSC Team February 16, 2017 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Enjoy this post from the SSC archives.

Based on a presentation by the EPA, we picked up some great nuggets of advice for companies seeking to establish credible and meaningful carbon reduction goals.

KEY COMPONENTS OF A CREDIBLE GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY:

  • Begin with a corporate-wide GHG inventory (base year) of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, with Scope 3 emissions included if relevant to the goal. Annual tracking and reporting of progress is a must!
  • Build an emissions inventory plan, which institutionalizes progress and ensures high quality data. Make sure you know where the data is coming from, who is responsible for managing it, and where (and why) assumptions are being made.
  • Determine a GHG reduction goal, based on a complete and verified inventory. While independent, 3rd party-verification is best, it can be expensive. Consider beginning with an internal auditing and assurance process.

WHAT MAKES A STRONG CARBON REDUCTION GOAL?

  • Absolute reductions are important--don't just rely on efficiency improvements to lower carbon-per-product, carbon-per-revenue, or carbon-per employee trends.
  • Consider your company's goals against projected GHG performance in your sector--are you aligned with industry expectations? (And if you are wildly different from your peers, do you have a good reason as to why you are different?)
  • Goals should be achievable within 10-12 years--ambitious enough to need a decade to execute, but not so lofty as to lose touch with reality.
  • Public commitment from a company's executive leadership adds credibility and gravitas to the goal!
  • Make it specific to your company's operations, and beyond "business as usual".

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN SETTING CARBON REDUCTION GOALS:

  • Align your goals with what science tells us is necessary for climate-balance. For example, the IPCC recommends reductions of 20-30% by 2020, and 80% by 2050 (from 1990 levels).
  • Frequently review your emissions inventory for completeness, accuracy, and relevance. Determining your carbon footprint boundaries and data sources isn't a one-time process. It should evolve as your company evolves.

Want more information? Check out our carbon footprinting and CDP Reporting services, and download our white paper on the impact of employee commuting on your company's carbon footprint!

EPA and Waste Management Webinar Recap: Putting a Price Tag On Emissions Reduction

The SSC Team August 16, 2016 Tags: , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Last Tuesday, GreenBiz hosted the first in a two part webinar series on the emissions impact of recycling and Sustainable Materials Management (SMM).

SMM can be generally described as active management of a product’s life cycle to reach sustainability aims.

The webinar began with an overview of the EPA’s work on SMM/LCA advocacy. Essentially, the EPA sees its role as advancing LCA and SMM as integral business practices. Because LCA and supply-chain work is so crucial to truly moving the bar on reducing emissions, it’s heartening to know that the EPA has made this a priority in their policy, oversight, and research work.

From lifecycle to the trash

After the EPA presentation, the talk shifted from life-cycle studies directly to the end of the life cycle and the work of Waste Management, the American comprehensive waste and environmental services company. Waste Management has undertaken a massive effort calculate the actual dollar cost of reducing emissions waste by method of disposal.

As a side note, the presenters did not do a great job of clearly making this transition from LCA work to emissions reduction cost calculating. But, it seems that the overall point was two-fold:

1.     Most organizations look at their carbon footprint – which is business operations – and what comes up most commonly is that the largest emissions source for most businesses is energy use. So, companies focus on energy reductions initiatives, essentially passing their product emissions - natural resources, product use, and product disposal –  onto suppliers and consumers. This needs to stop. More organization need to look up and down a product’s life cycle to really engineer, source and plan in ways that reduce the overall impact of the entire product to move the bar on sustainability.

2.     As organizations begin to engineer products with a focus on SMM, it would be helpful to know the GHG emissions resulting in end of life (i.e. GHG emissions of landfilling versus single-stream recycling) and the cost in real dollars of each of the processing methods. That’s where Waste Management stepped in.

Waste Management’s work calculating the price of reducing GHGs in the waste management industry delivers a cost per ton of GHG emissions through various waste processing techniques. (The most reduction for the lowest cost goes to – residential and commercial single-stream recycling!)

The Waste Management process, prioritization, and graphical representation on how they calculated cost/benefit is pretty fantastic. Definitely consider downloading the slides.

But questions remain.

How can organizations and policymakers work to reduce the cost of the other types of GHG emissions reduction technologies (e.g. anaerobic digesters)? Is there talk about subsidizing them? How can businesses be incentivized to use materials that can be sent into the low-emissions/low-cost single-stream recycling category and/or eliminate materials that can’t? Is there talk about banning certain materials? Are there waste processing technologies that need research funding that provide low-cost emissions reduction?  

Calculating cost and cost benefit is important from an engineering standpoint, but only if your organization is somehow incentivized or driven to engineer with the life cycle in mind. Without pressure – regulatory or otherwise- companies are still largely driven by the biggest incentive of all: producing products for the lowest actual cost and passing any environmental costs onto the planet, via the consumer.

Listen to the recap here, and log in today at 1pm Eastern for the second webcast, Setting Goals: Have We Reached the Limits of Recycling?, where presenters look at SMM through waste reduction efforts and give guidance on how to set effective waste reduction and recycling goals.

Are you ready to take a more advanced approach to understanding and reducing impact through a product life-cycle assessment? Check out our LCA overview information and contact us for a brief discussion of the benefits and challenges. 

 

The Trouble with Reducing Air Travel-Related Emissions

The SSC Team July 12, 2016 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Enjoy this post from the SSC archives.

We were delighted to be interviewed recently by Bloomberg's, Ben Elgin, on the topic of corporate air travel (and why companies are struggling to reduce air travel-related emissions). SSC President, Jennifer Woofter, was quoted in his article,  "Handshakes and Body English Vex Corporate Carbon Cutting Goals":

"Airplane travel is an environmental no-no," says Jennifer Woofter, President of Strategic Sustainability Consulting in Herndon, Virginia. "A number of our clients are struggling with this."

As with many articles, the final quote is but a smidgen of what we have to say on the topic. Since it didn't make the final cut in the Bloomberg article, we'd like to share what we know on the question of "Why are companies struggling to reduce their air travel?" 

AIR TRAVEL IS CONNECTED TO IMPORTANT EMPLOYEE PERKS

While promotions and raises may have hit the skids during the recession, one of the perks that many employees have been able to hang on to is the annual conference, training event, or trade show.

Employers need to invest in the professional development of their staff, and many workers enjoy the benefits of getting out of the office environment to learn something new, network with industry peers, or showcase their talents.

Companies can reduce air travel to a certain extent, but if even a portion of the workforce travels periodically for professional development reasons, it's going to be difficult to find additional air emissions reductions without sacrificing employee morale and engagement.

GROWING TELEWORK CAN MEAN INCREASED AIR TRAVEL

We have several clients who have dramatically increased the ability of their employees to work from home. This policy has significantly reduced employee commuting-related emissions (from driving to and from work each day) but occasionally results in more air travel when virtual workers relocate to remote areas. Instead of driving each day, they may fly into the corporate office once a month, or once a quarter. Those air miles add up quickly.

THE COST OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS IS STILL SIGNIFICANT

Let's not ignore cost. While there are a number of pretty amazing free tools (Skype and join.me are two of our favorite), companies that need high-resolution, ultra-secure video presence need to shell out a pretty penny. And it's not enough to install a videoconferencing center in your corporate office -- you also need one in each of the connecting locations. It might make sense to install a system in each of your branch offices, but what about the locations of your major suppliers, or at the headquarters of your prospective customers? Nope, that won't work -- most of the time you will still need to send people out to do business in a face-to-face setting.

Of course, the biggest roadblock is one that is covered in detail in the Bloomberg article, the fact that an electronic handshake just isn't the same as spending time in the physical presence of another person. So while we do counsel clients on how to reduce unnecessary air travel, we also face reality: most businesses will need to maintain some level of air travel and the best option is to look broadly at the entire picture (telepresence, commuting, air travel, professional development, and the sales process) and find a balanced approach that makes good business sense. 

Curious about how to better measure and manage commuting-related emissions? Download our free white paper on Reducing your Organization's Carbon Footprint:  Addressing Commuter Related Emissions. The

The Trouble with Reducing Air Travel-Related Emissions

The SSC Team July 12, 2016 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Enjoy this post from the SSC archives.

We were delighted to be interviewed recently by Bloomberg's, Ben Elgin, on the topic of corporate air travel (and why companies are struggling to reduce air travel-related emissions). SSC President, Jennifer Woofter, was quoted in his article,  "Handshakes and Body English Vex Corporate Carbon Cutting Goals":

"Airplane travel is an environmental no-no," says Jennifer Woofter, President of Strategic Sustainability Consulting in Herndon, Virginia. "A number of our clients are struggling with this."

As with many articles, the final quote is but a smidgen of what we have to say on the topic. Since it didn't make the final cut in the Bloomberg article, we'd like to share what we know on the question of "Why are companies struggling to reduce their air travel?" 

AIR TRAVEL IS CONNECTED TO IMPORTANT EMPLOYEE PERKS

While promotions and raises may have hit the skids during the recession, one of the perks that many employees have been able to hang on to is the annual conference, training event, or trade show.

Employers need to invest in the professional development of their staff, and many workers enjoy the benefits of getting out of the office environment to learn something new, network with industry peers, or showcase their talents.

Companies can reduce air travel to a certain extent, but if even a portion of the workforce travels periodically for professional development reasons, it's going to be difficult to find additional air emissions reductions without sacrificing employee morale and engagement.

GROWING TELEWORK CAN MEAN INCREASED AIR TRAVEL

We have several clients who have dramatically increased the ability of their employees to work from home. This policy has significantly reduced employee commuting-related emissions (from driving to and from work each day) but occasionally results in more air travel when virtual workers relocate to remote areas. Instead of driving each day, they may fly into the corporate office once a month, or once a quarter. Those air miles add up quickly.

THE COST OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS IS STILL SIGNIFICANT

Let's not ignore cost. While there are a number of pretty amazing free tools (Skype and join.me are two of our favorite), companies that need high-resolution, ultra-secure video presence need to shell out a pretty penny. And it's not enough to install a videoconferencing center in your corporate office -- you also need one in each of the connecting locations. It might make sense to install a system in each of your branch offices, but what about the locations of your major suppliers, or at the headquarters of your prospective customers? Nope, that won't work -- most of the time you will still need to send people out to do business in a face-to-face setting.

Of course, the biggest roadblock is one that is covered in detail in the Bloomberg article, the fact that an electronic handshake just isn't the same as spending time in the physical presence of another person. So while we do counsel clients on how to reduce unnecessary air travel, we also face reality: most businesses will need to maintain some level of air travel and the best option is to look broadly at the entire picture (telepresence, commuting, air travel, professional development, and the sales process) and find a balanced approach that makes good business sense. 

Curious about how to better measure and manage commuting-related emissions? Download our free white paper on Reducing your Organization's Carbon Footprint:  Addressing Commuter Related Emissions. The

TED Talks Sustainability: Tshering Tobgay: This Country Isn’t Just Carbon Neutral – It’s Carbon Negative

The SSC Team April 21, 2016 Tags: , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Nothing inspires us like a good TED talk, and here’s one of our favorites. Enjoy it!

About the speaker: Tshering Tobgay is the prime minister of the Kingdom of Bhutan. He is the second democratically elected prime minister, a social media star, and is leading his country based on principles of sustainability, well-being, and “Gross National Happiness.” Tobgay, an optimistic leader in tumultuous global environment, is focused on stability and sustainability in Bhutan.

About the talk: The Kingdom of Bhutan is a small Himalayan country of 700,000 people centered between China and India. The small nation has a commitment to remaining carbon neutral “for all time.” Learn about how the monarchy, and now this new democracy, has adopted a holistic look at development, favoring “Gross National Happiness” over gross national product.  

Parent company of Puma provides detailed look at its Environmental Profit & Loss methodology

The SSC Team December 17, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

This summer, Kering, the parent company of the clothing and footwear manufacturer, Puma, not only published its EP&L, the environmental footprint of the company’s operations translated into monetary values, it published the entire methodology as an open-source tool for others to use.

The EP&L analyses the impact of Kering’s supply chain from raw materials to retail outlets and reports the impact in monetary terms.

In an article about Kering’s decision to open-source the methodology, the company’s CEO said, “Our EP&L has already served as an effective internal catalyst to drive us towards a more sustainable business model. I am convinced that an EP&L, and corporate natural capital accounting more broadly, are essential to enable companies to acknowledge the true cost on nature of doing business.”

From making the business case for sustainability to assessing carbon asset risk in monetary terms, and finally to reporting environmental results using natural capital accounting, more and more companies are moving toward currency as a way to plan, assess, and evaluate environmental performance.

This move makes sense, considering we live in the age of global capitalism.

Kering’s EP&L, along with World Bank’s WAVES initiative, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Valuation Guide, the Natural Capital Coalition, and others, provide strategies to implement natural capital accounting into the sustainability reporting process.

If your company is interested in producing a sustainability report using principles of natural capital accounting, let us know! And check out our analysis of how Puma stacks up to other athletic apparel companies.

Using Sustainability to Avoid Risk

The SSC Team August 25, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
Enjoy this blog from the SSC archives: The evidence that sustainability can be good for business is overwhelming. Most of the case studies, examples, and analysis that has been done show positive links between a sustainable approach to environmental and social issues, and corporate profits, Thus far, the research has been primarily focused on direct operational efficiencies (like retrofitting your office lighting to save money and reduce your carbon footprint), innovation (using biomimicry to drive new product development), and productivity (ie. more engaged employees take less sick leave). However, there hasn't been as much talk about the nexus between sustainability and risk management. And for corporations operating in complex supply chains in a globally-connected economy -- well -- effective risk management can be the difference between success and failure. Below, we take a look at three articles that shed light on why companies still struggle to incorporate sustainability into their risk management practices (and vice versa).

Has sustainability become a risky business? 

This GreenBiz article by John Davies reviews a report by Ernst & Young. The key takeaway: While more companies are concerned about increased risk and the proximity of natural resource shortages, corporate risk response appears to be inadequate to address the scope and scale of some of these challenges. The free report looks at six corporate sustainability trends with a strong focus on the internal influencers of corporate performance (CEOs and boards), as well as external forces ranging from governments to shareholders and investors.

Playing It Safe Is Riskier than You Think

This article by Bill Taylor in the Harvard Business Review makes the case that "difficult and uncertain times are often the best times for organizations to separate themselves from the pack, so long as their leaders are prepared not to stand pat." While not directly about sustainability, this article certainly supports the notion that economic turmoil is no reason not to be ambitious about tackling big sustainability challenges.

Research: Why Companies Keep Getting Blind-Sided by Risk

by Mary Driscoll in the Harvard Business Review presents fascinating insight into why companies (and their executives) are not succeeding at identifying and mitigating risk. Survey findings indicate that most organizations’ leaders did indeed express concern about the impact of political turmoil, natural disasters, or extreme weather. But the findings also show that the people at the front lines of the business were hamstrung by a lack of visibility into risk. Nearly half said they lacked the resources needed to adequately assess business continuity programs at supplier sites. Many relied on the suppliers filling out perfunctory, unreliable checklists. There are some big lessons here for sustainability practitioners! Are simple mistakes holding back your sustainability? Find out how to correct those mistakes here!

How to Set Smart Carbon Goals

The SSC Team August 6, 2015 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Enjoy this blog from the SSC archives:

Every company needs smart carbon goals -- and this is especially true if you are a Walmart supplier (or sell to a retailer with a similar sustainability scorecard). But what makes a good carbon goal? You don't want to be too ambitious and fall short, but you also don't want to set such easily attainable goals that you look lazy. What is the right middle ground?

Before we jump in, we want to mention that there is much disagreement in the sustainability industry about what an appropriate carbon goal is -- and what companies should be aiming for. So please take our opinion with a grain of salt. What works for you might be different that for another organization.

Ok, let's get into it.

Should you set a goal of carbon neutral? 

Maybe. It's an admirable goal, and we love BHAGs. However, there are two main problems that we see with carbon-neutral goals. First, it's easy to slide from a meaningful effort to reduce carbon-generating activities into a focus on buying your way out of the problem with RECs and carbon offsets. Second, the challenge of zero carbon is so big that it can be overwhelming. Avoid these two problems by 1) keeping the emphasis on carbon reduction, and only purchase carbon offsets to mitigate truly unavoidable impacts, and 2) creating a year-by-year plan with shorter goals that get you to carbon neutral.

Should you set a goal aligned with IPCC guidelines?

Yes. The IPCC report is the go-to place for understanding global carbon thresholds. In it, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 392 parts per million ("ppm") to below 350 ppm. That equates to a global reduction in carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (against 1995 baselines). (Read more about the science here). In order to honestly say that you are "doing your part" to stop climate change, your company should be aiming to reduce its carbon footprint at this same rate. (If you're interested in learning more, please contact us -- we have access to tools that can help you figure out what IPCC guidelines mean for your company on a year-by-year basis!)

Should you set a modest 5% - 10% goal?

Maybe. It's better to have a modest goal, rather than no goal. But our general feeling is that these types of goals are mostly suited to extremely short timeframes -- like 1-3 years. And that's great, particularly if you are just starting out and need some quick wins to build momentum. But don't overlook the bigger picture. It's critical to understand where you need to be in the long run (20-50 years from now). Focusing on that horizon will help you consider the carbon implications of capital investments, supply chain development, mergers and acquisitions, and new product development.

Should you set goals beyond tons of CO2-e?

Yes. There are lots of ways to set carbon goals. And while an absolute reduction in tons of CO2-e is a vital element of a carbon management plan, it is not complete. Consider the following to round out your approach:

  • Adjusted carbon goals (like carbon-per-production-unit, or carbon-per-$-revenue) will help you determine how your carbon efficiency is changing as you grow (or shrink) your organization.
  • Employee engagement goals (like % of employees trained on carbon reduction initiatives) will help you measure how far into your organization you have embedded your mission.
  • Supply chain goals (like % of suppliers reporting their Scope 1 and 2 emissions) will help you track how much of your Scope 3 emissions are covered, and how much you are leveraging your value chain towards sustainability.

Are simple mistakes holding back your sustainability? Find out how to correct those mistakes here!

How to Set Smart Carbon Goals

The SSC Team August 6, 2015 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
Enjoy this blog from the SSC archives: Every company needs smart carbon goals -- and this is especially true if you are a Walmart supplier (or sell to a retailer with a similar sustainability scorecard). But what makes a good carbon goal? You don't want to be too ambitious and fall short, but you also don't want to set such easily attainable goals that you look lazy. What is the right middle ground? Before we jump in, we want to mention that there is much disagreement in the sustainability industry about what an appropriate carbon goal is -- and what companies should be aiming for. So please take our opinion with a grain of salt. What works for you might be different that for another organization. Ok, let's get into it.

Should you set a goal of carbon neutral?

Maybe. It's an admirable goal, and we love BHAGs. However, there are two main problems that we see with carbon-neutral goals. First, it's easy to slide from a meaningful effort to reduce carbon-generating activities into a focus on buying your way out of the problem with RECs and carbon offsets. Second, the challenge of zero carbon is so big that it can be overwhelming. Avoid these two problems by 1) keeping the emphasis on carbon reduction, and only purchase carbon offsets to mitigate truly unavoidable impacts, and 2) creating a year-by-year plan with shorter goals that get you to carbon neutral.

Should you set a goal aligned with IPCC guidelines?

Yes. The IPCC report is the go-to place for understanding global carbon thresholds. In it, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 392 parts per million ("ppm") to below 350 ppm. That equates to a global reduction in carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (against 1995 baselines). (Read more about the science here). In order to honestly say that you are "doing your part" to stop climate change, your company should be aiming to reduce its carbon footprint at this same rate. (If you're interested in learning more, please contact us -- we have access to tools that can help you figure out what IPCC guidelines mean for your company on a year-by-year basis!)

Should you set a modest 5% - 10% goal?

Maybe. It's better to have a modest goal, rather than no goal. But our general feeling is that these types of goals are mostly suited to extremely short timeframes -- like 1-3 years. And that's great, particularly if you are just starting out and need some quick wins to build momentum. But don't overlook the bigger picture. It's critical to understand where you need to be in the long run (20-50 years from now). Focusing on that horizon will help you consider the carbon implications of capital investments, supply chain development, mergers and acquisitions, and new product development.

Should you set goals beyond tons of CO2-e?

Yes. There are lots of ways to set carbon goals. And while an absolute reduction in tons of CO2-e is a vital element of a carbon management plan, it is not complete. Consider the following to round out your approach:
  • Adjusted carbon goals (like carbon-per-production-unit, or carbon-per-$-revenue) will help you determine how your carbon efficiency is changing as you grow (or shrink) your organization.
  • Employee engagement goals (like % of employees trained on carbon reduction initiatives) will help you measure how far into your organization you have embedded your mission.
  • Supply chain goals (like % of suppliers reporting their Scope 1 and 2 emissions) will help you track how much of your Scope 3 emissions are covered, and how much you are leveraging your value chain towards sustainability.
Are simple mistakes holding back your sustainability? Find out how to correct those mistakes here!

Deciding on a Measurement Process: Calculating Your Company’s Carbon Footprint

The SSC Team July 28, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
9pcmmdc4crw-dominik-schroder.jpg Enjoy this blog post from the SSC archives: You can't manage what you don't measure -- but deciding what to measure, how to measure it, when to measure it, and where to capture and store the data can be one of the most challenging pieces of a carbon management strategy. If you're stuck at this stage (or getting ready to tackle it), here are some questions to guide your decision:

Which carbon calculation standard do you want to use?

There are several carbon calculation standards out there, but 99% of companies will end up choosing the GHG Protocol. Why?
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is the most widely used international accounting tool for government and business leaders to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol, a decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, is working with businesses, governments, and environmental groups around the world to build a new generation of credible and effective programs for tackling climate change. It provides the accounting framework for nearly every GHG standard and program in the world - from the International Standards Organization to The Climate Registry - as well as hundreds of GHG inventories prepared by individual companies.
Our advice: whatever standard you choose (e.g. an industry specific standard), make sure that it's built on (and in compliance with) the GHG Protocol. It makes life so much simpler.

Which emissions categories are most relevant to your organization?

In sustainability jargon, this is a question about materiality -- which activities within your operations and value chain generate material emissions? The GHG protocol outlines more than a dozen different categories (like "purchased electricity" and "employee commuting") to choose from. In most cases, you want to calculate emissions from Scope 1 (direct emissions) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions), along with a handful of Scope 3 (indirect emissions) categories that make the most sense given your size and industry.

Which carbon footprint tool makes the most sense?

There are a wide variety of options to measure your company's carbon emissions. There are excel spreadsheet models, and dozens of software programs -- both SaaS and enterprise-level options. Some companies even choose to develop their own internal calculators that integrate directly with their internal systems (like ERP, timesheets, business travel reimbursement, etc.). To dive deeper into this process, check out our free white paper on Choosing Sustainability Management Software. It's a vendor-neutral look at how companies can choose the most effective software option, including the pros and cons of some of the most popular software features.

How will we manage the process?

How many facilities are we going to include? Where is the raw data now, and how will we get it into our carbon calculator? Where are we missing data, and how can we best fill in the blanks? What is our timeline? All of these questions should be answered -- at least tentatively -- at this stage of the process. Are simple mistakes holding back your sustainability? Find out how to correct those mistakes here!