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

Tag sustainability reporting

Are Google and Amazon Underestimating Their Own Carbon Footprints?

The SSC Team March 15, 2016 Tags: , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Two of the world’s leading technology companies are under fire for underestimating data centers’ carbon footprints amid claims they use an obsolete tool for calculating emissions from electricity they purchase off the power grid.  

Lux Research, an independent research and advisory firm, went after the two tech giants for using tools that make broad generalizations about power production in the regions where Google and Amazon have large data facilities – reporting that the two companies may be underestimating their carbon footprints by 42,000 MT CO2e per year and 85,000 MT CO2e per year, respectively.

It’s pretty clear that Lux is using Google’s and Amazon’s data – data based on the EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) – to tout its own analytical tool that estimates GHG emissions from electricity use.

What is important to note here is: the world of sustainability tools out there is rapidly moving. What you report today can be disputed tomorrow as new analytical tools, calculators, and data sets are developed.  

It’s not that eGRID is a terrible tool, or that Lux has built a surefire new solution, it’s more about choosing the right tool, at the right time, and at the right level of detail for your individual case.

Not every company needs a power-plant-by-power-plant analysis of its power sourcing, as the cost of a microscopic look at GHG emissions in this area may outweigh the overall variation in results. In other words, for many companies, the eGRID analysis would be absolutely acceptable based on moderate use of electricity in a given area as the overall data is within an acceptable margin of error.

However, power-intense companies like Google and Amazing, using vast amounts of energy, should absolutely be looking for the most refined and detailed tool to analyze power use impact. Being off by just a small percentage can represent tens of thousands of tons of CO2 being left un-reported, and more accurate data should help inform locations of future data centers to optimize clean power use.

If an organization is new to sustainability reporting, GHG calculating or meeting industry standards for environmental data, it is highly unlikely that that organization is going to be able to navigate these ever-changing waters without help.

Partnering with an experienced consulting firm like SSC, with the background knowledge and experience, to choose the best-fit reporting tool for every individual case is critical. Contact us today to talk about your carbon footprint analysis.  

 

 

Do You Need Expensive Software for Environmental Reporting?

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

According to a recent press release by the Environmental Business Journal (EBJ), the U.S. environmental industry grew 3.9% in 2014. Although the data will take another 10 months to come together for 2015, it’s fairly safe to say the sector saw growth again last year as the economy held steady.

EBJ reports on 14 business segments divided into three categories, all three categories showing upward trends in 2014.

The largest single growth area in 2014 was a double-digit gain in environmental software and information systems.

The industry has seen many environmental, health, safety and sustainability software vendors disappear as quickly as they appear, but every industry sees the tech start-up side get red hot, cool off, and heat up again.

With evolving needs, evolving science, and evolving technology capabilities, it is not at all surprising that many start-ups struggle in this field.

Complicating matters is the fact that many of the customers that a software company in the environmental software and information systems field would need to acquire aren’t fluent in what they actually need to purchase (or how to use it).

Environmental reporting and data management systems are a lot like complicated legal matters or the tax code: companies likely need a specialist, and we haven’t reached a tipping point in the business community where enough companies have specialists.

Companies might buy a software license from a promising start-up with good software, yet not know how to actually collect the appropriate data and end up not using the tool to its potential. By the time they’ve got the team in place and are ready to ramp up, the software tool they’ve purchased needs an expensive upgrade because of changes in the science, regulations, or standards of sustainability reporting. You can see how the CEO might balk on a second wave of investment when the first wasn’t a huge success.

It’s not that start-ups are struggling in a silo, it’s more likely that we just haven’t reached a critical mass of companies with the in-house resources that can gain maximum value from a well-built environmental software tool. Combine that with with a standard of reporting that itself is a moving target, and it is really difficult to gain traction as a environmental software company.

If you know your company is ready to do begin sustainability reporting, but don’t have the in-house team to manage the software tools on the market, contact us. We work with leading software programs for tracking and reporting on environmental data, and help companies determine what might will for them.

 

 

 

 

How Do Sustainability Reports Change Over Time?

The SSC Team January 19, 2016 Tags: , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Enjoy this post from the SSC blog archives. 

At Strategic Sustainability Consulting, we’ve been doing sustainability reporting for TEN years – one for each year that we’ve been in business. We’ve also helped a variety of clients produce their own sustainability reports. So we know the joys and pains involved – from both sides of the experience.

A few years ago, Jennifer Woofter looked back on how SSC's own sustainability report has changed over time, we thought it might be valuable to share some of those reflections based on six years of sustainability reporting. 

While each company’s experience will be different, there are some common threads that are shared among reporting organizations.

Are you interested in writing your first, sixth or tenth sustainability report? We can help.

 

3 Sustainability Tools that got our Attention in 2015

The SSC Team January 7, 2016 Tags: , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

We appreciate good calculation tools. We are constantly looking for the most comprehensive or best combinations of calculation tools to cross check and ensure our clients are getting the best possible data. 

Here were three tools that got our attention in 2015:

GCSP-ITC Quick Scan Tool – Launched in June, this open-source tool allows companies to compare their compliance policies against best practices in order to inform improvements in supply-chain management. Provided by the Global Social Compliance Programme (GCSP), it is open to GCSP members and others free of charge.

  • How it works: Buying companies can identify standards others use in purchasing. Suppliers can create a self-assessment, benchmark the assessment against peers, and identify immediate steps to move toward best practice.
  • Who should use it: Anyone with a medium to lengthy supply chain or who is a supplier.

Water Risk Valuation Tool – Launched in September by Bloomberg ESG Data and Tols, this calculator illustrates how water risk can be valuated in corporate mining valuation models. Based on the gold and copper mining industries, this tool can inform all mining companies on how water risk might effect earnings and operations.

  • How it works: The tool models potential “asset stranding” based on estimated future water scarcity and risk factors related to that scarcity.
  • Who should use it: Mining companies, especially in precious metals

RiskHorizon – Launched in October by Anthesis Group, this web-based toold quantifies and monetizes environmental, social, and governance risk over 25 political, economic, social, and environmental areas, aggregating 100 different datasets.

  • How it works: The tool is designed to help “futurecast” risks and opportunities in assets, supply chain, and business model and then quantify and prioritize the value of that risk. A big job.
  • Who should use it: Investors, risk management professionals, supply chain managers, and strategic leaders should all be interested in a company’s risk profile.

One thing to remember - data out of context or too generalized really won't do anyone any good. Ensure you're working with a sustainability professional that can help validate and contextualize your data in your reporting process and sustainability planning programs.  

Have you used a calculator, but aren’t quite sure how to take action on results? Let us know. We can help assess your findings and customize a plan to help your company align with best practice in sustainability.

Three Steps to a Credible Sustainability Strategy

The SSC Team January 5, 2016 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Enjoy this post from the SSC blog archives. 

Strategic Sustainability Consulting was invited to participate in a trade association's annual board meeting a while back to discuss what they could do on the sustainability frontier.

SSC President Jennifer Woofter gave a short presentation called, “Three Steps to a Credible Sustainability Strategy.”

Since the presentation was so well received, we've put together a short recap in a series of three X minute videos. 

Step 1: Create a clear strategy statement:

Step 2: Develop realistic and substantial programs: 

Step 3: Reporting! Share performance metrics:

If your company would like to talk with a sustainability consulting expert about carbon footprinting, please contact Strategic Sustainability Consulting today!


Don’t get caught – Create a calendar to manage sustainability deadlines

The SSC Team December 29, 2015 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Another new year is fast approaching. Soon it will be time to start looking back on last year's sustainability performance, assessing, reporting, and making plans. But now is the time for looking forward, and the time for making those New Year's resolutions. Here's one: work smarter in 2016. Check out this post from the SSC archives with one smart idea. 

In March 2012, 29 companies got caught shirking their sustainability commitments. Could you be next?

In this 3-minute video, SSC President Jennifer Woofter explains the challenge of managing corporate sustainability obligations, and an easy solution for keeping abreast of all the sustainability deadlines that loom throughout the year.

If you'd like help cataloging your company's sustainability obligations into an effective project management format that will keep you ahead of the deadline, please contact Strategic Sustainability Consulting today. One of our sustainability consultants will walk you through the options that will work best for your situation.

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.

4 Mistakes That Are Holding Back Your Company’s Sustainability

The SSC Team July 21, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
By: Alexandra Kueller Take a step back and examine your company’s sustainability. Is your company moving forward with its sustainability goals and initiatives? Or do you feel like your company could be doing more? If you identify with the latter, there might be some simple mistakes being made that is causing this problem. Introduced in the Fast Company article “4 Business Decision-Makings Mistakes Are Holding You Back”, Romi Stein discusses common mistakes companies have made and how it has hurt them. Wanting to put a sustainability twist on the points discussed in that article, we have highlighted ways that these mistakes could be causing your sustainability initiatives some harm:

Failure to Learn

Have you ever been to a conference or event where an older person - someone with years of experience and knowledge - got on stage and lectured everyone about the "right way to do sustainability"? Did you then subsequently think to yourself, "but isn't there more than one way to do sustainability?" That's because there is! The field of sustainability is always changing, in the sense that new information and research is always being published. We are always finding better ways to track emissions and inventive ways to report sustainability initiatives, so there is no need to exclaim that there is a right way for sustainability. If someone isn't willing to learn new ways of approaching sustainability, they appear too entrenched in the past, and soon their sustainability will be too.

Failure to Anticipate

It’s the end of July, which means a lot of companies have either submitted their CDP reports for 2014 or are making their final edits. But more than likely there are companies that are scrambling to put together a year’s worth of emissions data and sustainability initiatives. Sustainability, like any field or industry, has annual deadlines – whether set by the company or by other organizations. CDP and UNGC have deadlines to submit their reports, and many companies aim to publish their sustainability report around the same time every year. If a company does not anticipate these deadlines, that often means other sustainability work gets pushed to the side just to make sure the reports go out on time.

Failure to Adapt

Over the past few years, there has been a big push to bring materiality to sustainability, and slowly, companies are doing so. But what happens if your company doesn’t change and adapt to materiality or every other new trend? How much of an impact could that have? Nothing in sustainability stays the same for long, which can make it difficult to tell what’s important to focus on. New reporting standards are released, new trends emerge, but there are instances where reporting standards account for these trends. With GRI’s G4 iteration, it plays up the importance of materiality and how companies should build their annual reports around it. If your company is ignoring materiality, it can look like they don’t take sustainability seriously.

Failure to Execute

One of the biggest ways to hold back a company's sustainability is by them simply failing to execute their sustainability plan. This could happen for a variety of reasons: your company isn't allocating the same resources to sustainability that it once did; you forgot to keep up with data tracking throughout the year; more pressing, non-sustainability related projects pop up. No matter what your job, in whatever industry, this is going to happen - it's an inevitable part of having a job. But what will make the difference is how you react when facing these issues. Does your company just ignore all sustainability-related initiatives for the rest of the year, or are they doing something to make sure they are sticking to their plan? Think your company could be a little more sustainable? Find out how to get your company moving towards sustainability here.

Sustainability Software: Total Cost of Ownership Revisited

The SSC Team July 14, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
This article was written as an expansion of our white paper “Choosing Sustainability Management Software for your Business” published in July 2011.  Enjoy: We touched on the TCO – Total Cost of Ownership – in the main white paper, but since the cost is such an important part of your decision making process we felt the need to dig into a little more detail.  Be sure to check in with your CFO, your CPA, your financial advisor, or with whomever else you typically engage for financial input as well.  They’ll definitely have a view of the important costs that are specific to your situation.  We’ll break the Total Cost of Ownership down into four main areas:  Acquisition, Implementation, Maintenance/Enhancement, and Growth.

Acquisition Costs...

...include all the money that you need to spend on purchasing your software solution.  They may include direct payments to your primary software vendor as well as any related software that you may need to purchase a license for.  Ideally, you’ll get all the software costs for the enterprise carbon accounting software rolled up into one cost from your vendor, but if you decide to add complementary packages or tools, they may cost you extra. Any hardware costs would also fall into this category.  You can avoid these if you choose a Software-As-A-Service (SaaS) model, but if you need to purchase new equipment for your end users – maybe laptops or tablets/phones for field data entry or memory upgrades for your existing equipment – make sure you include these costs in your TCO.  Your analysis should also account for any taxes and shipping/handling charges on hardware and software purchases.  You will most likely be able to capitalize these costs as they are related to the purchase of company assets; they may be eligible for tax credits or other incentives.  Be sure to check with your accountant for the correct treatment.

Implementation Costs...

...include all the effort necessary to install, set up, configure, test, train, and otherwise get your software ready for launch.  You may need to pay your vendor or a consultant to set up and install the software.  You also may need to allocate time for your internal associates or employees to do work as part of their day job. This internal staff cost is important – your folks may not be able to just absorb this extra work alongside their regular responsibilities.  This cost may be payment for temporary labor to come in and cover the daily office activities, or it may help you determine that you really do need to leverage your vendor or consultant to do more work.  Performing your initial data load and set up, testing all the reports and data interfaces, and training your users on how to use the tool, create reports, and otherwise maintain the information, are all critical.  You may even need to spend time (and money) educating users on why it is important to correctly track your environmental impact. Aside from all the labor costs, you might also need to set aside money for travel (to and from training, vendor locations, etc.), for incidentals (such as food and snacks for meetings and training sessions), and even simple things like office supplies to help you get the implementation done.  Similar to acquisition costs, you can most likely capitalize implementation.  However costs for tasks like training and data conversion may not be eligible for that treatment.  Again, check with your accountant for the correct handling of these costs.

Maintenance Costs...

...cover everything related to your core software system’s ongoing maintenance and enhancement that comes after the initial launch.  In some cases, your ongoing maintenance fees will be bundled with your upfront purchase – if they are, be sure you are specific about what period they cover (i.e. one year, three years, etc.) and what the correct accounting treatment is for these costs.  For planning purposes, your annual software license is approximately will typically be 20% of the upfront purchase costs of the software.  This may vary depending on a number of factors, including whether or not you are on a subscription model, so be sure you identify this with the vendor up front. Once the initial maintenance period is over, you’ll also want to make sure you account for any increases in fees that may occur.  You don’t want to get locked into using a system that suddenly escalates out of your budget a few years down the road because you didn’t get things spelled out up front.   Things like bug fixes, troubleshooting, and support are also be covered under this category.  Maintenance costs are most likely to be operational expenses.  If they’re bundled with your upfront purchase, be sure you know how to split them out appropriately – when you talk to your accounting folks, they’ll thank you for that.

Enhancement Costs...

...for the software are other types of “future costs” that you more than likely will not pay up front.  They’ll come into play when your software vendor releases version 2.0, 3.0, X.0, etc. of your software solution.  You may have the option to stay with your current version, but then you’ll miss out on all the new features, enhancements, bug fixes, and other goodies that your vendor has bundled with the new software.  Your best bet is to get a clear understanding of how often upgrades – that aren’t included free of charge – will come along and what the cost will be.  You should also be sure to capture any accompanying “implementation” costs that may be incurred.  Depending on the nature of the enhancement, you may be able to capitalize the cost as it will relate to an asset versus an operational cost, but once again be sure to check with your accountant.

Growth Costs...

...are the last major category of “future costs” that you should consider.  These costs are incurred when your usage of the software solution increases.  Maybe you start out with only a handful of users of the platform, but then want to scale up and have everyone in the company use the tool.  You may need to go from a “seat license” (for a single user) to a “site license” (for everyone at a single location) or an “enterprise license” (for everyone at your company).  Know these costs so they don’t break your business case down the road. You will also most likely increase the amount of data that you store over time.  This may be due to the addition of more sites, more data elements, or just more detail on your existing information.  Be sure you know when you’re likely to exceed a price threshold so that you can account for it in your planning process.  You may not be able to account for things like mergers and acquisitions at the present time, but you should have some idea of how you expect your business and usage of the system to grow over the next several years from your basic business planning, so be sure to include those details.  Depending on the specific driver for these costs, the accounting treatment may vary between capital and operating expense – try to provide your accountant with specifics when you talk to them.

Cost Timing...

...is important to each of these categories. Make sure you do some yearly projections so you know how much you are going to spend and when.  Your acquisition and implementation costs are most likely to occur in a relatively short time frame (maybe even in a single calendar year).  Your maintenance costs will almost certainly kick in at the start of Year 2, if not earlier.  Enhancement costs might show up yearly, beginning in Year 2 or Year 3.  Growth costs will hit whenever you hit those thresholds – try to make sure you’ve at least given yourself a year or maybe two of room in your initial contract.  You will need to consider the expected lifespan of the asset to determine just how many years forward you need to look.  A typical time frame for a smaller system may only be three years, but for a large enterprise level system that you have integrated with other major systems, you could be looking at a horizon of five or even seven years.  If you were wondering who could help you with that determination, you probably can guess who to ask: your accountant! Now that you’ve read this article, tell us what you think!  And be sure to check out the full white paper.