A Sneak Peek at the New Rules for Supply Chain Footprinting

The art and science of carbon footprinting is about to take a step forward: The long-awaited launch of guidance for managing network and product lifecycle impacts is just around the corner.

If that’s news to you — and you have anything to do with managing a business with a significant supply chain — here’s your chance to get up to speed.

First, a little background. Carbon footprinting took off in 2001, when the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) established the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. This standard outlined a practical way to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced from materials and energy use in business operations.

It did this by offering an accounting framework with three GHG emissions “scopes:” Scope 1 is a sum of emissions from fuel, refrigerants, industrial gases, and other materials combusted or used at sites the company owns or controls; Scope 2 adds up emissions linked to electricity used by those facilities; and Scope 3 encompasses all other emissions in the business value chain.

Measurement of the “internal,” or “operational,” emissions of scopes 1 and 2 has always been straightforward, and thus those standards have been rapidly adopted. Today, a significant majority of the Global 500 companies report on operational emissions.

Scope 3, however, has incited many debates over interpretation. Originally referring to emissions from supply chains, including products, waste, distribution, and travel, Scope 3 outlined a much larger and more complex set of issues than those that characterize emissions from internal operations.

While Scope 3 has always been recognized as important, and indeed reporting has been growing, companies have been clamoring for more detailed guidance. Many companies have focused on addressing more easily measured Scope 3 activities, such as business travel and employee commuting. Also, business networks, such as the Clean Cargo Working Group and the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition, have begun developing shared approaches for issues very focused on their industries.

But there has not been a common language for measuring Scope 3 impacts in detail across industries. That’s about to change.

By summer 2011, WRI and WBCSD will finalize the Scope 3 standard and the related Product standard. This will be the result of a three-year project involving more than 1,500 diverse stakeholders from governments, research institutions, businesses, and civil society, all contributing to various discussions and drafts. BSR and many of its member companies have been represented in a technical working group.

Unofficially, this has been even longer in the making. A year after the 2001 launch of the first edition of the Corporate standard, a working group explored ways to flesh out Scope 3 with lifecycle assessment tools, finding that significant time and effort would be needed to produce an effective framework.

What led us to this final chapter? Brian Glazebrook, a senior manager of social responsibility at Cisco Systems who has been involved with Scope 3 efforts from the start, says that lifecycle and supply chain information is becoming more commoditized and therefore less expensive, while at the same time there is more demand for transparency. We have crossed a threshold that is making Scope 3 management undeniably more attractive to companies, and the case to do more will only become stronger.

Following are highlights of a recent discussion I had with Pankaj Bhatia (pictured below), director of the GHG Protocol at WRI, offering a preview of what’s to come.

Ryan Schuchard: Pankaj, how will the Scope 3 standard help companies?

Pankaj Bhatia: It will enable them to develop an organized understanding of the impacts, risks, opportunities, and considerations from energy and other sources of GHG emissions throughout business networks and relationships. As a comprehensive accounting and reporting framework, it will facilitate identifying GHG reduction opportunities, setting reduction targets, and tracking performance in value chains. In turn, it will provide a sophisticated framework for reporting to the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Securities and Exchange Commission, in annual CSR reports, and for other GHG transparency programs and B2B initiatives. It also may lead companies to develop stronger relationships with suppliers by reducing waste and improving efficiency through GHG management in their supply chains.

RS: What kinds of companies should utilize it?

PB: The Scope 3 standard is written for companies of all sizes in all economic sectors. It is especially applicable to three types of companies: (1) those with significant emissions in their upstream or downstream activities, (2) those that would like to engage and inform their stakeholders about their value chain emissions and performance, and (3) those wanting to identify business risks and opportunities in their value chain and develop strategies to minimize risks and leverage opportunities.

RS: Is it a full “standard” — in the way the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is a standard?

PB: Yes. A GHG Protocol publication qualifies as a standard if it provides verifiable accounting and reporting requirements. The standard uses the term “shall” (e.g., “Companies shall account for and report all Scope 3 emissions and disclose and justify any exclusions.”) to indicate what is required for a GHG inventory to be in conformance with the Scope 3 standard.

Companies may use the inventory information to identify, prioritize, and guide innovative emissions reduction activities within and across Scope 3 activities. For example, a company whose largest source of value-chain emissions is contracted logistics may choose to optimize these operations through changes to product packaging to increase the volume per shipment, or by increasing the number of low-carbon logistics providers. Additionally, companies may utilize this information to change their procurement practices or improve product design or product efficiency, resulting in reduced energy use.

RS: Will there be any completely new ideas?

PB: Yes. Scope 3 emissions are now categorized into 15 distinct, mutually exclusive categories that avoid double counting. These categories are intended to provide companies with a systematic framework to organize, understand, and report on the diversity of Scope 3 activities within a corporate value chain.

Also, there is more guidance on characterizing confidence in data. This guidance was requested by stakeholders, since Scope 3 emissions data may be relatively less accurate and precise than Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data. Additionally, the Scope 3 standard allows for a range of data collection and calculation approaches, with a varying range of data quality. Scope 3 data may include reliance on value chain partners to provide data, broader use of secondary data, and broader use of assumptions and modeling (such as for downstream emissions categories, such as the use of sold products by consumers).

Higher uncertainty for Scope 3 calculations is acceptable as long as the data quality of the inventory is sufficient to support the company’s goals and the information needs of key stakeholders such as investors, while providing transparency on limitations of the Scope 3 data to avoid potential misuses. Companies are therefore required to provide a description of the accuracy and completeness of reported Scope 3 emissions data and a description of the methods and data sources used to calculate the inventory. The standard provides descriptions of accuracy and completeness, guidance on describing data quality, and guidance on uncertainty. The standard doesn’t require companies to provide a quantitative confidence level or confidence interval associated with the reported emissions data — though this is optional.

RS: Will the standard provide a good tool to compare companies against each other?

PB: No and yes. First, it is important to understand the limits. Companies’ selection of one or more Scope 3 categories and their choice of whether to base measurement on operational control or financial investment is based on considerations that aren’t easily comparable across companies, like corporate vision and business risk. That means even companies that seem like peers may not prioritize the same things, so it would not be meaningful to uniformly prescribe what should “count.” Also, within categories, the level of data quality and control will vary with the level of vertical integration and the public data infrastructure where sites are located.

What it will enable is comparison of the level of depth that companies measure and report on. This will help to clarify that a larger footprint doesn’t necessarily mean a company is worse off, but rather, that it might be examining its networks in more detail. Also, while the standard won’t provide a robust way to directly compare GHG performance between companies, it will let a company measure performance against its own baseline, which potentially could be compared between companies.

As companies take up this type of reporting, there will be opportunities to develop more specific norms and benchmarking for better comparability among more specific situations. In many ways, that’s what this standard provides—a platform that creates unified language across industries for going deeper on comparisons of key applications through development of sector-specific rules.

RS: What kind of data will companies need to gather to measure Scope 3?

PB: The standard asks that companies select data that is most representative in terms of technology, time, and geography; most complete; and most precise. We have categorized data needed to calculate Scope 3 emissions into two types: primary data and secondary data. Primary data means specific data provided by suppliers or other companies in the value chain related to the reporting company’s activities, including primary activity data, and emissions data that is calculated using primary activity data (e.g., primary activity data combined with a secondary emission factor). Primary data does not include financial data (e.g., spend) used to calculate emissions.

Secondary data refers to industry-average data (such as from published databases, government statistics, literature studies, and industry associations), financial data, proxy data, and other generic data. Primary data and secondary data each have advantages. For example, primary data best enables performance tracking of individual value chain partners and supply chain GHG management, while secondary data can be a useful tool for efficiently prioritizing investments in primary data collection and for tracking emissions from minor sources.

Choosing the appropriate type of data depends on the company’s business goals. The standard asks companies to make sure that the data quality of the Scope 3 inventory is sufficient to ensure that the inventory is relevant — both internally and for a company’s stakeholders — and that it supports effective decision making.

Companies may find that for a given activity, secondary data is of higher quality than the available primary data. In this case, if the company’s primary goal is to maximize the data quality of the Scope 3 inventory to improve decision making where accuracy is important, it should select secondary data. If the company’s primary goal is to set reduction targets and track performance from specific operations within the value chain, or to engage suppliers, the company should select primary data.

RS: What does the Scope 3 standard have to do with the Product standard?

PB: While the Scope 3 standard covers measurement and accounting to characterize the many broad types of corporate networks and relationships, the Product standard focuses on a view of the whole lifecycle of individual products. These two standards, which have been developed in parallel, share many features in common: accounting principles, approach to data allocation, approach to data collection, and treatment of confidence. A key difference is that a Scope 3 inventory is structured by organization-wide business activities, such as leased operations and employee travel, while a Product inventory is organized by key stages in the lifecycle of a product, like processing and recycling. These two different tool sets reflect two different needs: on the one hand, characterizing products’ lifecycles, especially from the view of the customer; on the other, examining the administration of organizational interrelationships and networks, something investors in particular are concerned about.

Watch for the release of the final Scope 3 and Product text next spring, and contact Ryan if you have questions.

First posted at GreenBiz.

Why Russia is the Land of Opportunity for Climate Action

Managers who want to lead on climate and energy should be looking carefully at Russia, where President Dmitry Medvedev has decreed a 40 percent reduction in energy intensity over the next decade.

The potential for scale is immense: Russia is one of the most inefficient countries in the world, the third-highest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) — both by traditional measures and in terms of exports for consumption — and its per capita emissions are on a path for the top spot by 2030. Yet Russia receives far less attention than its GHG-emitting peers, such as China and tropical rainforest countries.

Why is it overlooked? There are several reasons: Russia’s list of sustainability challenges, from nuclear waste to governance, is long, so climate change gets lost in the shuffle. Commentators focus on Russia’s struggling economy, asking things like whether “BRIC” really needs an “R,” signaling that attention is better paid where business is growing more predictably. Furthermore, non-Russians are perplexed about operating in what seems like too foreign a place — one that is European, Asian, and most of all, its own category altogether — and so give it wide berth.

Nonetheless, there are growing reasons for companies invested in Russia to proactively manage and reduce energy use in operations, by suppliers, and for customers.

The first is that Russia’s climate challenge is one that business is uniquely, and profitably, good at solving: audacious inefficiency, stemming from outdated equipment and obsolete management practices. Russia is the most energy-intensive (PDF) of the world’s 10 largest countries. Few, regardless of size, score higher, and many that do are Russia’s neighbors. Cost-effective efficiency measures could cut Russia’s energy use by as much as 45 percent (PDF), with prime opportunities in industry and manufacturing. One study has identified 60 measures representing more than $200 million in investments that can be made profitably.

Second, the government is showing increased willingness to incentivize action. In 2008, Medvedev signed presidential decree No. 889, a commitment to cut energy intensity by 40 percent by 2020. Last year he committed Russia to growing its renewables portfolio from less than 1 percent to 4.5 percent in that period. Medvedev then developed Russia’s first executive climate doctrine and began calling for action on climate change — a reversal of Vladimir Putin’s stance, symbolized by Putin’s infamous quip that climate change would be beneficial because it would mean fewer fur coats.

Now an innovation center is under development near Skolkovo, where companies such as Google and Intel are setting up research and development centers, similar to special business zones in China. In sum, there has been a change in the terms of debate in Russia, with climate change being taken more seriously by the government and productivity now a priority.

Another reason is that the drama of climate change is clearly unfolding in Russia, and so people are starting to appreciate the benefits of managing energy for sustainability. This summer, the hottest in 130 years, led to 27,000 wildfires and burning bogs, sending global wheat prices through the roof. Meanwhile, global warming is melting the arctic, where the government is leading a high-profile exploration, turning the most iconic imagery of climate change into a point of local news. Climate change is increasingly seen as real and important, making conversations more natural.

A fourth reason is Russia’s natural assets. The world’s most geographically expansive country, Russia is a storehouse of some of the world’s most significant natural assets and threats, from the greatest reserves of fossil fuels and forests to vast volumes of methane ominously locked up in tundra. If environmental markets are able to take hold in Russia — though it will be some time before the prerequisite monitoring and verification frameworks are instituted — business will have an opportunity to benefit from effective resource management on a vast scale. Heading in that direction in July, the government endorsed 15 clean-energy projects to start making use of its carbon credits.

Finally, Russia holds the key to a bigger puzzle: its 15-plus neighbors with similar ecological impacts and business environments, including burgeoning Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Succeeding in Russia also means opening possibilities for the whole region, which connects the markets of China, Europe, and the Middle East.

While these trends are encouraging, companies interested in managing climate and energy matters in Russia still must confront significant issues. Following are three key challenges that companies are likely to face and suggestions for addressing each of them.

Challenge #1: Low Awareness

Despite Medvedev’s efforts and the impact of this summer’s wildfires, there is still little social momentum for action on climate change in Russia. Many people still think that global warming will help this cold country. There is also generally a low appreciation of the impacts, risks, and opportunities that climate change creates for business. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), reflecting on 2009 reports from Russia’s top 50 companies, found that climate change is often misunderstood (PDF) in the country as a purely environmental, rather than strategic, topic.

Solution: In working with Russian partners new to the subject, emphasize the links between climate action, energy management and modernization, a political priority likely to draw more government resources. Medvedev has said that his country’s subpar economic influence is due partly to the fact that “energy efficiency and productivity of most of our businesses remain shamefully low.” He has made becoming “a leading country measured by the efficiency of production, transportation, and use of energy” the first of his five pillars of modernization.

With that in mind, connect with partners on the ways that energy hits the bottom line and discuss opportunities to modernize. This can lead to discussion of how action on climate change can create other benefits, from carbon credits to attracting more international investors.

Challenge #2: Governance Obstacles

A second challenge is that energy waste in Russia is rooted in systemic, sometimes dysfunctional governance, and companies will typically find government difficult to engage because if is needed on larger projects.

For example, IKEA was recently stymied by Lenenergo, the electricity utility, in simply hooking up to the grid, and has thus tabled new investments in Russia. This is a problem not only for companies, but the government itself, since it is unlikely to effectively address climate change without policies that instill confidence and encourage investments.

Governance obstacles also come in the form of entrenched non-transparency in companies. After China and Hong Kong, Russia has the largest share of Global 500 companies that don’t disclose to the CDP. Of the mere six firms among Russia’s top 50 that did respond to the CDP last year, only two reported emissions or energy reduction goals. Low transparency is a substantial constraint, since measurement and governance are considered cornerstones of effective climate and energy management.

Solution: Focus in the near term on capacity building rather than precise data disclosure. Given BSR’s experience in China, there should be substantial opportunities to help companies identify energy-saving opportunities and train energy managers, and to assist them with developing action plans and understanding their economic decisions.

Although these activities don’t address transparency directly, they can build trust with suppliers and create results that they will want to be transparent about. Even if you don’t start with a discussion about disclosure, companies that succeed on climate and energy management will have an incentive to communicate their results over time. For those that are ready, show how the process of disclosure can lead to learning about risks and opportunities and create a basis for management. For projects connected with government contracts, encourage standardized, effective processes on how the government will decide tenders by doing an integrity pact with bidding peers.

Challenge #3: Slow Going in the Policy Realm

Although Medvedev appears serious about leading his government toward modernization, he is the first to admit that progress will be gradual. Ultimately, the challenge of modernization is to cultivate, unleash, enable, and protect the innovative potential of the Russian people — and that will take time.

On climate in particular, there is no unifying policy, and the government does not appear motivated to curb emissions soon. The country’s climate negotiator, Alexander Bedritsky, says Russia should be judged on progress since 1990, like other countries. The problem with that, however, is that emissions plummeted with the economy in the 90s, and when it bottomed out in 1998, emissions were far below the 1990 level. Russia’s current proposal (PDF) to reduce emissions by around 20 percent from 1990 actually means letting them rise today until they are fully 20 percent higher than their low point. Therefore, even if energy intensity decreases under Medvedev’s plan, total energy use and GHG emissions are likely to rise.

Solution: Focus on voluntary business actions that generate tangible savings in the near term. Improvements in energy efficiency offer direct and virtually immediate cash savings, give companies a better view of their processes, and enjoy support by the government. In the context of other CSR issues, this is a relatively straightforward starting point. In doing so, watch other organizations that are invested in energy modernization, such as the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Finance Corporation, which may be able to offer signals and even more direct support.

To summarize, Russia holds vast potential for business action on climate change and should start to become a higher priority in managers’ minds. Doing sustainability work there is difficult because of low awareness, governance obstacles, and slow going in the policy realm.

Yet these challenges are surmountable, and conditions are increasingly favorable for climate and energy management. Companies have opportunities to start on practical initiatives that can make big impacts now, growing their efforts as policy and consumer behavior evolve.

First posted at GreenBiz.

Making Customers Behave: Download from the Behavior, Energy, & Climate Change Conference

I just returned from the sold-out Behavior, Energy, and Climate Change Conference, a three-day event examining ways to understand decision making on climate and energy. Here are a few ideas I took away:
There’s opportunity in teaching climate awareness. Gallup’s Anita Pugliese and George

Mason University’s (GMU) Ed Maibach and Connie Roser-Renouf all pointed to two related items on climate awareness. First, awareness is surprisingly low across the globe. Only 16 percent of citizens in China understand climate change is real, human-caused, and a threat, while only half in many African and Middle Eastern countries have even heard of it. Second, literacy is actually declining in Europe and North America.  The good news is that consumers are open to being engaged on the subject, so businesses may find an opportunity to build relationships through educating on climate issues, particularly in rural areas, where awareness is lowest.

Effective communication requires segmenting and targeting. Reaching people on climate and energy requires identifying the motivation for the discussion and parsing out who to engage and how. For example, if the aim is to discuss climate change broadly, said Tami Buhr of Opinion Dynamics Corporation, research the audience, especially political persuasions. Then, focus on their leverage point (e.g. for those with mixed feelings on climate, show why it’s a threat; for doubters, explain why we know what we know). Tailor it to include issues like foreign oil dependence, health, environment, and saving money—but only what they’ll be receptive to. Similarly, if the aim is inspire specific energy choices, says Jodi Stablein of PG&E, people take on many different personifications, only some of which will be moved by climate change. So say only what’s necessary.

“Behavioral economics” holds the keys. Many well-intended message are surprisingly counterproductive. OPOWER’s Robert Cialdini explained that a common—and destructive—mistake is to frame sustainability problems as “regrettably frequent,” which makes undesirable activities seem normal and can actually increase unwanted behavior. Better, appeal to people’s sense of stewardship by showing what positive actions have already been taken, then ask the audience to do their part.  Also, suggested GMU research, address two protests (“I’m not an activist” and “It wouldn’t make a difference”) before they arise. Then, work to identify, train, and activate opinion leaders who are likely to take action and inspire others.

What do you think—what’s most useful to you about behavior with climate and energy? 

First posted at BSR.

The Latest CDP Results Reveal the Rise of Scope 3 Reporting

Last month’s release of the Global 500 Report, Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) annual summary of climate reporting by the world’s 500 largest companies, gives the most insight to date on corporations’ reporting about climate change and their supply chains.

What does it tell us?

First, the number of companies reporting on their supply chains continues to steadily grow. Two years ago, only about a quarter of the world’s top 500 companies reported on “Scope 3” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or the emissions from activities they have influence over, but are beyond direct ownership or control, such as in supply chains.

Last year, the reporting share climbed to 42 percent, and this year it grew to nearly half. That’s a steep change compared to reporting overall, which rose only a few percentage points this year to 82 percent.

At the same time, the quality and scope of reporting is improving dramatically. This year, for example, Kraft Foods said physical risks linked to climate change are not material, but they still described a whole set of supply chain and other issues that potentially matter. Kraft also clarified that they are closely examining supply chain issues to anticipate emerging enterprise risk and opportunities. The provision of this depth of information is a new development in CDP reporting, and has been aided in part by the more systematic ways that CDP is asking questions.

This relates to a third development: CDP made Scope 3 reporting more robust by expanding definitions this year. In following the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol’s Scope 3 Guidance under development, CDP transformed last year’s five categories into eight more specific ones, and then added nine more (see sidebar).

This helps transparency by increasing the comparability of reported figures. It also foreshadows the increasing sophistication of supply chain reporting to come. Indeed, Frances Way, CDP’s Head of Supply Chain, told me that CDP will continue working to ensure reporting requirements are aligned with the standard once finalized. Meanwhile, CDP is taking public comments on the design of the next survey.

Scope 3 emissions have taken center stage and turned out to be every bit as significant as we thought they would be. This raises an important question: Just how big are they?

In the summary report, CDP tallied aggregate figures by industry, finding Scope 3 to be on average about two times the amount of Scopes 1 and 2 emissions, which are sometimes called “internal” emissions. It will take a little digging, however, to get a representative number since 50 percent of companies don’t report Scope 3 at all. Of those that do, 40 percent only publish just one convenient category, such as transportation.

The companies to watch are the 10 percent that reported supplier emissions, and the even smaller 5 percent that reported supplier emissions beyond direct purchasing relationships.

For these companies, the Scope 3 multiple is much higher — more like five times greater for those reporting on direct suppliers, and 10 times more for those providing a comprehensive assessment. Some companies were much higher still: Kraft and Danone reported Scope 3 emissions that were more than 15 times the amount generated from their internal operations, and Unilever’s are more than 50 times greater.

As companies disclose their climate change and business interrelationships more fully, higher multiples like these are likely to become more common.

How to Open the Door to Supplier Disclosure

To learn more, I spoke to Kraft, which this year CDP named to its Climate Change Leadership Index, a designation for the most transparent companies taking action. Kraft is an interesting case because as recently as two years ago it had not reported Scope 3 emissions at all.

I asked Francesco Tramontin, associate director of global issues management, why Kraft is interested in managing and reporting supply chain emissions. Tramontin said that it is a logical extension of the company’s approach to climate change, and a natural step following Kraft’s achievement of GHG reduction targets within its own operations.

But, he said, Kraft’s increased CDP reporting didn’t begin with a reporting effort. Rather, the company’s R&D team leads its Scope 3 management efforts with the aim of collecting and interpreting data for strategic perspective and internal decision making. The reporting is a byproduct of these efforts, and Kraft began sharing it as management became aware of partners’ and stakeholders’ increasing interest.

One of the main benefits of Scope 3 management, Tramontin said, is that it provides an impetus to take a more careful look at internal management systems. It also enables Kraft to take part in important forums, such as the development of GHG Protocol Scope 3 Guidance.

Currently, Kraft is involved in testing a draft version of the guidance, and the company recently submitted feedback for it. According to Tramontin, participating in this governance-building effort has been beneficial. It has helped them exchange methodologies with peers and given them confidence in measuring and reporting in an environment where many communication standards are lacking.

One of Kraft’s main challenges has been deciding what types of information to publish. When Kraft set out to report Scope 3 emissions for the first time last year, the company had more information than it ended up reporting, but wanted to share the data in which it had the most confidence. The company published information in just two categories, business travel and logistics, which then represented about 40 percent of operational emissions. As Kraft did so, Tramontin said, it used a “lead with results” approach that emphasized progress against goals while remaining cautious about prognosticating.

This year, Kraft not only expanded the categories it reported on, it also found a way to provide more information on topics where there is more uncertainty. Kraft did this by disclosing emissions by subcategory with narrative descriptions and confidence estimates for each, ranging from plus or minus 20 percent (business travel) to about 40 percent (supply chain and end-of-life packaging). Tramontin said he couldn’t yet say whether Kraft would add more categories next year, but felt certain the quality and confidence of data would improve.

The Road Ahead

The supply chain will enter the picture more and more, Tramontin concluded. His experience, however, reveals a difficult balance that companies need to achieve. On the one hand, there is an incentive to report as openly as possible. On the other hand, there is pressure to ensure that disclosed information is trustworthy.

This leads Kraft and other companies to an important debate that is arguably the front line of supply chain reporting: the extent to which they can use the coarse data produced by life-cycle assessments and generalized industry “models,” versus more specific information provided by suppliers themselves.

The former is easier to obtain, but largely overlooks potentially vast differences in practices among peer suppliers; the latter can generate factory floor-level information about particular suppliers, but requires a much greater commitment of resources to manage.

Questions and answers regarding these issues will continue to unfold as new GHG Protocol guidance comes out this winter and companies report to CDP next May and beyond. In the meantime, here are some promising approaches borrowed from the experiences of Kraft and others.

1. Collect Data to Gain Insight for Prioritizing Sustainability Investments

In this context, reporting is important but it is a byproduct of understanding interconnections with suppliers, products, partners, and the physical world. This is really what most stakeholders are interested in.

2. Don’t Be Afraid of Your Footprint

The next phase of Scope 3 reporting will see more companies report on their impacts, more deeply and in more categories. This will allow greater comparability, better benchmarking, and more insightful discussion about ways forward.

Until that happens, a large Scope 3 footprint is a much better sign of leadership than no reported footprint. Scope 3 management can lead to enrolling suppliers directly in improvement efforts and leveraging their dollars and skills.

3. Address Budget and Resource Constraints by Using Sampling and Estimations

It is acceptable to provide information that is approximate or based on random and/or targeted verifications. The key to getting that right is to understand how accurate the information is, and make your level of confidence and uncertainty — like the figures themselves — transparent.

First posted at GreenBiz.

FTC’s New Anti-Greenwashing, Good-for-Business Green Guides

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released its long-awaited draft guidance on environmental marketing. The so-called “Green Guides” tell companies how to prevent misleading customers—and avoid FTC actions against them.
Why now? The FTC says consumers are confused about environmental claims such as “sustainable” or “offset,” which lack consistent rules for usage. In response, the FTC’s proposed guidance does three things:
  1. Requires claims to be substantiated. Companies should communicate on specific issues for which they provide competent and reliable scientific evidence and avoid ambiguous umbrella terms like “green” or “eco-friendly.”
  2. Prescribes action on targeted issues. While the FTC leaves methodology mostly to companies, it advises on a few issues where deception is rife and solutions are particularly obvious. For example, the guides say that if companies generate renewable energy onsite and then sell their environmental attributes separately, they shouldn’t also say that they use that renewable energy themselves. Categories of specific advice include: certifications and seals, degradability, compostability, ozone-safe/ozone-friendly, recyclability, free-of/non-toxic, renewable materials, renewable energy, and carbon offsets. See the FTC’s cheat sheet.
  3. Defines where to tread carefully. The FTC acknowledges that some issues are difficult to provide blanket guidance on. For example, life-cycle assessments and ecolabeling are complex and require context, while the determination of carbon offset quality may be better handled by agencies with more expertise. In cases where the FTC “lacks sufficient information on which to base guidance,” it promises to analyze claims on a case-by-case basis.
What does this direction mean for business? I asked three individuals. Kevin Myette, director of product integrity at outdoor retailer REI, told me: “Guidance on green marketing claims has been extremely loose for years, and as a result, industry and marketers have operated virtually unchecked for too long. The FTC’s action to further define the rules is not a bad thing as they are only asking for the truth.”
Stanford Graduate School of Business Professor Erica Plambeck was similarly hopeful. She told me that the guidance “will increase incentives for retailers like Walmart to invest in the measurement of environmental performance and to provide detailed information about environmental performance to consumers. Transparency will lead to improvement.”
Finally, Dara O’Rourke, founder of the Good Guide—a product-rating initiative—said that more FTC involvement isn’t only good for consumers, but also for business. That’s because “the more there is transparency, the more the leading firms will do well in the marketplace. It’s a win for smart, thoughtful, progressive companies. This is basic ‘Econ 101’.”

What to do next: In the near term, leave any suggestions you have for finalizing the Green Guides below (with your name and affiliation) or contact me, and we’ll aggregate and submit your suggestions to the FTC before the comment period closes on December 10.

First posted at BSR.


3 Surefire Steps to Bring Climate Transparency to Your Supply Chain

With the release of guidance on supply chain reporting by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol just around the corner, companies will soon have more clarity on how to manage “Scope 3” emissions. 

At the same time, companies such as HP and others in BSR’s Energy Efficiency Partnership are working with a growing number of suppliers on climate change. As a result of these developments, minimum expectations for climate reporting on the supply chain are rising.

Now is the time for your company to embrace transparency, if it hasn’t done so already. It will help investors and partners, who increasingly see transparency as an indicator of a company’s competence, perceive your business as trustworthy. It will make outstanding achievements more credible, and it may even soften potential criticism, which is valuable in an environment where just about everyone, from journalists to employees, is inclined to write, blog, and tweet about your business.

But such transparency doesn’t come easily.

For one, almost every interest group, from consumers to investors to governments, has different information requirements, making reporting on climate impacts less about creating a single, comprehensive document and more about sharing granular information. The differences are growing. Consumers, for example, are using the Good Guide to screen for criteria that are most important to them, in effect creating their own “personal” certification.

Another challenge is the increasing demand for more specific information about companies’ suppliers — and their suppliers — when there is a lack of standards on what should be reported, when, and how.

A third challenge is the sheer expense of transparency, which takes substantial time and effort to effectively monitor and communicate.

To overcome these hurdles to transparency, we recommend a practical, three-part approach that involves monitoring your impacts, translating that data into actionable information, and promoting governance standards that catalyze progress.

1. Monitor in Order to Measure

Satisfying demands for granular information about climate impacts requires good measurement. Fortunately, most greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts boil down to energy, which is easy to measure.

Unfortunately, many suppliers whose impacts you want to report don’t have the monitoring equipment that’s needed to do so. It is unusual for suppliers in many countries, especially China — which matters most for many companies — to manage their energy use at all, both because they perceive it as a way to keep overhead low and because they don’t see other suppliers doing it.

Therefore, working with suppliers to install portable energy meters can be one of the most cost-effective ways to get more data. 

The basic versions of these monitors are available for less than US$10; more sophisticated options offer remote sensing and allow the uploading of data for analysis with software elsewhere. Over the course of a few months, companies can use a handful of meters to triangulate the most energy-intensive processes and pieces of equipment, and in doing so, show suppliers how they can take control.

In 2008, Nike was one of the first companies to report using remote energy meters (PDF). Today, Walmart is working with EDF to install energy meters in China, and BSR has recommended using energy meters to the 80 China-based suppliers who attended the recent launch of our Energy Efficiency Partnership.

In addition to enhancing transparency efforts, monitors open up new doors to companies in search of finance options. One of the main things holding up loans for the many energy-saving projects in China is verifiability. Monitors can potentially provide this assurance and therefore help companies in their efforts to gain finance from capital markets or private investors.

2. Count What Matters Most

Gathering granular data of the type provided by energy meters is useful in responding to the varying demands of different stakeholders, but it also creates a challenge in itself, often overloading you with information. To zero in on the important issues about your company’s climate impacts, it’s necessary to prioritize.

There are two ways to do this: Invest in intelligence tools that will help you glean more from the data, and use the right proxies to indicate how successful your company will be in meeting its quantitative targets.

Let’s look at intelligence tools first: Companies should consider how they can go beyond spreadsheets — the traditional mechanism for tracking GHG information — to using tools such as climate software packages (PDF) to glean more from data.

These tools complement energy metering equipment by allowing you to compare energy use at different points in time and on different time scales, which can help you identify cost-reduction opportunities and situations requiring maintenance. They also contextualize the energy meter information by putting it in terms of production output volume or other indicators your company is already managing. This helps embed analytics into existing business processes and continuous improvement initiatives.

Using proxies can also help you focus on the most important information. When starting energy management, it can be challenging in the short run to find a pattern in the most obvious and easily measurable data — energy actually used. That’s because things like weather and business variability make it difficult to see improvements in energy efficiency through electricity bills. However, you can use proxies as good predictors of success. These include, for example, whether a supplier has developed an energy action plan, what kind of target (say, to achieve 30 percent energy reduction) it has committed to, and how many energy meters it has installed.

Similarly, shortcuts are available with verification. For BSR’s work with Walmart, we designed a tiered approach to gathering data about suppliers’ energy impacts that included requests for narrative descriptions of energy projects and the names of team members working on energy efficiency. Those types of questions are easier to verify than accounting numbers themselves, and company representatives can use the information gathered to look for physical evidence of these things when they conduct supplier site visits.

3. Promote Action with Better Governance

Even when you have done your diligence to gather granular data and translate it into actionable information, one of the biggest barriers to progress in transparency remains: a lack of governance standards used by your peers. These shared systems are needed both to give stakeholders confidence in claims, and to create more clarity on where companies should focus their action.

What follows are some areas that are likely to present development needs for some time to come: 

Technical standards on how measurements are made: Even with more requirements, such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s mandatory reporting rule (PDF) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) interpretive guidance (PDF), many conventions are undefined, such as how to characterize progress on energy management, how to cost-effectively verify such results, and how to convert many local energy sources to GHG impacts. (See sidebar below for a more descriptive list.)

How Corporate Energy Managers Can Champion Better Technical Standards
One of the key challenges to improving business transparency on climate change is the development of technical standards that are shared across industries. Company energy managers have the opportunity to encourage the development of these standards, which are lacking in the following areas: 

•  Conversion factors: In much of the world, there is a lack of common measures for deriving GHG from energy sources. For example, in China, the government has published energy-carbon conversion factors for its seven grids, but there’s not yet an accepted standard for more local applications. A leadership opportunity exists for business to create open platforms that house much more specific and trustworthy conversion factors.

•  Supplier energy performance factors: In all but the most energy-intensive industries, there are few performance standards for energy use with suppliers in countries such as China. Managers can look for ways to identify and disseminate information about thresholds (e.g. best, average, minimum acceptability) with energy consumption and the type of equipment being used.

•  Management progress: There is a lack of agreement about how companies can state they have reduced or improved energy use for a group of diverse suppliers. Issues that need resolution include defining the scope and drivers of energy to account for changes to energy owed to operational changes, to describe how energy use is expressed (absolute or in terms of revenues or material inputs), and to determine rules for sampling (what minimum time period is allowed).

•  Cost-effective verification: There are few generally accepted alternatives to traditional energy audit processes like the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol, which are very expensive. Companies have the opportunity to work with stakeholders to create a system with sufficient accountability, while still being practical enough to apply to large sets of suppliers.

Shared systems: The process of interacting with suppliers and other partners to obtain information takes a commitment of people and resources. Suppliers and partners, in turn, are under pressure to respond to greater numbers and types of requests, meaning they have less time for your company’s request.A pioneer industry group, the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC), was formed in part to develop a central repository for suppliers to report into and buyers to read from, significantly cutting down on administrative expenses. This and other kinds of “cloud computing” solutions offer important opportunities for sharing information.

Communication among diverse stakeholders: The development of new governance requires participation by a range of stakeholders, including technical experts, civil society representatives, and industry peers. In addition to observations being made and analysis done, subjective issues matter.

These issues include the types of people who want the climate information (e.g. whether they are customers or project financiers), what action the measurement is meant to encourage (e.g. energy management decisions or something else), and how much “uncertainty” is tolerated and how it is accounted for (e.g. what disclaimers are used for making estimations).

With this in mind, companies that want to improve the impact and recognition of climate transparency should join existing programs or groups such as the EICC. If such groups are not available, consider starting a new one with industry peers by sharing metrics, publishing useful internal studies, and sharing insights about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a certain key performance indicator. Companies can also suggest that their existing working groups and associations facilitate standards.

In summary, more climate transparency will be good for business. It can improve credibility, win trust, and make discussions about climate change more meaningful. While the solutions provided here will take work, they are likely to lead to better incentives to find efficiencies and lower costs, and ultimate progress on climate change.

First posted at Greenbiz.

BSR Kicks Off New Energy Management Collaboration…and Just in Time

I’ve just returned from China where I attended the launch of BSR’s Energy Efficiency Partnership (EEP), a working group of 11 member companies working with 80 of their suppliers on energy management.

Participants discussed the many reasons why this is an important—and urgent—issue for their companies. Starbucks’ Director of Ethical Sourcing Kelly Goodejohn explained in an opening presentation that climate change poses a substantial threat to coffee, the company’s core business, and that energy management is the most direct thing they can do to stop greenhouse gases (GHG).

Felix Ockborn, a member of H&M’s Far East CSR Program Development team, relayed that working with suppliers to mitigate climate change impacts is vital to H&M’s CSR strategy because the issue is important to its customers. He also said that it is a fundamental part of working toward sustainable use of natural resources in H&M’s value chain.

The one issue, however, on everyone’s mind was the recent pressure from the Chinese government to curb energy waste, which resulted in the mandatory closure of more than 2,000 factories and the shutdown of power to companies in major manufacturing provinces like Jiangsu and Anhui. This obviously has a major impact on companies: An auto-components maker reported that it had to slow production, and a cement factory said it would have trouble meeting orders and likely lose work in progress.

The shutdowns are part of China’s efforts to meet its current five-year plan commitment to reduce energy intensity by 20 percent from 2005 levels. All signs indicate that such pressure will increase: The next five-year plan (due out soon) is likely to include even more stringent targets, and last year’s goal to reduce GHG emissions by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 will also warrant additional measures.

EEP member, HP, has been keeping a close eye on these kinds of developments. Ernest Wong, Manager of HP’s Social and Environmental Responsibility Supply Chain program, said it’s important for factory managers to have tools for energy management so that they can understand their exposure and communicate their situation. In turn, explained Wong, it’s important for companies like HP to have a good picture of how suppliers can have better energy-saving plans and use energy management to minimize their carbon footprints.

We have a lot of exciting work to do. From helping executives in the board room understand the impacts of and options for energy efficiency to enabling managers on the shop floor to take action, I look forward to working with EEP to explore how companies can get the most out of energy management and raise awareness about the importance of working with suppliers to conserve energy.

First posted at BSR.