Why Solar Should Care About Sustainability

Solar power is a poster child of sustainability, at least from the standpoint of energy users. It provides a clean alternative to GHG-emitting fossil fuels and runs indefinitely on free energy from the sun. What more, then, is there to the sustainability of solar energy?

Plenty, and the industry’s largest gathering, Intersolar, which I attended in San Francisco this week, offers a glimpse into why.

The event is an exhibition of more than 800 companies selling their wares—everything from wafer etchers, adhesives, and gauges to gears, filters, and fire alarms. They sell the equipment that makes equipment, and the equipment that makes that equipment. And they are the purveyors of exciting items like plasma applicators, robots, and lasers.

As for the attendees, it’s all black suits and ties, and the discussions are on engineering specs and market trends. It feels more like a summit for making deals, rather than achieving some vision of “ecotopia.”

While there is nothing wrong with all of this, it does bring to light an important truth: The parts that make up the whole of the solar industry are little different than those of any other. And while environmental conservation may be a side effect, the efforts, by and large, are about capitalism.

Thus, as manufacturers, solar companies may cause damaging environmental impacts from their use of water, gasses, chemicals, minerals, and nanomaterials. As designers of large, long-lived physical goods, they are seen as part of a great network of potential e-waste, with end-of-life responsibilities that extend beyond the law. And as global businesses that seek low-cost employees and supplies, the emerging markets that offer so much promise are rife with potential social challenges such as protecting human rights.

If the solar industry is to create the most value for its investors, customers, and communities—all of whom have growing concerns about sustainability and greater means for comparing companies and industries to one another—it has to make sense of all of this. The good news is that others have taken the lead. The information communications and technology (ICT) industry, for example, has started complying with best practices for responsible policy advocacy and working with their suppliers to improve labor conditions and environmental impacts. Since solar companies have similar production processes and supply chains, they can build off of the foundation that the ICT industry has already established.

Yet solar is different: It makes a promise, however implicit, to offer a clean alternative to fossil fuels. This expectation makes the industry a target, and if solar companies can’t objectively demonstrate better overall performance, they risk having their credibility undermined and their technologies devalued.

Some quick parting advice for solar companies new to managing sustainability: Consult the Global Reporting Initiative to understand the full breadth of key issues. Know who your stakeholders are, and identify and synthesize their concerns. Make sustainability a C-level concern, so when decisions are made about maximizing the all-important parameter of per-watt productivity, sustainability opportunities and risks are appropriately considered. And finally, attend this year’s BSR Conference, and join me at the panel, ”The CSR Blueprint for Renewable Energy.”

Helping Business Adapt to Climate Change

As climate change sets in, its impacts — increasing severity of storms and weather disasters, receding snow and rivers, advancing deserts, and more frequent landslides and floods — will test companies’ ability to effectively deliver high-quality products and services.

In response, BSR is launching a series of briefs to illustrate how these changes will affect each industry and what current adaptation practices look like, beginning with an examination of the food, beverage, and agriculture sector (PDF).

Some effects of climate change will be familiar, such as crop failures and ensuing price shocks, but over the next several years, they will happen with more frequency and with even higher insurance costs. Beyond direct business impacts, companies will also need to understand how climate change will affect their most vulnerable stakeholders — the poor, citizens of developing countries, and women — who will face increasing risks due to drought, disease vectors, and the perils of migration.

The good news is that many resources on business adaptation to climate change are already available (see end of article). McKinsey & Company developed a cost curve for adaptation (PDF), for example, which highlights different adaptation options and shows that investment paybacks can be short. Also, companies do not need to choose between adapting to climate change and helping to mitigate it; the distinction between these two is rarely clear and we should do both together.

There are also tools that translate state-of-the-art climate monitoring, prediction, and imagery into practical information to help companies improve their relevant governance and decision-making processes. These tools include: the Climate Administration Knowledge Exchange (CAKE), Google Earth Engine, the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, and weADAPT. Companies can also take advantage of new market opportunities by providing solutions to enable effective adaptation.

There are several obstacles to climate adaptation, even for those most committed to proactive and responsible responses. First, the language of adaptation does not resonate well beyond specialists, so communicating on the topic is difficult. As Carmel McQuaid, Climate Change Manager at Marks & Spencer, recently told us, it’s usually more effective to engage stakeholders by communicating on the topics that matter most to them. For example, retailers would be most concerned with their ability to continue to sell high-quality products, such as coffee. For companies that thrive on innovation, positioning adaptation as part of the portfolio of trends affecting the industry is usually more effective than treating it as a standalone topic.

Another obstacle is the complexity and uncertainty of the climate. This goes for today’s weather, let alone the future of the climate more broadly, as evidenced by the fact that we are not well-equipped to handle disasters such as the recent floods in Pakistan and Australia. The fact is that we do not know how to properly prepare for disasters even when they are expected. This is partially due to the cognitive difficulty of coping with low-probability, high-impact consequences, and it is also a result of markets and organizations that don’t encourage or reward proactive preparation.

Third, our first reactions may not serve us well. Companies are at risk of taking seemingly sensible actions that may lead to adverse effects elsewhere or on others. Such “maladaptation” (PDF) can take many forms, such as combating heat by turning up the air conditioning (which would produce more greenhouse gas emissions), using desalinization technologies that pollute marine environments, raising prices or otherwise excluding vulnerable customers that depend on insurance or other essential services, or giving customers more resources without the incentives to conserve.

This is partly a result of focusing on the specific, current problem at hand while not taking into account the broader repercussions. It is also a result of failing to identify where weather risk and other familiar issues have climate change dimensions.

Identifying the Hotspots

Over the past year, we’ve been following the topic of adaptation through discussions with BSR member companies, leading and participating in workshops and forums, including the U.N. climate talks in Cancun, and examining business responses to the Carbon Disclosure Project on climate risks and opportunities.

In doing so, we’ve found that while climate change impacts are ubiquitous, there are some approaches companies can use to identify and focus on vulnerable “hotspots” in their operations, supply chains, and key markets. Hotspots emerge both as physical locations and features of the company.

In terms of location, companies with operations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America face some of the greatest risks due to the extreme water loss or flooding predicted for those regions. In addition, these areas suffer from a general lack of resources to respond to problems.

In all parts of the world, coasts, flood plains, and ecological boundary zones, including mountains and islands, are vulnerable. In many cases, cities (PDF), as well as settlements where subsistence is marginally viable, are especially risk-prone. Companies should consider how their direct operations and key partners and markets are situated in relation to these physical areas.

As for companies themselves, a key vulnerability is a dependence on natural conditions to foster crops, snow, and other climate-sensitive inputs, which are likely to migrate and, on average, degrade. In general, long-lived and fixed assets, such as mines, as well as extended supply chains and distribution routes, tend to be more exposed to physical disruption.

Finally, lack of transparency is a problem: A combination of weather events and climate-related political actions are increasingly likely to disrupt energy availability and general operations of suppliers and other partners. While companies may be able to take steps to mitigate their vulnerability, they will have a hard time doing so if they are unable to make informed judgments about their partners’ key issues, options, and systems for making decisions.

When companies look ahead, here are some issues that they should tune into:

Communicating about climate risks and opportunities: Investors expect companies to report on physical, regulatory, and other risks and opportunities of climate change through the Carbon Disclosure Project. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has also made informed reporting on climate risks a requirement. Also, working with distressed communities to cope with climate change is an increasingly material issue for annual sustainability reporting.

Meet needs responsibly: The private sector is being called upon to drive an effective response to climate change, ranging from delivering hydration and other growing basic needs, applying finance and information and communications technology to build more resilient infrastructure, and solving the potential problems of maladaptation.

To do so, businesses need to foster connections and discussions that help deliver sustainable solutions to society under dynamic and uncertain conditions.

Create climate-resilient local benefits: Many sources of risk for companies are likely to be found far away from their headquarters and centered in local communities where, for example, vulnerabilities to floods, windstorms, and droughts are growing. These communities need help with local investments to developing disaster-response systems and continuity plans. Companies should look for ways to help their community partners achieve triple-win impacts by reducing the effects of disasters, adapting to climate change, and safeguarding development gains.

Each month through July, we will produce discussion briefs for specific industry sectors on what they are and should be doing about climate adaptation. Each brief will include basic tools and references. As we produce this series, we’ll be holding discussions with BSR members and inviting feedback. We’ll also store our resources and other tools at www.bsr.org/adaptation.

Further Information

Climate change adaptation can be defined as “adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts,” including “changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change.” For more information and a list of suggested reading, visit www.bsr.org/adaptation.

First posted at GreenBiz.

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.

BSR at Cancun: What We’re Watching at the Climate Talks

The sixteenth annual UN climate treaty negotiations are underway in Cancun, Mexico, where my colleague Joyce Wong and I are looking for insights on how business can take the lead ahead of slow-moving governments.  We’re also investigating topics like how companies can best adapt to climate change and motivate people for more climate sustainable consumption.

We’ve been saying for some time that, while the international negotiations don’t directly impact companies, they have a huge indirect effect in that they guide countries’ national and local policies for energy, transportation, and land use. The overall impact of more effective climate policies should be overwhelmingly positive, because it will bring about more regulatory certainty and transparency that enable companies to productively invest in new technologies (not to mention avert potentially dangerous global change). But because climate policy is all encompassing, even positive developments will be disruptive, so it pays to pay attention.

At this point in the talks, there are clear unresolved issues, which include: (1) Finding agreed-upon principles and steps that will guide mitigation efforts following 2012, (2) Determining accountability for implementation of near-term mitigation targets and actions by the more than 70 countries making commitments in the Copenhagen Accord, and (3) Mobilizing the US$30 billion of long-term finance that countries have pledged.

However, as UN’s new climate chief, Christiana Figueras, has warned us, Cancun won’t have a “big bang” result. Decisions that are essential to the process—such as transparency protocols, a “shared vision” of collective emissions goals, and an agreement’s legal details—are likely a year or two off.

Here is what we’ll see if things go as expected over the next few weeks:

  • Country pledges in the Copenhagen Accord will be confirmed, with enhanced detail on key pieces of the spirit of the agreement and how countries will follow through, particularly on the funding pledge
  • An agriculture package launched, building on recent advances in forest protection mechanism and the already finished concise text for the agricultural sector
  • More agreement on handling of green-technology transfers
  • More clarity on the future of the climate negotiations through the UN; that is, whether and how the traditional, 200-country consensus approach, the recent movement with the Copenhagen Accord to focus on a small number of major emitters, and/or the private sector will create the most effective environments for global climate action going forward

What does this mean for business? I’ll cover that in detail in my next post. But I’ll give you a hint—it’s similar to what we said a year ago: For real results, look beyond Copenhagen Cancun.

First posted at BSR.

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.

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.