1.6 Tools: Measuring Our Footprint
As you consider how you are going to help your company be more sustainable, keep this fact in mind: Every decision brings consequences. And most decisions involve tradeoffs. To make more sustainable choices—and ultimately build a sustainable business model—you need to develop measures that help you grasp each decision’s environmental impact. This understanding will help you make consequences and tradeoffs visible, a key to making progress toward a positive triple bottom line.
Three attributes describe the measurement system you need to develop: You must be able to measure your sustainability impact accurately, in a timely way, and at low costs. Three fast-growing and high-impact initiatives can help: Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, and the Sustainability Consortium.
Science Based Targets
The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a partnership among leading sustainability organizations, including the United Nations, World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The SBTi was established to pursue the “urgent” need to better understand how to fight climate change and curb temperature rise. The goal: Help companies grasp what they need to do to reduce emissions to achieve a net-zero carbon world by 2050. SBTi’s vision is …
The SBTi helps companies by …
-
Defining and promoting best practice in emissions reductions that align with climate science.
-
Providing technical assistance to companies in their pursuit of science-based targets.
-
Bringing a team of experts together to independently assess and validate targets.
Simply put, the SBTi helps companies chart, and maintain, a course of action that will limit warming to the 1.5°C goal established in the Paris Agreement. SBTi works closely with CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) to assess progress toward targets.
The good news: By 2023, over 4000 companies (a third of the global economy’s market capitalization) had committed to set emissions reductions goals via the SBTi. One final point: SBTi focuses not just on sustainability but on sustainable results. Long-term success depends on setting aggressive, yet realistic, targets for GHG emissions reductions. As SBTi’s corporate partners document a proven path—i.e., show they can be both economically profitable and environmentally conscious—progress toward sustainability will accelerate.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
Have you ever wondered, “What is my environmental footprint?” To find out, go online and put one of the many footprint calculators to work. As you do, evaluate how the calculator works. The assumptions used to build the calculator determine how accurate it is. A good calculator will help you identify the best opportunities to reduce your footprint, and contribute to a greener world.
When companies want to evaluate their footprint, they turn to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), the world’s most widely used standard for GHG reporting. In fact, nine of ten Fortune 500 companies reporting to the CDP use the GHCP. The GHCP has established standards for diverse industry sectors as well as for countries. The GHGP also provides the tools and online training you need to assess your company’s footprint at three different levels, referred to as scopes (see Figure 1.10).
-
Scope 1: Emissions your company directly produces.
-
Scope 2: Emissions from purchased energy such as electricity and heating and cooling.
-
Scope 3: Emissions from everything else in the organization and its supply chain. This includes business travel and commuting, waste disposal, environmental impact of products sold, and purchased transportation and logistics services.
Most companies struggle to accurately measure Scope 1 emissions. Few even try to tackle Scope 3. Honda, one of the first companies to try to assess all three emission scopes, demonstrates the value of the process, even if it isn’t 100% accurate. When Honda first evaluated Scope 3 emissions (in 2012), 195.88 million tons (87% of Honda's total) were generated by drivers of its vehicles. The implication was clear: Honda needed to design cars with better gas mileage and help drivers build fuel-economizing habits.
By 2020, emissions from customers driving Honda vehicles had dropped to 44.18 million tons (91.6% of Honda's total). Impressively, Honda had improved in all areas. For instance, Honda redesigned parts and containers for improved space utilization, began using more fuel efficient delivery trucks, and switched more freight to rail. Honda continues to look for opportunities to reduce emissions.
Have you ever wondered, “What are the downsides of living better?” The question sounds a bit odd, but it is an emerging talking point in today’s climate debate. Listen for the words, “loss and damage.”
Simply put, poor countries want rich countries to compensate them for damage caused by natural disasters. Their reasoning:
-
Natural disasters are bigger, more frequent, and more costly than ever.
-
Climate change, especially the manmade variety, is the cause.
-
Because the wealthy West industrialized first, they should pay for the “loss and damage.”
Here’s where the discussion becomes controversial. Poor countries argue that computer models estimate the impact of GHGs in specific disasters. Rich countries contest such models’ findings, noting that the models have been shown to overlook fundamental inputs. Your takeaway: Modeling complex systems like the climate is a daunting task—one that invites debate.
There is a second issue. If poor countries want compensation for the downsides of economic development, will they acknowledge, and pay for, its benefits? Billions of the world’s poor have been lifted out of poverty by investment and trade from the wealthy West. And that doesn’t count the benefits of better nutrition and health care—or the West’s billions of dollars of foreign aid and disaster assistance.
Loss and damage is becoming the “third pillar” of the climate story:
-
Mitigation, i.e., reducing emissions
-
Adaptation, i.e., learning to live with future impacts
-
Compensation
The debate is already loud and raucous, but it may just be getting started. Where do you stand? Can you make a persuasive case?
The Sustainability Consortium
Did you know that consumer goods account for 60% of global GHG emissions? Consumer goods are also responsible for much of the world’s deforestation and water depletion. Now for a reality check: To save the planet, are you ready to give up the consumer goods that enhance your standard of living? Most people answer, “No!”
The Sustainability Consortium (TSC) was formed so that you don’t have to make the choice between your own well-being and a vibrant ecology. Consider TSC’s vision and mission.
-
Vision. We envision a world in the near future where we can experience the benefits of consumer products without causing harm to people or going beyond the environmental limits of our planet.
-
Mission. To use the best sustainability science to help companies make the everyday products we use better and more sustainable.
Simply put, TSC is global non-profit organization that exists to make all consumer products more sustainable. TSC proclaims, “We work to enable a world where people can lead fulfilled lives in a way that decouples their impacts on people and the planet.”
To do this, the world’s leading retailers have joined forces with the most-experienced NGOs to “translate the science of sustainability into quantifiable metrics and practical tools.” TSC helps companies benchmark best practice, adopt key metrics, and measure progress toward goals. TSC also helps members assess suppliers’ sustainability practices. Over 2,000 companies worldwide have adopted TSC tools to improve practices across the supply chain (see Table 1.2).
| Buyers | Suppliers |
|---|---|
| Identify best-in-class sustainability practices | Identify opportunities to enhance SC efficiency |
| Identify sustainable suppliers | Assess and document sustainability performance |
| Identify opportunities for market advantage | Enhanced communication with retail customers |
| Identify and manage high-risk suppliers | Identify SC risks |
The bottom line: We are starting to ask better questions and put the measurement tools in place to make better decisions. Momentum is beginning to surge, but much more effort, and some argue money, is needed to define sustainability’s proven path.
Want to try our built-in assessments?
Use the Request Full Access button to gain access to this assessment.