Adaptive Capability

  • Home
  • Services
    • Net Zero Roadmap & Delivery
    • Climate Risk & Opportunity Assessment
    • Strategic Adaptation Consulting
    • Adaptation Business Case
    • Adaptive Capability Maturity Model
    • Adaptation Program Management
  • Resources
    • Useful Links
    • Glossary
  • News
    • Blog
    • Press Releases
  • About
    • Team
    • Clients
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for Climate Change Adaptation / Emissions Reduction

10 August 2022 By David McEwen

The Biggest Part of Achieving Net Zero Could be the Hardest

What is a company’s largest source of greenhouse emissions? For most businesses, the answer lies in their value chains. Or rather, the tangled net that is their value mesh.

Photo by Kristin Snippe on Unsplash

Scoping the Problem

When you think about sources of a company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the first thing that might come to mind is emissions associated with its facilities: its factories, warehouses, and offices. If the company is in the transport sector (e.g. a courier company or an airline), you might think about the emissions from its vehicles. If so, you’re thinking about the company’s scope 1 and 2 emissions. 

Country level GHG measurement standards were defined by the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, which stipulates which types of gases need to be measured and the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each. The GWP assesses how powerful the warming impact of a unit of a given gas is over a specified period of time. For example, a kilogram of methane released into the atmosphere has over 80 times the warming impact of a kilogram of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Some refrigerant gases have GWPs in the tens of thousands. 

As an aside, most GHGs persist in the atmosphere for many centuries or millennia, so cumulative emissions count: if we achieved zero emissions globally tomorrow, the climate would just stop getting hotter. It wouldn’t revert to where it was, say, 100 years ago, unless we achieved negative emissions and actually reduced the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. 

In turn, corporate GHG measurement standards are defined by the GHG Protocol Initiative, which was established by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The Protocol established three “scopes” of emissions:

1.      Direct emissions associated with facilities and vehicles directly controlled by the company. Typically associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (such as natural gas, oil and its derivatives petrol and diesel) or releases of GHGs related to various chemical or biological processes, such as cement production or fertiliser use. Leaks of GHGs such as methane (natural gas) and refrigerant gases from equipment or pipelines owned by the company are also counted – these are known as “fugitive” emissions.

2.      Purchased energy in the form of electricity, steam, heating or cooling that is used by the company. A company measuring its emissions needs to understand the “emissions intensity” of the energy sources it purchases. This is assessed in terms of how many kilograms of GHGs (typically normalised as “kg CO2-equivalent”, where the warming impact of the various GHGs is baselined to the equivalent impact of a kg of carbon dioxide) are used to produce a particular unit of energy. For example, in a power grid dominated by bituminous coal electricity generation, a MWh of electricity might produce around 800kg of emissions.

3.      All other emissions associated with what the company does.Scope 3 is where it gets complicated. Because you’re needing to measure the full upstream and downstream value chain of the company. Effectively, its sphere of influence: what emissions would not be produced if that company did not exist (regardless of whether competitor firms simply sold more in that case). And when you set out to do that, you quickly realise that the term “value chain” is altogether too linear. It’s really a “value mesh”.

The Value Mesh Challenge

A manufacturing client I work with purchases over 1,000 items that go into its products, from hundreds of suppliers located around the globe. In all cases, those suppliers themselves source inputs from other companies, who in turn source inputs from other companies, and so on back to the raw materials providers. In addition to emissions directly associated with producing the input, each of those suppliers has emissions associated with their facilities, electricity, employee commuting, business travel, waste, transportation of products, and many more. It’s easy to see how the upstream value chain is more of a tangled net. 

And it’s by far my client’s largest source of emissions. These upstream sources are known as “embodied emissions”. Though it’s very difficult to measure the entirety with any accuracy, given a lack of well-regulated emissions data for many companies; and a purchaser typically having limited influence over their suppliers (unless they happen to be a giant in their sector, like Coles or Woolworths are in Australian FMCG).  

Indeed, contractually it may be almost impossible to get information about a supplier’s ownsuppliers, let alone untangling any further up the mesh. As such, measurement of upstream value chain emissions typically relies on proxy metrics, using datasets that associate an emissions factor to dollars spent on different types of supplies. 

This simplification may mask wide variation between the relative emissions intensity of different companies producing the same supplies. For example, if one aluminium smelter uses renewable electricity while another uses coal, their emissions intensity for a kg of aluminium would be chalk and cheese.

When Downstream Counts More

On the other hand, for some industries, including fossil fuel energy supply and automotive manufacturing, the largest source of their scope 3 emissions is the downstream value chain, particularly customers’ use of their products. In this case, it is relatively easy to see that a company that exclusively produces electric vehicles rather than petrol/diesel should have lower scope 3 emissions (knowing that charging the vehicles’ battery from grid power largely sourced from coal generation is typically less emissions intensive per kilometre travelled than even an efficient internal combustion engine). 

In terms of an electric vehicle manufacturers’ overall emissions, the embodied emissions of the materials used to make the battery and electric motors need to be compared with the equivalent emissions for a petrol/diesel vehicle’s engine, starter motor, radiator, gearbox, fuel tank, battery, etc. Typically, an EV is somewhat heavier than an otherwise equivalent internal combustion model, but only by about 10%. Nevertheless, all of these factors, along with the end-of-life arrangements – such as the recyclability of the vehicle’s parts – need to be taken into account in assessing the manufacturers’ total emissions. 

A franchise business model might also have large downstream scope 3 emissions, since franchisees’ operations and supplies count as part of its sphere of influence, even if the master franchisor has a relatively small direct footprint.

Investment Emissions

Another potentially large source of a company’s scope three emissions, and one that is seldom considered, is its investments. Where are its free cashflow and reserves invested? If they’re in deposit accounts of banks that lend to emissions intensive industries (such as fossil fuel firms), or in equities or bonds issued by emissions intensive firms, then that could be material (in which case it should require disclosure). Financial services firms have come under intense scrutiny over the last decade given their facilitation of high emitting activities, and companies with large cast reserves are starting to be examined by various think tanks and activist groups.

If You Have Value Chain Influence, Use It Wisely

Purchasing power is a function of how much a company buys as a proportion of the total market for the particular good or service. As mentioned earlier, the supermarket giants in  Australia control a significant proportion of the total spend on entire product lines and industries. Companies with high purchasing power are in the position to transform industries towards low emissions intensity. Or to force a switch to low emissions substitutes. 

But your company needn’t be a behemoth to have positive influence. Simply modifying your standard RFP (request for proposal) procurement clauses to make a supplier’s commitment to sourcing its electricity from renewable sources a desirable (or even mandatory) requirement can make a difference. If nothing else, it will make that supplier think about it. 

In addition to renewable electricity, some key questions to ask major suppliers could include:

  • Outline [supplier’s] plan to achieve net zero GHG emissions including the target date and emissions reduction achievements to date.
  • Has the net zero plan been endorsed by the board and publicised? Is it aligned with other strategic plans? Is executive remuneration tied to the achievement of the plan? To what extent has funding been committed to implement the plan?
  • Is the plan endorsed by the Science Based Targets Initiative?
  • What proportion of the planned move to net zero is accomplished by genuine emissions reduction vs use of purchased carbon offset credits?
  • Explain the extent to which scope 3 value chain emissions are included in the net zero target. How they have been measured or estimated? What upstream/downstream emissions sources are excluded?
  • Have your major suppliers made net zero commitments at least equivalent to yours?

These types of queries will provide a useful reference to baseline and track upstream value chain progress over time. Including contractual clauses requiring updates and evidence of key suppliers’ emissions reduction achievements is also useful. 

Measuring and driving down value chain emissions is a critical step towards delivering net zero emissions. But it requires effort and tenacity.

David McEwen is a Director at Adaptive Capability, providing TCFD-aligned climate risk, and net-zero emissions (NZE) strategy, program and project management. He works with businesspeople, designers and engineers to deliver impactful change, and has delivered dozens of property-related projects. His book, Navigating the Adaptive Economy, was released in 2016.

Filed Under: Climate Change Adaptation, Emissions Reduction, Supply Chain

9 June 2021 By David McEwen

Climate of Care. A New Risk for Corporate Australia

In a landmark judgement, Australian Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg recently established that the Commonwealth Government has a duty of care to protect Australian children from future harms related to climate change. 

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

Accepting evidence that was uncontested by the legal team representing the Minister for the Environment, Bromberg agreed that a particular coal expansion project (the subject of an injunction sought by a group of teenage applicants) would incrementally contribute to future climate harms if approved. While stopping short of granting the injunction to prevent the Minister from approving the mine, the judge was very clear that such a decision would be open to judicial review given the facts established in the case. 

Corporate Australia Take Notice

By extension, this principle could now be applied to any corporate action or inaction that causes an increase in the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet at an unprecedented rate. Activists are lining up and crowd funding to apply this principle, along with principles established by favourable litigation offshore. And they’re no longer your stereotypical activists either: respected groups such as doctors, parents, farmers, engineers, lawyers, athletes and many other professional groups are engaged in a global version of “whack a mole”, fighting emissions intensive projects and exploring litigation to bring governments and corporates to account to achieve the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement.

On the same day as the Bromberg judgement, for example, a court in The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell to slash its emissions by 45% by 2030 (off 2019 levels). Not just its direct scope 1 and 2 emissions, but also the scope 3 emissions associated with its supply chain and, most significantly, customers’ end use of its products. 

The 45% ruling reflects the global average emissions cuts needed by 2030 to maintain a chance of limiting global heating to the safe(-ish) level of 1.5oC: for developed countries such as Australia the target is significantly higher. For example, updating the Climate Change Authority’s 2014 methodology (which recommended reductions of 40% to 60% by 2030), researchers found earlier this year that – due to minimal emissions reductions in the intervening years, and the cumulative impact of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – Australia’s 2030 target has increased to 74% off the 2005 baseline.

As such, climate litigation must now be considered a significant corporate risk. While both the aforementioned cases are subject to appeal, the global mood is clearly shifting. Companies that are not seen to be making serious and genuine efforts to cut their emissions, across their entire value chains, are at risk of actions that could scuttle expansion plans; render parts of their business unviable; and sink asset valuations. Governments may be compelled to refuse project approvals that were until recently seen as legitimate and societally beneficial.

It’s not just fossil fuel firms that are under the microscope. Major energy users such as airlines and logistics firms; big organisations with massive supply chains such as supermarket and FMCG giants (whose size means they have the influence to transform industries); producers of emissions intensive building products and the construction giants who use them; and “big meat” agribusinesses, are just a few sectors that will increasingly feel the heat for their actions or inactions. 

Next Steps for Boards

The implications for boards? 

  1. Identify, assess and evaluate your physical and transitional climate risks. 
  2. Understand the emissions intensity of your supply chain, assets, processes, products and services. 
  3. Adopt Science Based emissions reduction Targets (SBT) that go beyond greenwash to encompass upstream and downstream scope 3 emissions, and establish delivery accountabilities. 
  4. Accept that purchased offsets are a complement – not a substitute – for genuine, near term emissions reduction.
  5. Appreciate that achieving genuine emissions reduction may require transforming your business model or product range. 

Above all, embrace climate change as an opportunity, rather than a threat. Accept that the business environment is changing, it’s gathering pace, and it’s already unstoppable. Treat climate change as a disruptor, much like digital has been for the past two decades. Avoid having a Kodak moment: neither size nor venerable history will protect your organisation from the shift to a net zero emissions economy.

Filed Under: Climate Litigation, Climate Risk, Emissions Reduction Tagged With: Climate Litigation, Climate Risk, Emissions Reduction

Recent Posts

  • The Biggest Part of Achieving Net Zero Could be the Hardest
  • Climate of Care. A New Risk for Corporate Australia
  • Getting Off Gas – Commercial Buildings
  • Getting Off Gas
  • Climate Ambition is Rising – What Does it Mean for Your Business?

Search

Connect with us

Contact Details

Adaptive Capability
L20, Darling Park Tower 2
201 Sussex St
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia
1800 CAPABLE (1800 227 225)

info@adaptcap.com

Join the conversation

Tweets by @AdaptCap

Copyright Adaptive Capability © 2023 All Rights Reserved