To watch this event, you can rent or buy the video here.
Thursday 11th June saw The Future Economy Network run an interactive webinar on Coping with Carbon: What about Scope 3?, a complex topic that many were extremely keen to understand and discuss. The event was attended by over 50 delegates from a diverse range of industries, all prepared to dive into detailed seminars and networking on the potential changes available for the business community.
The team introduced everyone to the virtual events space and gave quick training on how to make the most out of the interactive webinar and networking opportunities. Once everyone was used to the space and had networked a little, the seminars began. Katherine Piper, Director of The Future Economy Network, welcomed attendees, highlighting the benefits of joining the Network and also sharing updates about The Future Economy Network’s Carbon Neutral Hub in Bristol, Future Leap. Katherine also briefly ran through the plans for The Festival of Sustainable Business, where you can check out the video here.
First up, we welcomed Owen Hewlett from Gold Standard. Owen set the scene for the event, splitting his talk between the context of high civil society’s perspective on the topic (examples include WWF and Gold Standard) and an introduction on scope three emissions. He highlighted how messaging for companies is enhanced by networks such as this one, and the importance of keeping each other accountable and engaged. Owen introduced Gold Standard, a Swiss company founded by WWF, which works to accelerate progress to the Paris Climate Agreement. Owen suggested we are living in the “Science Based Era” – the science is now crystal clear, and what the IPCC tells us is non-negotiable no matter what our feelings, what our Governments do, or what happens during a pandemic. He explained the two components of what “Global Net Zero” means; 1) achieving the 1.5 degree global warming scenario target and 2) ensuring we balance to Net Zero via carbon sinks. He emphasised the importance of everyone taking personal and collective responsibility for the problem – it is up to us, and we must have science-based accountability (if your company is not on the journey to becoming truly carbon neutral, then your business is damaging the planet). He also mentioned that no one needs to leave the event knowing everything about Scope 3 and how to fix it – what is important is that everyone commits to the journey. He stressed that offsetting should be as well as, not instead of carbon reduction targets to the 1.5 degree target. Owen cited the work of the Science-Based Targets Initiative and stressed the importance of companies having a framework to follow. He finished his presentation highlighting scope three examples, the importance of data, useful resources, and good practice case studies.
Next up, we welcomed Lorraine Tew from Microsoft. Lorraine opened by explaining how Microsoft approach sustainability. They look at four areas (carbon, waste, eco systems and water) across five sectors of the organisation (policy, operations, customers and partners, products and services, and employees). In January, Microsoft announced that they would be carbon negative by 2030, which includes their scope three emissions from their 2017 baseline. They are shifting to 100% renewable energy, which includes going back to their energy consumption since conception in 1975. Finally, they have committed to investing in negative emission technology. Lorraine highlighted how data driven behaviour and transparency are key to Microsoft’s sustainability goals. They anticipate 100k metric tonnes of scope one emissions, 4M metric tonnes of scope two emissions, and 12M metric tonnes of scope three emissions in 2020. This shows just how big scope three is and what an opportunity they have to reduce emissions down their supply chain of over 1000 global partners. She then used an infographic to show the size of the challenge; to achieve against their 2030 carbon negative target will require a 55% reduction in scope three emissions and then the maintenance of this reduction as cloud usage increases. They will ensure achievement against this target by taking a lifecycle and circular economy approach to their products and services.
We then welcomed Stuart Woodham from Resource Futures, who discussed the scope 3 emissions associated with employee travel and commuting. Stuart gave a brief overview of the organisation, an environmental consultancy which is B-Corp accredited and has been carbon neutral since 2015. He then went on to show the calculation sheets used to record staff travel. He highlighted that although it may look complex, one just needs to be organised and methodical and then it is entirely manageable. He gave some potential data sources (such as All Star fuel card, Trainline for business, google maps) and explained how to select the best method (fuel method, distance method or spending method). Resource Futures faced challenges when they first starting analysing their employee travel data, because the accounts were not specific enough. They resolved this by working closely with their finance team to change the way expenses were processed. Stuart highlighted how they quantify employee commuting by sending an annual online survey to their staff, which gives them the opportunity to spot trends and work on minimising any negative impacts. He finished his presentation by showing how to manage this aspect of scope three emissions:
1. Control (examples include in-house travel and only allowing high emission travel to be authorised by the Director)
2. Invest (examples include high-quality video conferencing software and pool bicycle schemes)
3. Influence (as the biggest method, examples include engaging clients, allowing flexi-time, cycle to work scheme, secure bike storage and limiting car parking).
Finally, we welcomed Simon and Rob from Carbonlens/The Future Economy Network and Grn Sportswear respectively. Simon introduced the presentation by explaining the carbon emissions from a product in use and then its end of life emissions. He used examples of the carbon emissions from washing machines, electronics, tyres and t shirts, and then explained how these emissions in its life cycle can be reduced primarily by “design for environment” (DFE). Rob then explained what Grn are up to in relation to this, in particular the t-shirt. GRN set up in 2014 and exist to challenge the industry, demonstrating that you can make good, ethical products (in their case sportswear). GRN has set a net zero goal and aims to be fully circular by 2022. They will achieve this by having recycled materials (reducing their carbon emissions), and manufacturing as locally as possible (reducing transport emissions). For a product’s in-use emissions, Grn Sportswear have looked at life extension, giving eco-wash instructions, and fabric treatment. Rob ended by explaining the company’s circularity actions for a t-shirt’s end of life and cited the use of Simon’s Datacollator to track their carbon footprint, more information can be found here.
We continued with our new mini Q&A’s after every speaker, which created a continuous buzz throughout the event. The seminar finished with some insightful and high-level questions to the panel as a group. Network members It’s A Shovel and Adaptavate gave a 60 second pitch - a popular opportunity at these events that continues given their virtual nature. Finally, everyone was able to network in different groups using facilitated break out rooms, before the event finished.
A huge thank you to the speakers and attendees of this event, without this support we would not be able to do these wonderful inspiring events.
For questions that were left unanswered in the live event due to time restrictions, our speakers kindly sent us some responses and they are copied below.
For Stuart Woodham, Resource Futures: “What formal standards and regulation govern these calculations? It's important everyone follows comparable methodologies so organisations can get the right help, and consumers/clients can trust statements”
For mandatory reporting it is indeed important to follow relevant guidelines and laws.
For claims that will stand up to scrutiny in the public domain it is also important to adhere to formal standards. Internationally recognised standards include:
· PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services
· ISO 14064_1 – Specification with guidance at the organisation level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals.
· Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard 2011
· ISO 14067:2018 Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification
Resource Futures calculates its carbon footprint and offsets what it cannot eliminate on a voluntary basis. We align our calculations to UK Government Reporting Guidelines. And we use the Government conversion factors for company reporting of greenhouse gas emissions to convert, for example, distance travelled by an average petrol car to kg of CO2e.
For internally reported benchmarking and optimisations of processes we often find that our clients are satisfied with a less formal, quicker, and cheaper approach - but which still conforms to ‘lifecycle thinking’. For example, comparing a traditional linear value chain (manufacture, use, dispose) with a more circular one (manufacture, use, prepare for reuse / recycle, use again…). Such a fit-for-purpose approach is helpful for simple ballpark outputs and exploring the potential impact of high-level system, materials changes, process changes, and identifying hotspots. We often turn into user-friendly Excel-based tools so that clients can generate further calculations in-house. The appropriate approach is something we discuss up-front.
(Also answered by Owen Hewlett, Gold Standard):
The GHG Protocol is the pre-eminent accounting framework and underpins SBT, both of which we endorse strongly. That said, they are generic frameworks and industry/sector/commodity best practice is essential. Hence a combination of GHGP and industry specific approaches are recommended – the challenge with that is dealing with any inconsistency between the two. I would say most industry approaches are based on GHGP and ISO14000 series and so should largely be consistent with them, if not then the general principle of ‘is this in line with science’ is the rule of thumb (though acknowledge in some cases you may well need advice or to do your reading!)
“If a business with plant, mines etc goes bust, who ends up decommissioning the buildings and cleaning up the site? There is a programme on TV called 'Abandoned Engineering' which gives us a flavour of the problem.”
(Owen Hewlett, Gold Standard)
While I definitely advocate for taking direct responsibility for your actions I think this is an area where policy needs to help too. The reality of this problem is not an ‘if’ as its already happened in many industries and was handled horribly. For individual companies its always worth thinking about the potential downside to supply switch as it can be counterintuitive – for example some companies will switch from areas of high deforestation to areas of low, to show that their supply is impacting less. That makes sense at the micro level but what that does is make pariahs out of areas that have deforestation issues and leaves them behind. Sometimes leadership involves taking responsibility for the social aspects too, so much as you can.
For Lorraine Tew, Microsoft: “Are Microsoft looking at recyclable and waste material products to cut mining and raw material carbon cost?”
Yes, Microsoft’s cloud hardware team, as part of our circular cloud initiatives, look at every material in the hardware and aim to eliminate any that are not recyclable, e.g. single use material, hazardous material or substances of concern. We are also designing in increased recycled content and working with suppliers to agree minimum and optimum percentages of recycled content in our specifications and we are focussed on lightweighting certain materials to reduce embedded emissions. This also applies to our packaging materials used for transportation. So lots of collaborative conversations with suppliers!
For Lorraine Tew, Microsoft: “What methodology is Microsoft using to assess Scope 3 emissions? LCA process based/ input-output economic model method or hybrid? and particularly for the historic emissions?”
Microsoft historically used DEFRA calculations and models based on spend as part of our calculation methodology however as discussed on the call today we are moving to more detailed product LCA based approacheds for products and working with suppliers for complete and consistent primary data linked to other categories such as transportation and distribution. We are continually looking at our data collection and calculation methodologies to improve accuracy where we can and we align to the GHG Protocols and work with 3rd parties specialists to verify our calculation methodologies.
For Lorraine Tew, Microsoft: “you mentioned supplier engagement and requiring them to provide accurate reporting, how far up your supply chain does this engagement go? For us there are many agents that supply our main wholesalers, would we need to engage all of these agents too?”
Currently we work with our immediate tiers of suppliers and therefore the data gathering and reporting requirements have to be cascaded through the supplier tiers.
Is there a place to recycle / reuse data tapes?
(Lorraine Tew, Microsoft)
Insurgio media have been recommended to me in a past role, they are a Welsh company. I have not worked with them and so cannot personally recommend from any experience however they may be worth reviewing.