According to the recent report of NewClimate Research Institute, the number of carbon-neutral (net zero emission) enterprises has tripled, from 500 at the end of 20 19 to 1565 in 2020. At the same time, it is estimated that the carbon credit market may reach $65,438+0.4 trillion per year in the next 20 years, which is about 5,000 times higher than the $247.9 million in 2020.
Although our world urgently needs enterprises to fundamentally reduce carbon emissions in order to realize the vision of global net zero emissions by 2050, thus limiting the serious threat posed by climate change. However, as organizations compete to declare the implementation of "carbon neutrality" strategy, some common misunderstandings about carbon neutrality are also emerging. These misunderstandings not only show that enterprises have a very amateur understanding of "carbon neutrality", but also have a negative impact on their foreign exchanges or corporate image, threatening the future of our planet.
The following are five mistakes that companies need to avoid when releasing a "carbon neutral" strategy:
Companies need to stop picking their sources of greenhouse gas emissions and only calculate the emissions they want to calculate or can only calculate. Many enterprises realize their so-called "carbon neutrality" vision by excluding the emissions of scope 3 from the carbon neutrality strategy, which seriously weakens their influence on the upstream and downstream industrial chain of products.
The greenhouse gas protocol issued by the World Resources Institute is the most widely used international standard for understanding, quantifying and managing greenhouse gas emissions. The standard divides greenhouse gas emissions into three ranges. In view of the greenhouse gas emissions of enterprises, there are some laws and regulations in various countries that force enterprises to report the range of 1 (direct emissions) and the range of 2 (indirect emissions from purchasing energy). However, the law does not require most companies to report emissions in scope 3, including indirect emissions from supply chain, product transportation and product disposal.
The more authoritative IPCC defines the emissions of range 1, range 2 and range 3 as follows:
This selective performance of responsibilities means that we may let the vast majority of emissions get out of control. According to CDP data, the company's range 3 emissions are on average 1 1.4 times of its operating emissions. A report of the World Economic Forum (WEF) found that only eight supply chains-including food, fast-moving consumer goods and fashion-account for more than 50% of global emissions. In the fashion field, 85% of product emissions come from the supply chain. In the field of fast-moving consumer goods, this figure is 90%!
Case Study on Carbon Neutralization of Zero Carbon Jun Dry Goods Enterprise (II): Microsoft cited Microsoft's carbon emissions in 2020: the total carbon dioxide emissions were 116400 tons, in which the interval of11.8/kloc. Case Study on Carbon Neutralization of Dry Goods Enterprises (III): GM's emissions in the general analysis of interval 3 are even more amazing: 97.66% of the total emissions of 255 million tons in 20 19 are in interval 3.
Nigel Topping, Britain's senior special envoy for climate action, recently described decarbonization of supply chain as a "game changer" for the impact of corporate climate action. He explicitly called on enterprises to be honest in the whole value chain: "Solving the emissions of scope 3 is the basis for enterprises to achieve credible climate change commitments."
Although it is not easy to deal with range 3 emissions, it is meaningless to play carbon neutral strategy in terms of carbon emission responsibility. Since 70% of consumers are more interested in the impact at the product level than at the company level, ignoring scope 3 may also offend your customer base.
Enterprises must announce a clear low-carbon path and be actively responsible for it.
In its latest carbon budget report, the British Climate Change Committee emphasized that "the 2020s must be a decisive decade of progress and action", but now it seems that many carbon-neutral strategies lack urgency. Some people describe the date of achieving "net zero emission" in 2050 as "a very favorable date for politicians", and it may be the same for enterprises.
According to a recent report, only 8% of companies that put forward the strategy of "carbon neutrality" have set medium-term goals. Therefore, setting a "carbon neutral" date is not enough. What we need to see is a more ambitious timetable, medium-term emission reduction targets and transparent progress reports. If companies start trying to change the status quo after 30 years, they may not be able to make changes quickly at all, or changes in leadership will undermine their commitments. Don't forget that many large enterprises have violated their environmental goals, including their commitment to end deforestation by 2020.
Take BP and Shell for example. Both companies declare "net zero emissions by 2050" and claim to be "climate leaders". But if you look at the situation behind the corporate social responsibility report, you will notice that they plan to exploit and burn fossil fuels by more than 120% than keeping the global temperature below the upper limit of 1.5℃. In other places, some brands are sincerely approaching net zero emission. For example, when Danone promised to be carbon neutral by 2050 in 20 15, they announced measurable medium-term targets, including reducing emissions by 25% by 2020 and specific 2030 targets in the range of 1, 2 and 3.
A survey last year found that 64% of the British public did not know the concept of "net zero emission" (carbon neutrality), and only 3% of the British public felt that they were "very familiar" with net zero. We are bombarded with all kinds of nouns every day. Carbon neutral, net zero, zero carbon, positive climate, climate neutral and so on. This is especially true for various enterprises in China. Many enterprises that don't know the concept of "carbon neutrality" blindly set radical carbon neutrality goals as a gimmick to fool consumers. (Absolutely not for a listed company whose main business is animal husbandry and a listed company that wants to change its name to "carbon neutral")
For enterprises that have just started carbon neutrality, IPCC's definition of carbon neutrality (net zero emission of carbon dioxide) is a basic starting point: "the balance between carbon dioxide discharged into the atmosphere and carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere". If you have a reason to go beyond the goal of carbon neutrality, it is very important to convey this to consumers in easy-to-understand language.
It is very important for enterprises to achieve "carbon neutrality". Remember: you can't call yourself a "climate leader" if no one imitates you. A recent study by Client Earth investigated the annual reports of FTSE 250 companies and concluded that when it comes to "carbon neutrality". When it comes to goals, "meaningful details about the assumptions, methods and strategies of goals are often limited or missing".
The key measure is to improve the public disclosure of information, because not all "zero emissions" have the same status. Enterprises can choose to achieve "carbon neutrality" by taking emission reduction as the leading way in line with "1.5 c future", or they can choose to pay attention to removing carbon dioxide from the air and rely on offset to achieve "carbon neutrality". Because the results of the overall impact are very different, enterprises must separately announce emission reduction and removal targets.
Enterprises must honestly face the following questions: How much carbon emissions will they cause in the future? How many problems will be solved by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? Dig deep, how will enterprises reduce emissions? Will it turn to renewable energy? Do you want to use recycled materials? Is the business model changing? Speaking of the goal of removing carbon dioxide, will planting trees in another part of the world be realized? Is investing in carbon neutrality a breakthrough technology? Or support or create local compensation projects?
Science-based goals provide a clear framework for organizations to formulate carbon emission reduction targets. As early as 20 15, the scientific emission reduction target initiative (SBTi) was established to evaluate and verify the future emission target of 1.5, and now they are formulating the "carbon neutral" standard.
In 2020, the Antarctic survey of British enterprises found that only 1 1% enterprises set emission reduction targets verified by SBTi. It can be seen that enterprises have missed the opportunity to gain great credibility and influence in this respect. Cooperation with SBTi means that enterprises should be publicly responsible for clear carbon emission reduction strategies and medium-term goals. This is what we need to see "climate leadership".
Tesco is the first FTSE 100 index company to set scientific goals, with the goal of achieving global net zero emissions by 2050. In Britain, their goal is to achieve net zero emissions by 2035. By publicly reporting their targets, they set a good standard for the accountability of carbon emission targets.
Offset should be the last part of the carbon management plan. If someone thinks that carbon offset is a license for "business as usual", then they should consider the impact of over-reliance on carbon offset.
Greta, a Swedish environmental protection girl, caught the core of the problem in her speech in Davos in 2020: We are not asking you to "offset emissions" by paying others to plant trees in Africa and other places, while at the same time, forests in Amazon and other places are being cut down at will.
The act of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere cannot replace the emission reduction actions of enterprises, and there is no panacea at this point. If large enterprises do not feel the urgency of making major operational changes, then their "carbon neutral" plan may be more than just a show.
Faced with the serious social and economic risks brought by the climate crisis, it seems redundant to put forward a "business case" for real carbon neutral action. For those who regard carbon management strategy as a cost rather than an investment, the research of the Global Economic and Climate Committee shows that carbon management strategy will bring them huge benefits. The report points out that bold climate action can bring at least $26 trillion in economic benefits and create more than 65 million jobs by 2030.
No matter what the driving force is, the need for enterprises to take immediate action is obvious. Carbon neutrality provides a good opportunity for enterprises to better reflect on their own construction, especially the sustainable development strategy. With clear and operable milestones and honest and scientific methods, it is hoped that enterprises can avoid "green washing" and bring about real and necessary changes.