The US president may have rejected net zero, but delegates to the recent Climate Week in New York have not lost their enthusiasm. Disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions is seen as an important way to get companies to reduce their environmental impact. An announcement at Climate Week from ISO and GHG Protocol will make disclosure easier. The two organisations made a commitment to combine their leading GHG methodologies into ‘harmonized co-branded international standards’.
The EU, unlike the US, remains committed to fighting climate change. Europe has developed a whole ecosystem of overlapping Directives, targets, pathways, and commitments to get companies to do the right thing. But corporate reporting is very difficult to understand for those who are not sustainability experts and, more importantly, for consumers who want to make responsible purchases. That is why some companies are looking for an alternative metric to promote their eco credentials.
Corporate reporting is becoming obligatory for more and more companies in Europe, and it involves the summing up all of the GHG emissions linked to an organisation's operations and dividing them into different ‘Scopes’ or categories. But there is considerable overlap between the Scopes of different companies. So, one organisation’s Scope 3 emissions (from their supply chain) is also the Scope 1 (direct emissions) from each member of that supply chain. This inherent double counting makes it difficult to compare the emissions of different organisations. In contrast, a product carbon footprint (or carbon intensity as it is also known), is more widely understood. It sums the greenhouse gas emissions generated at each stage in the supply chain of a particular product to provide a ‘cradle to gate’ number for the total emissions per unit of product (usually weight). So, the carbon footprints of the same products made by different companies can be directly compared.
But which metric is better for public communication? Mercedes has made its decision. They have said that their new EV has been made with emissions that are 40% less than its non-electric predecessor. They are relying on aluminium from Norway’s Hydro which uses renewable electricity for the energy intensive smelting step. This results in a very low carbon footprint aluminium which translates into low emissions for the manufacture of the car. The carbon intensity of Norsk Hydro’s aluminium is 3 kg of CO2 emissions per kilogram of aluminium compared with a global average of 16.7 kg/kg.
As consumers ask for environmental information, regional and national differences will become apparent. There will be wide variations in the carbon footprint of the same products made in different parts of the world. Norway will not only be a leader in low carbon aluminium, but also in low carbon chemicals, as its leading refinery is investing in carbon capture and storage. In general, metals and plastics will be more emissions intensive when produced in countries using coal for power and heat or manufactured in less efficient facilities.
It will be important for all players to use the same calculation method so an accurate comparison can be made. There is currently considerable ambiguity and a difference in approach between existing ISO and GHG Protocol methods, so sustainability schemes are introducing their own simplified, auditable standards. ASI (Aluminium Stewardship Initiative) is considering an auditable carbon footprint, in response to members’ demands. ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification) in Germany has launched its ‘Carbon Footprint Certification’ and SCS Standards in the US has developed ‘SCS Certification Standard for Product Carbon Intensity and Reduction for Chemicals and Co-products’. The new announcement that ISO and GHG Protocol will be working together to produce new universal standards is good news, as this will provide a framework for sustainability schemes to work to. However, the two organisations are quite different. ISO standards are drawn up by independent scientists and GHG Protocol is run by NGOs and governments, (with industry), so agreement between the two organisations may take a long time to achieve.
As forward thinking countries and companies invest in renewable power and low carbon raw materials, they will want to communicate their achievements to citizens and consumers. It looks like they are choosing the metric first publicised by the oil giant BP over twenty years ago. Now the carbon footprint is being put on a firmer quantitative basis, organisations can use it with confidence. And it may really become a metric the public can trust.
Published: 19 October 25
