Carrots, Decarbonisation, Earthquake, Net zero & Websites

1. More carrots please 

A new analysis this week by the NewClimate Institute , which examined 24 multinational companies that are part of the Race to Zero campaign, has left us wondering whether all scrutiny of climate commitments is good scrutiny. The analysis identified weak 2030 commitments, lack of clarity in long-term plans and suggests that only five companies had “high integrity” plans, with the remaining majority falling short.  

Of course, these results are disappointing, and highlight several pitfalls in terms of transparency and credibility of company plans towards #netzero. But we do have some sympathy with the companies named in the research for a number of reasons. First, there has only been real clarity on what credible voluntary climate leadership looks like since late 2021 with the release of the Science Based Targets Net Zero Standard, and particularly the communication of what that looks like since the UN’s report from November 2022 describing the public communications that should underpin net zero plans (you can read more about this in our Friday 5 story from last year). Catching up with changing stakeholder expectations does not happen overnight.  

Second, for many companies, the path to net zero remains somewhat unknown, even if the end destination is clear. For most companies, 2030-35 is a reasonable timeframe for business planning, but beyond this there are many uncertainties. The surrounding structures, technologies and innovations that will enable us to achieve net zero within businesses and across society are not yet clear.  

#Greenwashing isn’t acceptable, but there’s a risk that, in a world where there are many sticks and few carrots, increasing scrutiny could deter companies from taking the necessary steps forward, or lead to green hushing, where companies decide not to say (or do) anything at all for fear of adverse scrutiny. There is also a lack of scrutiny for companies with no commitments or actions, who are thus allowed to continue with business as usual, while those taking some action, albeit limited, are penalised. We need sticks, but we also need carrots, and we need to be shining more of a light on those doing nothing, while finding ways to support those companies finding their way through a challenging landscape.  

2. Mixed messages

It’s a confusing time to be a good business. 

The UK government announces that decarbonisation offers a “historic opportunity” – weeks after approving the first new coal mine in 30 years. The world’s largest investor warns company directors it will vote against their re-election if they don’t address climate change – and yet that same investor derives much of its wealth from petroleum sales. A world-first lawsuit is filed against Shell ’s Board of Directors for failing to manage climate risk, the same week that Shell announced its highest profits in a century. 

These mixed signals are allowing the biggest emitters to backtrack on crucial commitments. bp has already announced it is watering down its 2030 emissions targets from a 35-40% reduction to just 20-30%, because of the increased demand for oil and gas following the Ukraine invasion. Yet the IPCC couldn’t be clearer: limiting warming to 1.5°C requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and to reduce by 43% by 2030. BP’s previous targets weren’t ambitious enough; now, this diluted version falls far short of what is needed. What’s more, a 2022 analysis found that by implementing existing energy saving recommendations, the UK could eliminate the need to replace Russian oil and gas as early as next year. 

Expecting fossil fuel companies to ‘do the right thing’ for the sake of it is misguided. Even amidst soaring demand for clean, cheap renewables, BP invests just 2.5% of its record profits into renewables and low-carbon energy. These businesses are responding to (and lobbying for) a financial, regulatory and social environment that still permits dangerous levels of fossil fuel investment expansion. Investors must stick to their guns and send a message that soon-to-be extinct technologies do not represent a sound investment. In fact, analysis from The Economist suggests that the war has given renewable energy a significant “strategic and economic edge” over higher carbon alternatives.  And governments must send a clear signal that they are committed to a clean, green future – from removing the blockers to onshore wind to supporting energy-saving measures in homes and businesses.  

3. Wash, cut and save the planet 

You’ve probably thought about the carbon footprint of your diet, your home and even your holidays. But one thing you might not have considered is the climate impact of your hair – specifically, the time you spend in the salon having it tended to. But while you might not have, our friends at Net Zero Now (NZN) certainly have.  

Together with corporate partner L'Oréal , NZN has just announced the launch of its Net Zero Salons Programme to guide salons through the process of calculating, tracking and reducing carbon emissions. According to NZN the average salon visit produces 3.1kg of greenhouse gas emissions – a figure they hope to reduce to just 2kg by helping salons transition to renewable energy, improve waste treatment and encourage employees to travel more sustainably, among other actions.  

The Net Zero Salons Programme adds to NZN’s growing portfolio of sector-specific guidance available for SMEs wanting to take climate action, which includes resources for pubs and bars, restaurants, breweries, accountants and legal firms. We’ve stressed the importance of these kinds of resources before but can’t emphasise enough how imperative it is that SMEs – which account for 99% of businesses in the UK – be supported with a credible and robust path to a net zero future.  

NZN is always looking for partners to help expand its reach to new industries, so if you would like to learn more or think you can help, do get in touch. In the meantime, we’ll look forward to knowing that the next time we go for a trim, it’ll be more than just hair that salons are cutting.  

4. Good giving 

When disaster (literally) strikes, everyone wants to help. And the earthquakes in #Turkey and #Syria have seen companies rushing to offer support through employee donations, fundraising efforts and the provision of goods and services. Amazon has opened up its Istanbul warehouse to provide shipments of baby food, blankets, tents and medicines. IKEA , via its Foundation, is sending 5,000 flatpack shelters to house people left homeless by the earthquake, and Inditex – owner of #zara and other high street fashion brands – is sending 500,000 coats, jackets, and jumpers to the Turkish Red Crescent. 

Money, first and foremost, is what is needed by aid organisations. It allows them to be responsive to local need, spend money locally to give a much needed economic boost to communities and to manage logistics on their own terms. Often, well meaning donations of goods get held up at borders, expire or are simply unfit for purpose. And yet for businesses, a donation of goods can go further and have more impact than a cash donation– they can produce and therefore donate at cost, and therefore scale up what they are able to offer. However, particularly for small businesses, knowing what is needed and how to get it there is a challenge.  

In the UK, the Disasters Emergency Committee was convened to address the challenge of how donors could make donations to disaster relief efficiently and in the knowledge the money would go where it is needed, with good governance and oversight of those donations. Perhaps there is a need for something similar for goods and services, where aid agencies can provide details of what they need, and where they need it. This would be more efficient, and allow smaller businesses to contribute with in-kind donations confident in the knowledge that they are making a difference.  

In the meantime, donations can be made to the Turkey-Syria Earthquake Appeal here.  

The Goods: Website carbon  

There are more personal electronic devices than there are humans in the world, and each of these devices needs charging before they connect to data centres and transmission networks every time we go online. Which, let’s face it, we do a lot.   

And once you know that, it should be no surprise that this comes with a hefty environmental impact- the internet produces carbon emissions equal to or greater than the global aviation industry each year. 

Now there is a simple way to see what role your business’s website plays in this. Website carbon has developed a tool to calculate the carbon emissions attributed to a website. You can simply enter your web page URL, and Website Carbon spits out details of how much CO2 is produced every time someone visits your page, the website’s annual CO2e emissions, whether it is powered by sustainable energy and how it compares to other websites. It also offers some handy hints for reducing the footprint. For example, fewer words aren’t just a win for your time-pressed readers, but it turns out it’s also better for the planet.   

It’s a quick and easy way of checking if that new website advertising your sustainability strategy is actually part of the problem. And in the meantime, if you want some tips on minimising your personal digital footprint as you surf, this article has some handy tips for you. We’re off to delete some of our emails !