By now, we’re all used to seeing corporate sustainability pledges, promising things like carbon neutrality or net zero by 2050.
However, can we truly trust that these pledges are credible and mean what we believe they do?
“We have a big issue in the broad environmental and sustainability space, where organisations are really trying to have their cake and eat it too,” Chris Hocknell, director at Eight Versa, said.
“They want to have these ambitious grand strategies to meet net zero or even carbon neutral. But they, in many respects, don’t actually have the solutions within their control or they don’t have the plans to get there.”
And whilst an unrealistic roadmap is a problem, Chris thinks the entire way we look at sustainability is bad for business.
“I want to change how we evaluate carbon performance. It’s kind of anti-innovation, it’s anti-growth.”
In this episode of The Big Question, Euronews’ Business editor Angela Barnes is joined by sustainability consultant Chris Hocknell, to discuss where companies are going wrong with their climate targets.
“An honesty deficit”
“One of the problems is that it’s not properly audited and verified, so we have companies that will use it incorrectly and say things that are technically untrue, but they can’t actually be verified unless you have the data to dig into, so there’s a lack of policing effectively,” Chris explained.
He also suggested that both Apple and BP have been criticised for being unclear with their terminology.
BP in particular, he noted, has set itself a target of achieving ‘net zero operations’ by 2050. However, this only applies to their Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
“It really means that they exclude the use of their product, the oil and gas itself, which is technically not correct.
“If your product is liquid carbon effectively, then oil is ultimately used to be combusted and turned into other products or even as a fuel. So your main product is not a net zero product,” Chris told The Big Question.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the scope system, here’s a basic explainer.
Scope 1: Direct emissions from sources owned and controlled by the organisation.
Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased energy.
Scope 3: Indirect emissions in the value chain. E.g From suppliers or from product use.
Whilst Chris criticised BP’s use of terminology, he acknowledged that oil and gas “are the lifeblood of the whole economy and industrialised society” and suggested that focusing on making their direct emissions more efficient and being clearer with that messaging is the best foot forward.
Should we be suspicious of all climate pledges?
Chris’ outlook wasn’t all doom and gloom. He highlighted how climate messaging does match the actions of many companies.
“Orsted is one where they’ve transitioned into obviously making green tech and are very large. They’ve got a very self-evident business model which is pivoting towards the technology of the future, in theory,” Chris explained.
“There are other companies like Patagonia [which] is a classic case study, they’ve internalised this sustainable and pro-environment philosophy into their business model but they’re tailoring their message, their product to a slither of the market and I think the problem is that the companies that can actually reinvent or target their products to that kind of very pro-green element of the market is a minority.”
For some industries, striving for ‘net zero’ or ‘climate neutral’ just isn’t possible.
“We call them kind of hard to abate industries. You know, there’s steel, glass, any of the big, heavy industry. There’s not an option for them.
“They’ve got to keep doing what they’re doing and we depend on it. So they don’t have any easy options. And I think that’s the big elephant in the room, these hard to abate industries.
“How do we transition them? Because there isn’t the technology at hand. And that’s another kind of myth is that we think we have these technologies just at our fingertips and we actually don’t.”
Is there a better way for companies to approach their climate goals?
Instead of setting unrealistic goals that the business leaders of the future will not be able to achieve, Chris suggested companies begin discussing their climate goals in terms of efficiency.
“Probably all the people on the board at this point in time, won’t be on the board in 2040, 2045, 2050. So we have this real challenge where it’s much easier to keep pretending you’re on track.”
Each year, they should aim to achieve more whilst reducing their current impact – doing more with less. He believes regulation could help with that too.
“I think we need an efficiency philosophy rather than a rationing and a budgetary perspective on things.
“We need to innovate and grow our way out of this problem and that current runs through almost all of our regulation and I think we need a more entrepreneurial and innovation-minded approach to all of our policy making rather than bureaucratic boxing in and limits and hurdles.”
The Big Question is a series from Euronews Business where we sit down with industry leaders and experts to discuss some of the most important topics on today’s agenda.
Watch the video above to see the full discussion with Chris Hocknell.
