Personal Note From The Editor

Hi Reader!

Throughout all the years I spent thinking about sustainability, there is one issue that would never leave.

So many great ideas and initiatives but most failed…

Carbon Offsetting is flawed, Certifications resemble more a jungle of information and green washing is as popular as ever.

Will the same happen to sustainability reporting?

To avoid another tragedy, let us explore the challenges and limitations of Carbon Footprint Analyses

Number Of The Day

Large companies publish annual sustainability reports for a few years now. ThermoFisher states that more than 90% of green house gas emissions are attributable to their value chain (Scope 3 emssions). This is important because most companies have set target for significant reductions in the future.

90%

​

A Criticial Perspective

​

While Carbon Footprint Analyses can be a valuable tool for assessing current impacts and identifying opportunities for efficient reduction, several challenges can make these analyses imprecise, if not misleading:

​

The Chosen Scale

Measuring on smaller scales, such as individual buildings or laboratories, is more precise but rarely done because automatically measured data is seldom available.

​

Metering systems for electricity and gas or purchasing/waste metrics are typically quantified at an institute or company-wide level.

​

Therefore, dividing overall energy consumption by square meters of lab space or measuring waste over a certain time span must be done carefully, as it can exacerbate false assumptions.

​

​

​

Talking About Imprecision

Procurement impacts are often estimated based on overall spending data, which usually overlooks how products are produced or shipped.

​

This can mean that a more sustainable product that costs more will be considered to have a larger impact than a cheaper one, introducing a major bias that can also mask opportunities for optimization.

​

Are The Numbers Real?

As an external reader, judging the validity of primary data is often difficult. And as the one conducting the assessment, don’t blindly trust numbers sent to you.

​

Additionally, since one calculates impacts after conversion, it should be noted that the conversion factors used are averaged estimates, often for an entire nation.

​

Finally, we assume that the analyzed period is representative of a larger time frame. This is especially crucial when extrapolations are used or when seasonal variations exist.

​

Applying The Knowledge
​

​

Not Everyone Needs the Same

Every institution has an individual footprint, but common trends can be observed in previously published literature. Thus, making a “general” estimate is often redundant. For example, universities typically see the largest emissions from procurement (Scope 3), followed by energy and heat.

​

Be Precise And Concrete

Procurement impacts should be analyzed in more detail than just estimating them based on spending. For example, assessing locations or providers can help significantly when it comes to evaluating reduction potential.

Essentially, a carbon footprint analysis is only helpful if it can drive change. Therefore, upfront buy-in from stakeholders and clear guidelines on implementing change will prove crucial. In other words, the “upstream” and “downstream” processes are as important as the report itself.

​

The Extra Mile

Redoing reports annually or biannually can help motivate and assure progress over time while enabling the assessment of data variation.

​

​

​

Upcoming Lesson:

Carbon Footprint Analysis – What To Be Aware Of

​

Asking You

he EU has seen a 58% increase in GDP between 1990 and 2017. How have green house gas emission developed?

​

How We Feel Today

​

​

If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email.​
Otherwise, wish you a beatiful week!
See you again the 11th: )

​

Find the previous lesson click - here -​

​
Edited by Patrick Penndorf
Connection@ReAdvance.com
If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe​