Bedste praksis for beregning af undgåede emissioner i forbindelse med produkter

I vores tidligere artikel "Hvad er scope 4"-emissioner, og hvorfor skal jeg interessere mig for det? har vi forsøgt at afmystificere begrebet scope 4-emissioner, eller som vi foretrækker at kalde dem: Undgåede emissioner. Denne kategori af emissioner dækker både positive og negative emissioner, der finder sted uden for værdikæden, men som følge af brugen af et produkt eller en tjeneste eller en investeringsbeslutning. I denne artikel bør måling af undgåede emissioner ikke prioriteres højere end beregning, rapportering og fastsættelse af videnskabeligt baserede mål for scope 1, 2 og 3. Det skyldes til dels det betydelige reduktionspotentiale i disse emissioner (afhængigt af den grad af kontrol, som den emissionsgivende virksomhed har over dem), samt det forhold, at de i sig selv kan være vanskelige at beregne. En ekstra indsats bør ikke fjerne opmærksomheden fra dette.

Lacking a standardized methodology

As more information and tools become available for companies to comprehensively calculate their scopes 1, 2 and 3, many are preparing to expand their efforts to include avoided emissions in their reporting. One of the main limitations in doing so is the lack of a standardized methodology to calculate these emissions. Although there are several reference frameworks that exist, such as the WRI’s working paper on Estimating and Reporting Avoided Emissions, or the GHG Protocol’s Policy and Action Standard, these are often sector- or country-specific, and differ in their methodological approach. So, how can you ensure you are reporting on avoided emissions accurately and transparently? Based on a comprehensive review of leading guidance and frameworks, we put together a simple 3-step approach to calculate product avoided emissions with all the best practices we gathered along the way:

The first step is the foundation and has to do with choosing the right product to undergo the study; step two, is about deciding on the right methodology based on how you intend to use the results; the third and final step, centers on communicating your results, and doing so in a way that’s both valuable for your organization and transparent to all stakeholders.

Step 1: How do I choose the right product for my assessment?

Similar to Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), one of the primary things to look for in an ideal product for avoided emissions is for it to be emissions intensive or contribute significantly to your total emissions. This will ensure the avoided emissions impact is significant, and the results more meaningful. If you already have an emissions assessment on individual products, you can use this information to choose your product. If not, there are two main ways to determine whether a product is emissions-intensive:

1. Corporate Greenhouse Gas Inventory: If your company has completed a scope 1, 2 and 3 inventory, you can use the inventory to identify products or product categories with the highest emissions.

2. Physical and/or Economic Factors: Although this is the least preferred method given that certain factors may not directly correlate to greenhouse gas emissions intensity, companies may use some of these factors to estimate emissions-intensity based on product mass, volume or spend.

These options are not exhaustive but do provide the greatest level of granularity, specifically at the product-level. In thinking about the right product for the assessment, there are other criteria to consider beyond emissions-intensity that are equally relevant, including:

- Products that are core to the business, meaning the primary product of a company or representing the highest share of their revenue

- New products with enhanced features or new technologies, often meant to replace an existing product

- Strategy-aligned products, meaning those enabling the attainment of specific business goals

As the list of options continues to narrow down and prior to moving into steps 2 and 3, it is essential to consider how much data is available for each of the products under consideration to limit the reliance on estimates. In thinking about the purpose and expected outcome of the assessment, we want to ensure that the available data will produce results that are accurate enough to make credible external claims and/or inform product decisions that are reliable.

Step 2: What is the most appropriate methodology for my assessment?

Once the product has been selected, the next immediate step is to reflect on the purpose for conducting the assessment. Having clarity around the goal will guide which methodological approach you ultimately choose. There are two main approaches – attributional and consequential – each answering a different question: 1. Attributional Approach: this method measures the impact between two products in a constant system, meaning it measures the individual emissions generated along each of the product’s value chain, assuming no changes. The total calculated emissions for each product are then compared, which leads to an understanding of the net reductions.

The attributional approach is preferred when looking to understand which of the products under study is less or more environmentally impactful and, more favorable if using the results to make external claims.

For example, a company wants to know if their new fabric treated with a cooling technology generates less emissions than a traditional fabric, which can presumably reduce the number of washes in between uses.

2. Konsekvensorienteret tilgang: Denne metode måler indvirkningen fra en ændring i systemet. Det vil sige, at den måler emissionerne ved en baseline-tilstand og sammenligner med et scenarie, hvor denne baseline påvirkes af en handling.

Den efterfølgende tilgang er at foretrække, når man vil forstå de miljøpåvirkninger, der kan opstå som følge af den pågældende handling, og for at bruge resultaterne fra det vurderede scenarie til at informere beslutningstagningen.

En virksomhed ønsker f.eks. at forstå konsekvenserne af sin beslutning om at udvikle et nyt tekstil, som behandles med en køleteknologi.

Begge metoder er gyldige, men begge har ulemper. Den konsekvensorienterede tilgang er således mere kompleks, men tager for eksempel højde for markedsbaserede ændringer og potentielle emissionsbegrænsende effekter i værdikæden.

Den egenskabsorienterede tilgang er mere enkel med hensyn til metodik og datakrav, men den ignorerer ændringer i systemet. I sidste ende vil den rigtige tilgang være den, der giver størst mulig nøjagtighed og anvendelighed i forhold til det forventede resultat.

Trin 3: Hvordan bruger og kommunikerer jeg resultaterne af min vurdering på en gennemsigtig måde?

En væsentlig egenskab ved god rapportering er at sikre klarhed og gennemsigtighed – også når resultaterne ikke er som forventet. Et godt eksempel på dette er efter introduktionen af et nyt produkt, hvor en virksomheds værdikædeemissioner sandsynligvis vil stige på kort sigt, selvom det nye produkt er mindre emissionskrævende.

Når resultaterne ikke er fordelagtige, men en virksomhed vælger at offentliggøre dem på en gennemsigtig måde, er interessenterne mere tilbøjelige til at stole på og støtte eventuelle fremtidige tiltag til afhjælpning af problemer, der sideløbende beskrives. Bemærk: Før en ekstern rapportering, uanset om resultaterne er positive eller negative, er det vigtigt at evaluere eventuelle lokale forordninger for at undgå uventede ansvar og forpligtelser.

Ud over at dokumentere og dele den anvendte metode er der 5 vigtige principper at holde sig for øje, når resultaterne kommunikeres offentligt:

Selvom det let kan virke overvældende at skulle rapportere om endnu et emissionsemne, forventes det, at retningslinjerne vil blive mere strømlinede og lettere at anvende, efterhånden som virksomhederne fortsætter deres rapportering om undgåede emissioner. I mellemtiden kan disse trin forhåbentlig tjene som grundlag for at komme i gang.

Om forfatteren

Arianna Bottome er strategisk bæredygtighedskonsulent hos Rambøll Management Consulting med 6 års tværfaglig erfaring inden for sektoren for forbrugsvarer, især beklædningsindustrien. Med fokus på virksomhedens bæredygtighed har hun arbejdet med virksomheder inden for forskellige sektorer omkring rapportering af miljøaftryk, klimastrategi og bæredygtighed ud fra førende branchestrukturer.