Briefing: Scope 3 Carbon Footprinting Foundations The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative presents the influential 3-Scope Model for accounting of direct and indirect emission of the 6 Kyoto GHGs across an organisation’s value chain1:
Within the ‘Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard’, the concept of ‘Scope 3 Emissions’ is cemented: Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions: Scope 3 is an optional reporting category that allows for the treatment of all other indirect emissions. Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the activities of the company, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. Key enduring principles of Scope 3 are apparent in this definition:
Scope 3 emissions are easiest to define in terms of what they are not (i.e. not Scope 1 nor Scope 2) Scope 3 concerns emissions derived from supply chain activities and thus demands some engagement with Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Scope 3 accounting is dependent on defined boundaries regarding ‘consequence’, ‘ownership’, ‘control’, and ‘responsibility’.
Development The GHG Protocol Initiative updated its approach to Scope 3 with the publication of the ‘Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard, stating’2: ‘After mapping the value chain, companies should identify which scope 3 emissions are most relevant for the company. Companies should prioritize scope activities . World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. GHG Protocol Initiative. 2004. ‘A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard – Revised Edition’. 2 World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. GHG Protocol Initiative. 2009. ‘Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard: Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard’. Review Draft for Stakeholder Advisory Group 23rd Nov 2009 1
based on their relative size and significance, with a view to prioritizing those scope 3 activities where the most significant GHG emissions and reduction opportunities lie. These emissions sources are expected to be the focus of a company’s GHG scope 3 reporting and reduction efforts. Companies shall account for and report all relevant scope 3 emissions of the reporting company.’ Under the terms of this model, ‘relevant’ Scope 3 emissions are deemed to be those components which are; the largest relative to other Scope 3 components, are prioritised by stakeholders, offer greatest reduction opportunities, and subject to significant influence by the reporting company. DECC published their ‘Guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions’ in 2009; establishing a guide Carbon Footprinting methodology strongly following GHG Protocol Initiative’s lead:
‘Scope 3 (Other indirect): Emissions that are a consequence of your actions, which occur at sources which you do not own or control and which are not classed as scope 2 emissions’ Elements such as ‘leased assets’ carry numerous crib sheets in the appendix aimed at sorting through the various conditions of financial and operational control (as some leased assets are subject to a degree of ownership that kicks them into Scope 1)
Application The softer line taken by policymakers with regards to Scope 3 may be explained by the lack of conversion factors available. DECC has produced a set of factors for those Scope 3 elements in its graphic. However, for the majority, it comes down to direct LCA.
A guide is provided by PAS 2050: ‘Assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services’, which basically provides an LCA methodology for those seeking to measure emissions. If you were able to derive a roster of GHG and non-GHG process emissions, a table is available to translate them into a CO2equivalent figure on the basis of their Global Warming Potential (GWP). This table includes all Kyoto and Montreal gases, plus others. The ‘discretionary’ nature of Scope 3, and the difficulty in addressing it in any standardised manner is apparent in standards which essentially dismiss Scope 3 in terms of generating a number. The Carbon Trust Standard places much of Scope 3 into an ‘optional’ category:
In the past, Wood Holmes have developed KPI sets in Scope 3 that don’t generate a CO 2 figure, but do provide a basis for ‘measure, manage, reduce’ action that can be documented in an reduction report. On other occasions, such as Thompson, there are academic datasets that provide some conversion factors; the ‘Bath ICE’ directory presents average CO 2 figures for building products ‘cradle to gate/grave’
Manchester Manchester already generates CO2 metrics in the following ways: 1. Models: EMIGMA – air quality modelling3 NW GHG Inventory – GHG model following standard guidelines 4 2. Estimate: NI 185 – ‘Percentage CO2 reduction from local authority operation’ – governed by a set questionnaire developed by AEA which carries a focus on energy and fuel use in buildings and transport (I believe this is conversion factor based) 5 3
www.greatairmanchester.org.uk/WhatAreWeDoing/emigma.aspx www.climatechangenorthwest.co.uk/key-facts.html 5 www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/nationalindicators/38-provisional-statistics-co2-emissions.pdf 4
3. ONS indicators Energy Saving Trust North West Dashboard 6 – just putting together NI185 figures alongside other indicative measures concerning energy, waste, and population 4. CRC – based on energy usage (but does carry a footprint requirement focussed on Scope 1+2)
Standards The 3-Scope model dominates the landscape with little in the way of other standards; everything appearing to borrow heavily from the GHG Protocol Initiative’s initial work. The private sector does present a series of proprietary standards that are pragmatic adjustments of the 3-Scope model. Best Foot Forward have carved a niche in LA carbon footprinting and forward their ‘Total Carbon Footprint’ which is Scope 1 + 2 + what can be done on 3. Others talk of ‘ecological footprints’ which is an extension beyond Carbon Footprinting to consider aspects of sustainable consumption and biodiversity; Best Foot Forward present such a proposition.
There are also things like the Resource and Energy Assessment Program (REAP); economic input-output consumption models deliver a population carbon footprint. Still, I believe there is lots of proxy and guesstimate floating around in the Scope 3 area of such models; something our KPI approach avoids. I have attached a scoping piece they did for GM (a tad weak)
Recommendation The GM Scope 3 model could be: A measured complement to existing models and estimates: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Identify and map the systems, processes, and chains being considered Draw boundaries based on influence and responsibility rather than ownership and control Establish a database of component emitting activities Assign red, yellow, green to each activity on basis of estimated CO 2, degree of influence, and potential for reduction o This database could be continually developed as new data accessed and threaded in 5. Carry forward those deemed high CO2, high influence, high potential for reduction (‘red’) for deeper inquiry 6. Engage stakeholders of each red component and develop a collaborative measurement protocol (including any pre-existing data) 7. Establish a collaborative measure-manage-reduce strategy for each component The Scope 3 strategy will never be complete and boundaries never cemented, but a ‘good effort’ such as this would go beyond what I can find elsewhere.
6
www.climatechangenorthwest.co.uk/assets/_files/documents/jan_10/cli__1263821120_EST_North_West_Regional_Dash bo.xls