Achieving Net Zero

Who is involved in setting science-based targets?

SBTs are both a challenge and opportunity as they bring together disparate stakeholders, including:

• Energy and Carbon stakeholders from facilities and finance
• Sustainability teams
• Product managers
• In the supply chain: buyers, merchants and procurement organizations

What is the internal impact of setting SBTs?

When setting targets, a company is effectively setting an internal price on carbon. For those that implement the targets across the organization, it can change how people act and how decisions are made. The value of taking action on these topics might have a longer payout but reduce more energy and carbon than some of the shorter-term projects that fit into the standard quarterly corporate decision-making timescale. Carbon targets require a balance of near-term actions and long-term planning. Companies must shift their outlook to accommodate targets whose length and duration can be 5,10, or even 15 years in some cases. This shift forces a lot of new engagement and decision making.

These goals require a high level of ambition and engagement in decision making, oftentimes more than a sustainability team is used to. This includes getting C-suite approval for long-term duration and high-ambition targets that we don’t always know we can achieve. In addition to raising internal awareness around sustainability, these conversations can be a great catalyst for taking action on other topics too.

Uncovering Emissions Data and Insights with clients

The accounting processes used in supply chain engagement and Scope 3 reductions have been around for decades. And yet, guiding a client through the process with their own data outside of the scope of their operational emissions (Scope 1 and 2) can be transformative. The long tail of impact in supply chains often leaves sustainability teams astonished in the face of a footprint that is up to 10 times their operational footprint. It’s an exciting challenge to work with clients to determine the most advantageous approach to collect data over time, engage for action and account for it.

Operational emissions will always be the lower hanging fruit and thus the first step to drive progress on SBTs and to move towards net-zero. Fortunately, the path is straightforward and well-trodden. It is mainly a transactional challenge to procure renewables across portfolios (China notwithstanding).

Getting to actual zero is going to be hard from a baseline point of view and in managing forward, future growth while remaining flat. This is where we need to see significant progress among businesses as they take steps to account for their footprint, engage with supply chains, and couple business value and net-zero action.

Anthesis recommends companies set science-based reduction targets (SBTs), preferably aligned with a 1.5°C pathway and preferably capturing scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions to form a foundational part of a corporate climate strategy. Companies should prioritize reductions across their value chain and think about their SBTs as incremental steps along their journey towards net zero, because, reductions alone will not get us there.

Learn about our GHG management solution: RouteZero