This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Carbon Disclosure Project – Nordic 260 Report 2011


Emissions due to travel and transport are relatively straightforward to estimate, since many companies already have information from contractors on modes of transport and distances travelled. But these categories account for only a small fraction of total Scope 3 emissions. Towards the other end of the scale, only a handful of companies disclose emissions from their supply chain and from the use and disposal of their products.


As a result, reported Scope 3 emissions are dwarfed by Scope 1 and 2 emissions in the so-called carbon intensive sectors – Transportation, Energy & Utilities and Materials. Only in IT & Telecommunications and Industrials – two sectors with especially strong incentives to focus on what they can do to reduce their customers’ emissions – does Scope 3 appear substantial in both absolute and relative terms (Figure 15).7


But this picture is misleading. A similar figure for the CDP Global 500 – where Scope 3 reporting is a little less patchy, though still far from comprehensive – shows that Scope 3 emissions are larger than Scope 1 and Scope 2 in almost every sector, including Energy and Materials (Figure 16).8


Indeed, if Scope 3 emissions were fully reported, they would be larger still. This is partly because of double counting (for example, one firm’s Scope 1 emissions may also be counted as Scope 3 by its customers and/or suppliers). But Scope 3 also covers emissions from the use and disposal of products by final consumers, as well as in business-to-business trade. Aside from size, however, there are two compelling reasons for companies to improve their monitoring of Scope 3 emissions.


One is that Scope 3 reflects real material risks. Companies that do not have a clear picture of the emissions caused by the use and disposal of their products are more likely to fall foul of product regulations and tightening energy efficiency standards, not to mention consumer backlashes. Similarly, failure to check the carbon credentials of suppliers may risk reputational damage that undermines a company’s own efforts to cut emissions.


In addition, many Nordic 260 companies report that they are under pressure from customers, investors and other stakeholders to map their total carbon footprint. In some cases, firms are being asked to account for their supply chain as well as their own operations in order to win both public and private sector contracts.


Figure 15: Total reported emissions by sector, Nordic 260.


7. Note that the scales in Figures 15 and 16 are logarithmic so as to make the charts readable for the lower-emitting sectors. In Figure 15, for instance, Scope 1 emissions in Energy & Utilities (blue) are eight times the size of Scope 3 emissions (red). The sectoral breakdown is slightly different in Figure 16 since the Global 500 report uses the unmodified GICS classification (see footnote 4 above).


8. The particularly large difference in Energy is mostly due to Scope 3 emissions from the use of sold products. No firms in the Nordic 260 report emissions in this category even though several sell large quantities of petrol, diesel and gas.


24


Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3


hundred thousand metric tons CO2e (logarithmic scale)


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62