ECJ EUROPEAN Cleaning Journal

A gap in the way we measure corporate CO2 emissions and product sustainability is risking the creation of lower quality products as well as hitting corporate sustainability goals. Here, Malene Thiele, Director, Global ESG & Sustainability at Nilfisk, discusses the challenges of working with lowering GHG emissions in Scope 3, whilst also preparing for the EU's Sustainable Product Initiative.

The decarbonisation of our world is non-negotiable. We need, collectively, to halt the climate crisis that threatens both current and future generations. Global collaboration at government and policy making levels, as well as high profile events such as United Nations Climate Change Conferences, are designed to deliver and communicate the answers needed to address the looming danger of unchecked carbon emission levels.

Businesses have a pivotal role to play in the decarbonisation journey. And most responsible organisations are already planning and implementing strategies that underpin and drive sustainability objectives for a cleaner and better world.

The latest Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi) progress Report 2021 shows that companies affiliated with SBTi have reduced their emissions in Scope 1 and Scope 2 significantly more than the global average. Like the rest of society, corporations must take the climate crisis seriously and ensure their daily operations, product solutions and services make a positive contribution to achieving lower carbon levels and limit global warming.

Many organisations operate within current international voluntary frameworks such as the Science Based Targets initiative and are mindful of both existing and upcoming rules and regulations to ensure they act responsibly and mitigate environmental harm. Targets are considered ‘science-based' if they are in line with what the latest climate science deems necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement - limiting global warming to well-below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.

In fact, globally, 2253 companies have joined the initiative, which is a figure that more than doubled during 2021. Out of these, approximately half have had their targets approved. Having approved science-based targets provides companies with a defined pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions following 2015's Paris Agreement on climate change.

Being one of these companies, Nilfisk has had its targets approved for our company's ‘direct' CO2 emissions via Scope 1 and 2, and ‘indirect' emissions within Scope 3. However, we see an inherent ambiguity connected to reaching our Scope 3 targets, which we believe must also be posing a challenge to many other manufacturing companies.

Longer lasting, high performing product solutions is a way of keeping valuable resources circulating in the economy. Compared to a use-throw away mindset, which leads to discarding machines into landfill or other outlets, durable products can lead to decreased waste generation and raw material consumption.

Product durability is a good thing

However, building in durability to product design and manufacture can also compromise overall sustainability credentials under SBTi. This is particularly seen in category 11 of the Scope 3 assessment where a product's entire in-use lifecycle emissions are measured and reported. The assessment appears to show that the longer a product lasts, the higher its expected emissions. Companies are, so to speak, being punished for producing longer lasting products.

With organisations seeking to fulfil sustainability objectives at a corporate reporting level - influenced by investors and regulators - the fact that product lifetime optimisation can lead to a negative emissions rating needs to be brought into the light.

This scenario - which is probably being faced by many manufacturers - basically presents two choices to industry. Produce less durable product solutions which inherently will benefit the expected product emissions under Category 11 of SBTi, or continue to produce longer lasting solutions, but with the risk of failing to achieve corporate level sustainability targets in Scope 3!

In contrast with corporate CO2 reporting methodologies (such as SBTi), regulatory bodies, such as the EU Commission, are pushing for increasing durability and lifetime of products. This emphasizes that a sustainable product is an energy efficient product. However, energy efficiency is not enough. According to the EU regulation ‘Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation' (ESPR), a wide variety of other aspects are instrumental in product sustainability.

Product aspects that determine product sustainability according to ESPR include durability and reliability, repairability, ease of maintenance and refurbishment and other dimensions. Nevertheless, companies will have to make their choices about which route to follow, keeping in mind the potentially adverse effect of not reaching Scope 3 targets will have with key stakeholder such as employees, customers, investors, and regulators.

This contradiction highlights the issue of sustainability reporting. As illustrated, the reporting of CO2 emissions on its own is a narrow and potentially misleading view of the sustainability ambitions and performance of a company and does not offer the holistic oversight needed.
Corporate sustainability reporting and product level sustainability design require different approaches, yet both are part of the overall picture that a company must present. The differing objectives are not always integrated, and companies, business sectors and industries need to grapple with this problem.

The way forward is to seek greater clarity, collaboration, and dialogue across all relevant parties to enable manufacturing companies to deliver what we all want - sustainable products that are both durable, long lasting and efficient. By sharing knowledge, best practice and raising awareness of the hidden ambiguities that currently exist within the regulatory and reporting measures, we can get to a better place for all.

The dilemma of product durability/longer lifetime and Scope 3 carbon emission rating is a prime example of the ambiguities in how best to measure and report on sustainability progress. Recognising it and sharing solutions will be a step in the right direction.

For more on this click here.