Over the summer, I don't know if you caught the backtracking by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) in terms of carbon credits. The article in the first url below summarizes the surprising policy shift:
"SBTi, whose blessing confers important credibility on corporate net zero plans, appeared to have reversed its stance on a controversial issue. The April 9 press release from its board said companies could use carbon credits to offset so-called Scope 3 emissions from their supply chains, an approach some scientists have warned could jeopardize the fight against global warming."
While staff initially thought the announcement was "a hoax," and removed it from the organization's website, they were shocked to discover it was both real and the result of a lengthy process characterized by conflict-of-interest issues among senior leaders:
"… interviews with current and former employees, as well as other people familiar with the decision, reveal how the seeds of the policy change were sown over the past year. According to them, things started to shift when SBTi went from being a collaboration of three non-governmental organizations and the United Nations to an independent entity governed by a board of trustees that included several people who want to grow the offsets market."
This is concerning because SBTi had become an important voice in the sustainability debate, having "validated the climate plans of more than 5,000 companies, from Apple Inc. to Volkswagen AG":
"SBTi's position has long been that companies should prioritize reducing emissions across their whole supply chain, and only use credits to offset the tiny amount that is impossible to cut. While some experts have lauded that rigorous approach, many corporate figures, and even some climate activists, have berated SBTi for being inflexible and acting as an impediment to helping critical funds reach developing countries."
It is refreshing to see there has been some backlash to this weakening of standards from industry. This is captured in the article in the second url below, which highlights resistance from H&M (a company not exactly known for its sustainability practices, given its role in promoting fast fashion):
"In a letter to the Science Based Targets initiative's board of trustees, Leyla Ertur, H&M's head of sustainability, said the company was concerned about the possibility of companies using carbon offsets to lower their overall carbon emissions by purchasing credits for carbon removal projects, saying that action should be taken by companies within their value chains to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Even better, H&M made their argument based on a foundation of the value of science:
"Ertur added that it also would represent a move away from 'a robust scientific foundation and a governance structure that allows for transparent and independent science-based standards, [which] would undermine principles that we believe are fundamental for real climate action.'"
Shortly after this story garnered headlines critical of the organization over the summer, SBTi's CEO resigned.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Carbon credit chaos
By Alastair Marsh
May 29, 2024
Bloomberg
H&M Comes Out Against Carbon Offset Plan From Climate Targets Group
By Yusuf Khan
June 15, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
