Carbon Footprint

The new buzz in offsetting: Blue Carbon

Szilvia Szabó — Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:06:29 +0000

The new buzz in offsetting: Blue Carbon

Tags

Carbon Offsetting

Carbon Footprint

Carbon Emission

Carbon Management

Topic

Carbon Management

Just when businesses are starting to measure, reduce, and offset their carbon emissions, a new term has entered the realm of carbon management.

Blue carbon is simply a term that refers to the carbon captured by the world’s ocean and coastal ecosystems and has become a buzzword in the search for solutions to mitigate climate change.

How does underwater carbon capture work?

Mangroves, seagrass meadows, salt marshes and phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Some of this CO2 is converted into carbon in leaves, branches and other parts of the organism in much the same way as land-dwelling plants.

The difference is that marine habitats can sequester carbon up to 10 times faster than mature forests.

Below layers of coastal vegetation are thick carbon-rich sediments which have accumulated over time, often for hundreds or thousands of years. There are three main carbon-sinking habitats: Mangroves, Tidal Marshes, and Seagrass.

Example:

Verra registered its first blue carbon project in 2021: a mangrove conservation initiative called Vida Manglar (‘mangrove life’ in Spanish) situated on the north coast of Colombia.

The project is set to remove 1 million tonnes of CO2 over the next thirty years. Some income generated from carbon credit purchases will go towards sustainable development and improving local education and employment.

Blue carbon refers to the carbon captured by the world’s ocean and coastal ecosystems. Image: Unsplash

Offsetting with added benefits

Blue carbon started to gain attention in 2009 when the United Nations published an influential report entitled Blue Carbon: The Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding Carbon.

Over 150 countries have blue carbon habitats within their borders, making their conservation and protection a global issue.

The Blue Carbon Initiative (BCI) is perhaps the flagship example of this type of multilateral collaboration.

This UNESCO-backed agency brings together research institutions, governments, NGOs, and stakeholder communities from around the world to tackle global warming through the sustainable management of blue carbon ecosystems at all levels.

The demand for carbon credits is likely to increase 15-fold by 2030.

Why is Blue Carbon so unique?

Mangroves and salt marshes remove carbon from the atmosphere at a rate ten times greater than tropical forests.
Seagrass meadows account for just 0.1 per cent of the world’s seafloor but store 11 per cent of the organic carbon buried in the ocean.
Mangroves and salt marshes store three to five times more carbon per acre than tropical forests.
83% of the global carbon cycle is circulated through the ocean.
Coastal habitats cover less than 2% of all ocean areas but account for about half of the total carbon sequestered in ocean sediments.

(Sources: The Blue Carbon Initiative; Office for Coastal Management NOAA)

Coastal communities are being struck especially hard by the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and disappearing fish stocks.

Blue carbon credits can provide these communities with crucial financial aid while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Blue carbon habitats are also extremely scarce – they only make up 2% of global ocean cover and are disappearing quickly –yet they support a vast range of economically and ecologically important species.

It is worth noting that some researchers are sceptical since determining carbon removal rates for marine ecosystems is far from an exact science – estimates can vary widely even along a single stretch of coast.

This makes it difficult to know precisely how effective any blue carbon restoration project will be in the longer term.

On a practical level, the Blue Carbon Projects works on REDD+ * Mangrove Project Development in Indonesia and Mexico, including coastal ecosystems of mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrass meadows. Indonesia’s mangroves are estimated to contain 3.14 billion metric tonnes of carbon, one-third of global coastal carbon stocks.

However, deforestation and the destruction of peatlands make Indonesia the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

There is great potential in exploring further opportunitities to utilise blue carbon in reaching net zero goals while keeping these rich ecosystems healthy.

*REDD+ stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

Image source: Blue Carbon Initiative

Headline image: Getty Images

This article is published in collaboration with the Profit with Purpose Magazine.

To read more insights regarding carbon management, you can download the latest digital edition of the magazine that further explores topics such as carbon offsetting, regulations and more.

Background style

Light

Sponsored?

December 2023

Collaborative content with

Profit with Purpose Magazine

Can we rely on carbon offsetting to reach net-zero goals?

Szilvia Szabó — Mon, 04 Dec 2023 13:59:40 +0000

Can we rely on carbon offsetting to reach net-zero goals?

Tags

Topic

Carbon offsetting is a method that enables companies, individuals, and countries to minimise their climate impact. An organisation or individual can purchase carbon credits to account for the carbon they emit due to their activities.

These carbon credits are obtained by investing in projects that reduce or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as tree planting, restoring natural ecosystems, and protecting forests.

Carbon offsetting enables business leaders to consider their carbon footprint as a form of accounting. Their emissions are then their expenditure, and the carbon offsets they purchase act as their revenue.

Essentially, businesses should try to break even yearly to transition to net zero.

The idea of carbon offsetting was created by the United Nations when they realised the challenge of reaching net zero at the Kyoto Protocol in 1992.

Verified and certified carbon credits are traded at the carbon market, allowing companies, governments, and other organisations to address their greenhouse gas emissions.

What offsetting offers isn’t bad: renewable energy for poor communities and tree planting are great initiatives.

However, some argue that they are a distraction from meaningful climate change solutions and that offsetting fuels greenwashing and unsustainable behaviour.

There are also doubts that offsetting may not be entirely effective at cancelling out emissions.

Although tree planting is a popular choice and widely used, it is not a straightforward equation that would completely cancel carbon emissions.

For instance, a newly planted tree can take up to 20 years to capture the amount of CO2 a carbon offset scheme promises.

With this in mind, we would need to plant and protect a significant quantity of trees for decades to offset just a fraction of worldwide emissions.

Different tree species have various absorption capacities, but in general, it is considered that six mature trees can store about 1 ton of CO2.

According to calculations shared by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), it would take 640 trees per person to account for all American emissions, which adds up to more than 200 billion trees.

To plant those trees, you need to find available and appropriate lands to start with, which would be a challenge in itself, not to mention keeping those trees healthy and alive for a long time.

Trees are more like time capsules for keeping carbon from entering the atmosphere since when they decay, they release most of the carbon they store.

Besides, newly planted trees must reach maturity before becoming formidable carbon sinks, need proper care and protection over their lifetime, and should be accounted for carbon release when decomposing.

Research has also determined that carbon offsetting may not be an effective sole strategy for tackling our carbon problem.

A study for the European Commission looked into the UN-sanctioned offset projects and discovered three-quarters of projects were unlikely to have resulted in additional emissions reductions.

Additionally, just 2 per cent had a high likelihood of being classed as additional.

There is also worry that carbon credits are being used as excuses to put off systemic reforms to produce green and clean energy.

Others have argued it doesn’t work at all since emissions levels are too high to possibly offset, and it is also challenging to calculate the real impact of offsetting programmes.

A Guardian-led investigation in 2023 unveiled that two-thirds of the most popular top 50 emission offsetting projects are overpromising and underdelivering on actual impact in terms of cancelling our emission.

The rest of the projects looked problematic or could not be determined definitively due to a lack of credible available data.

According to AlliedOffsets, the most comprehensive emissions trading database, these popular global offsetting programs span twenty countries, dominantly in developing regions, including forestry schemes, hydroelectric dams, solar and wind farms, waste disposal and greener household appliances schemes.

However, a vast number of these carbon offsetting schemes do great work for important causes like protecting wildlife, providing developing countries with energy-efficient technology and investing in green energy.

There are also promising innovative solutions for capturing carbon, like producing biochar, turning carbon dioxide into energy, and capturing carbon into concrete or storing it in rocks.

A new area to explore is how to embrace ocean-based solutions in carbon offsetting.

New research commissioned by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) shows that ocean-based climate solutions can deliver up to 35% of the annual greenhouse gas emission cuts needed in 2050 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.

These include ocean-based food production, renewable energy, reduction of transport, and embracing blue carbon ecosystems (mangrove forests, seagrass meadows and tidal marshes) that can store up to 5 times more carbon per area than tropical forests and absorb it from the atmosphere about three times as quickly.

Considering the pros and cons, it seems that carbon offsetting is more of a plaster than a cure for the problem.

We need these kinds of actions, but we also must recognise that carbon offsetting cannot solve our carbon issue alone.

Efforts should be focused on drastically reducing emissions while keeping the world’s forests and other ecosystems healthy and growing.

Headline image: Getty Images

This article is published in collaboration with the Profit with Purpose Magazine.

To read more insights regarding carbon management, you can download the latest digital edition of the magazine that further explores topics such as carbon offsetting, regulations and more.

Background style

Light

Sponsored?

December 2023

Collaborative content with

Profit with Purpose Magazine

The impact of carbon labels on consumer behaviour

Bronagh Loughlin — Wed, 08 Nov 2023 10:41:30 +0000

The impact of carbon labels on consumer behaviour

Tags

Topic

If items sold in stores were labelled according to the carbon emissions embodied in them, would customers be encouraged to shop more eco-consciously?

Carbon labelling is a relatively new concept that enables manufacturers to display information surrounding the impact their products have on the environment.

The concept behind a climate label is that the label on a product not only tells the consumer what the product contains but also tells the planetary costs that went into manufacturing the product.

These expenses are typically hidden from consumers and might range from water usage to animal welfare and carbon emissions.

Think of a climate label like a nutritional label on a food product that helps customers make better choices.

However, just like a nutritional information label, we must question whether this is an effective approach to encouraging consumers to shop more sustainably.

A group of American researchers sought to determine this with a SUSDIET project.

They completed a study in a suburban grocery store in Ballina for 12 weeks in 2008. They identified five categories of grocery items with a high turnover and wide product choice.

These 37 products were then categorised according to their CO2 emissions generated up to the point of sale.

The labels were in place for 8 weeks, and over the eight weeks, the number of black-labelled sales fell from 32 per cent to 2 per cent while the share of green-labelled sales soared from 53 per cent to 57 per cent.

A further analysis unveiled three different trends of consumer response.

The products were labelled with one of three symbols:

average or medium (yellow footprint),
lower than average (green footprint),
higher than average (black footprint).

The classification was significantly influenced by the energy used during transport and the energy embodied in the packaging.

In other words, when green-labelled products were also the cheapest, there was a strong consumer response.

However, if the green-labelled goods were not the most affordable, the reaction to the labelling was weaker.

Carbon labelling has been found to increase people’s willingness to pay more for a product.; Image: Unsplash

Other research has also been conducted to analyse the effectiveness of carbon labelling for driving behavioural change.

Some findings have concluded that those who express higher environmental concern and typically purchase eco-friendly products are more likely to buy carbon-labelled items.

Researchers across the globe agree that carbon labels successfully get customers to consider the ecological impact of their choices.

A paper published in 2018 revealed the presence of a carbon label makes customers more likely to purchase a product.

Additionally, European shoppers were found to be willing to pay premium prices of 20 per cent for a product. Other studies have also backed up these findings.

A Carbon Trust 2020 survey uncovered customers were more likely to think positively about a brand when it could showcase its environmental impact on its products.

Besides, a TENZING study confirmed carbon labels could help alter consumer behaviour.

Research does still note that customers have a poor knowledge of carbon measurements.

Therefore, when carbon labels are re-designed using familiar symbols like traffic light colours, a consumer’s understanding increases significantly.

Considering the potential positive impact of carbon labelling seems to be a way to make sustainability communication more consumer-friendly while incentivising and encouraging sustainable choices.

Research has proven that carbon labelling does precisely what it is supposed to do - drive behavioural change.

According to the Carbon Trust, most consumers actively want carbon labelling.

Their survey found that over 10,000 people from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, and the US support carbon labelling on products. Carbon labels could have a significant role to play in the transition to a greener world.

However, the latest EU proposal on banning vague carbon and environmental claims concerning products and services will also force organisations to be strict on labelling.

Headline image: Unsplash

This article is published in collaboration with the Profit with Purpose Magazine.

To read more insights regarding carbon management, you can download the latest digital edition of the magazine that further explores topics such as carbon offsetting, regulations and more.

Background style

Light

Sponsored?

November 2023

Collaborative content with

Profit with Purpose Magazine

Five misleading assumptions about addressing carbon emissions

Szilvia Szabó — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 16:27:45 +0000

Five misleading assumptions about addressing carbon emissions

Tags

Topic

In the lead-up to COP28, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will take place from 30 November until 12 December 2023, there are a lot of talks regarding how to reach net zero emission targets.

Although carbon management has become mainstream in the business sector, there is still much confusion and urban legends about what to do with our carbon footprint. This overview explores the most common assumptions about the carbon case.

1 / We can offset our way out of climate action.

Even though it might seem like a simple math equation that we use offsetting to cancel out emissions, it is more complex than that.

Carbon offsetting is far from being a flawless process, with many controversial issues and a lack of reliable scientific evidence on its actual short and long-term impact.

A recent investigation by the Guardian and researchers from Corporate Accountability analysed the top 50 emission offset projects - those that have sold the most carbon credits in the global market.

Using a thorough analytical method, they claim that “78% of them were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts”.

The rest of the projects looked problematic or could not be determined definitively due to a lack of credible available data.

The shocking revelation is that the projects marked as “junk or overvalued” made up almost a third of the global voluntary carbon market, raising the question of whether carbon offsetting benefits are exaggerated across the whole portfolio.

It is compelling to look at carbon credits as the ultimate solution.

Still, the best way forward is to reduce emissions as much as possible and look for offsetting through critical analytical lenses that ensure the best outcome.

2 / Becoming carbon neutral is the end goal.

While reaching the point where you are balancing off what your company emits is a great starting point, it is not enough to improve our situation in terms of reverse engineering climate change.

Image: Getty Images

Settling to cancel out the total amount of carbon emissions you produce will not be sufficient in the long term to future-proof your business. It is great to start with net-zero carbon goals focusing on specific activities, which means that no carbon was emitted, therefore, there is no need to capture or offset.

Aiming for maximum reduction of environmental footprint and offsetting more than the overall emission of your business, or in other words, becoming carbon negative, is where things will get better.

3 / AI solutions will solve all climate challenges.

Leveraging AI in carbon management has great potential. For instance, data analytics and predictive algorithms can help companies better understand and manage their energy usage, transportation, and manufacturing processes to model and measure their Scope 1 and 2 emissions accurately.

According to a study by the European Union, the use of AI and machine learning in energy management systems could result in energy savings of up to 15% in commercial buildings.

AI-driven applications can also contribute to managing Scope 3 emissions through supply chains by optimising connections and material usage between different stakeholders, and experimental projects are looking at implementing blockchain-based carbon tracking systems.

Putting more effort into using predictive analytics is also an area of interest since it can model future carbon emissions and identify potential areas of improvement.

This means that based on previous data and patterns, AI can present different carbon footprint scenarios, allowing decision-makers to choose the one that best fits their strategic goals.

On the other hand, experts and researchers warn that using AI has its own environmental footprint that cannot be overlooked.

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, found the training process for a single AI model can emit more than 626,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, which is about the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as 62.6 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for a year.

Empowering the process of training AI and using it on a large scale requires a lot of energy, and global companies like Microsoft refuse to share relevant information regarding resources used in powering these solutions.

Swedish researcher Anders Andrae has forecasted that data centres could account for 10% of total electricity use by 2025.; Image: Unsplash

Using AI in addressing climate change could be a valuable tool that organisations utilise with a footnote that it must also be vetted with the same principles as any other activities with environmental impact.

4 / Planting more trees is the ultimate solution for offsetting carbon emissions.

Trees are natural carbon absorbers commonly known as the easiest, most environmentally friendly way to offset carbon emissions.

Different tree species have various absorption capacities, but in general, it is considered that 6 mature trees can store about 1 ton of CO2.; Image: Unsplash

To plant those trees, you need to find available and appropriate lands to start with, which would be a challenge in itself, not to mention keeping those trees healthy and alive.

Experts agree that while planting new trees is beneficial and needed in fighting climate change, protecting and nurturing existing forests with complex ecosystems is best.

Also, there is the issue that trees are more like time capsules for keeping carbon from entering the atmosphere since when they decay – whether in a wildfire or being chopped down and burnt – they release most of the carbon they stored.

Embracing professional forest management is an excellent tool in the box, but looking at tree planting is far from being a quick fix for offsetting.

5 / Digital tech companies should not worry about carbon emissions.

The hidden environmental impact of digital tech companies is not in the spotlight that much, and it is easy to assume that since a company does not produce physical products, it has a small role in lowering carbon emissions.

However, the reality is that they should be on the radar for ramping up climate actions through their operation and the tools or resources they use.

Data centres used by small and large tech companies are essentially massive warehouses packed with servers consuming electricity primarily generated by fossil fuels, like power plants that burn coal.

It is estimated that 30% of data centres run on a 24/7 basis, often resulting in energy wastage of around 5-10% of their total capacity.

All digital services, from sending emails to running video conferences, use energy that accounts for emissions, and putting together all the small amounts emitted through these activities could sum up to a considerable volume.

Based on Our World in Data report, the information technology used to manage and maintain digital services can be between 2 and 3 per cent. ; Image: Unsplash

There are various ways to manage digital companies' carbon footprint.

An interesting approach from Facebook was moving some parts of its IT infrastructure to northern Sweden, where the naturally cold environment helps reduce the energy needed to keep servers from overheating.

Switching to cloud-based solutions that operate more energy-efficiently is a popular choice for environmentally conscious companies to reduce their footprint.

Besides energy usage, there is also the question of using computers and other electronic devices, considering their overall environmental footprint from production to waste.

Headline image: Getty Images

This article is published in collaboration with the Profit with Purpose Magazine.

To read more insights regarding carbon management, you can download the latest digital edition of the magazine that further explores topics such as carbon offsetting, regulations and more.

Background style

Light

Sponsored?

November 2023

Collaborative content with

Profit with Purpose Magazine

How can carbon offsetting fix climate and communities at one go?

Sinead Connolly — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 17:17:20 +0000

How can carbon offsetting fix climate and communities at one go?

Tags

Topic

Creating 'climate smart communities' while cutting back on carbon emissions proved a viable model to tackle the climate crisis.

Carbon offsetting enables individuals and organisations to reduce their carbon footprint by purchasing verified carbon credits, which essentially means investing in offsetting projects that independent third parties manage and monitor.

Renewable energy, bio-diversity protection, community projects, clean water, and improved cookstoves are examples of offsetting projects offered by various organisations that reduce emissions and transform communities worldwide.

“It’s a global issue,” explains Ciara Feehely, Head of Communications and Fundraising at Vita, an Irish NGO that is in the business of creating sustainable, climate smart livelihoods with rural communities in East Africa.

“It doesn’t matter where you take that tonne of carbon out of the atmosphere. Every time you buy a carbon offset, you have a global impact.”

Empowering the people of East Africa through community-led development based on equality and sustainability, and tackling climate change by transitioning to renewable energy and leveraging existing resources, has been the driving force behind Vita’s work.

“The woman is at the centre of all our programs and always has been,” explains Feehely.

“Relieving her burden is important. A woman can spend 16-30 hours a week gathering sticks for a fire, to cook food and sanitise water.”

Creating climate smart communities in East Africa is the main focus of Vita Ireland. Image: Vita Ireland

Working in Ethiopia and Eritrea for the last twenty years, Vita knew how critical fuel-efficient stoves and access to clean water are to the quality of life while positively impacting the climate and the environment.

Monetising carbon savings

With that in mind, they launched the Vita Green Impact Fund in 2015 to monetise carbon emissions savings to benefit the local community and the environment.

The focus of this social impact investment vehicle was on balancing economic development and climate justice.

Vita’s investors were looking for environmental and social impact, along with the security of verifiable carbon emissions savings, independently accredited by The Gold Standard.

They raised €2 million for the Fund and used the investment to finance water programs and supply homes in East Africa with fuel-efficient stoves.

“We reached 311,000 people with clean water or clean cooking,” explained Feehely.

“With the €2 million that we spent, we actually generated 2 million carbon offsets.

It’s a very cost-effective model because there is no commercial leakage since we retain the ownership right up until the point of sale.”

Vita was able to repay their investors with a modest return and invested the profit back into the community that had generated the carbon offsets in the first place.

Following on from the success of their pilot scheme, they are currently raising €27.5 million to reach at least 4 million people with life enhancing and climate mitigating initiatives.

Empowering women

One of Vita’s most critical carbon offsetting and community programs is the repair of broken water pumps.

Water pumps installed in the ’80s and ’90s had fallen into disrepair, and with no access to materials or parts, villagers were unable to fix them.

Efficient cooking and access to clean water can help reducing carbon emission and improve quality of life. Image: Vita Ireland

Local access to clean water reduces the need for women and children to walks miles to find water, and most crucially, eliminates the need to resort to sharing water sources with animals.

Without access to clean water, the dirty water must be boiled to sterilise it.

This typically means a lot of firewood is required as fuel for the stove, which leads to mass deforestation.

The need to cut down trees for fuel can be reduced by making clean water available, thus putting less strain on the local environment.

Saving trees has an immediate impact on the atmosphere, a fully grown tree absorbs anywhere between 10 and 50kg of CO2 on average per year.

Another of Vita’s flagship offsetting programs was the introduction of fuel-efficient stoves.

Open stoves in cooking are an inefficient and dangerous activity that emits tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year.

Those who operate open stoves often suffer health implications relating to the eyes, heart and lungs.

Using modernised versions results in a reduction of approximately 50% of carbon emissions compared to the traditional stone stoves.

Looking into the future

To makes sure that these are not stand-alone actions they also run sustainable forestry programmes in tandem with their development projects.

For example, each recipient of a fuel-efficient stove will get some saplings.

These are grown on a plantation in the village, and local women are taught how to manage the trees sustainably to ensure reduced carbon emissions and better energy security for all of the community.

Feehely believes that greenwashing is no longer an option because of increased regulation and transparency.

“It’s going to be expensive to be an emitter in the future, even for big organisations.

Creating carbon and damaging the planet is going to cost your business money, and it’s going to detract from your brand.”

Headline image: Vita Ireland

Background style

Light

Sponsored?

August 2021

Petition to end corporate greenwashing calls leaders to take action

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:11:19 +0000

Petition to end corporate greenwashing calls leaders to take action

Tags

Topic

The Europe-wide ‘Make 2021 Count’ campaign aims to end corporate greenwashing and boost carbon accountability.

As the world recalibrates towards sustainability after the setbacks of the pandemic, this year could well be our last chance to keep the 1.5℃ global warming limit within our future reach.

António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, said earlier this year that „2021 is a make-or-break year to confront the global climate emergency”.

Despite a drop in emissions of around 5%, 2020 was not enough to reverse the trend in carbon emissions.

However, more and more companies pledge to reduce their carbon emission, the transparency on the actual measurement remains unregulated, leaving enough room for greenwashing and misleading.

‘Make 2021 Count’ campaign aims to end corporate greenwashing; Image: Plan A

The Europe-wide ‘Make 2021 Count’ campaign is launched by Berlin-based green tech startup, Plan A, aiming to start a movement to end corporate greenwashing.

Joined by industry partners, organisers of this activist campaign call on the EU to introduce universal binding transparency standards for corporate carbon emissions accounting in European companies.

That would basically mean that once a company claims to be "carbon neutral" should be legally required to disclose its carbon footprint to the public.

Beyond this specific action, the campaign's goal is to educate businesses and spark new conversations between professionals on what sustainability means in 2021.

The first step of the campaign is a petition launched on the change.org website to collect as many signatures as possible, with an initial target of reaching 1000 signatures.

The petition will then be submitted to the European Commission with a call to action for policymakers and regulators to introduce legal measures in the fight against corporate greenwashing.

“For policymakers, we believe this petition can provide a catalyst for further regulations on transparency and definitions of true sustainable practices for corporate entities.

The drafting of European and national regulations on climate action offers the best possible opportunity to seize the moment,”

explains Lubomila Jordanova, CEO of Plan A, why they decided to start a petition as part of the ‘Make 2021 Count’ campaign.

Lubomila Jordanova, CEO of Plan A, lead organiser of the ‘Make 2021 Count’ campaign

It has become virtually impossible to distinguish between companies that take impactful steps to reduce and avoid CO2 and those that only claim to act sustainably without transparently reporting any actions and results.

Thus, greenwashing distorts the reality that the majority of EU businesses have not actually reported on their carbon reduction targets.

In parallel, there is a growing concern that greenwashing undermines the credibility of those companies that are driving actual change.

"The longer there is space for sustainability claims to be overstated, the longer greenwashing can exist and hinder real change.

By reporting transparently, thoroughly and credibly to the public about their emissions, companies can learn about themselves and from each other.

They will also acknowledge that there is no quick fix for sustainable carbon reduction, but that it is a journey that requires commitment and a sense of responsibility”, says Jordanova.

The campaign is calling leaders to sign the petition to end greenwashing

Greenwashing runs deeper than statements about carbon neutrality and generates confusion in determining whether a company is taking tangible steps towards sustainability or not.

This results in hesitation and represents a significant obstacle for companies wishing to start their sustainability journey.

This moment is a chance to help businesses identify the different forms of greenwashing and find viable steps to combat them.

Since its launch in 2017, Plan A, the main organiser of this campaign, has helped businesses steer away from greenwashing with a software that follows a scientific approach to carbon reduction and creates transparency on corporate greenhouse gas emissions.

The campaign is supported by well-recognised companies such as ecolytiq, Green City Solutions, Onomotion, Joblift and Coya.

Background style

Light

Sponsored?

April 2021