Most recently I read this blog post by Futerra’s Ed Gillespie. Without going into the long and the short of all that he wrote about, the 2 most thought-worthy and at the same time sobering facts I went away with were:
- REN21’s report shows that in 2009 fossil fuels made up 80.3% of the global energy mix, and in 2019 it was 80.2%. Hence, whilst renewables are growing much faster (5% a year) than fossil fuel use (1.7% a year) because the global society still is using more energy every year, still burning more fossil fuels every year. Crucially: the success of renewables isn’t even denting that, nor displacing it, they are merely in addition to it.
- What NO consultancy has yet to do empirically as far as he is aware is tackle it’s scope 3 emissions in any meaningful way.
In other words: If a consultant’s – take my own person as an example – ‘sold product’ (i.e. the counsel, support, advice and propaganda that is being provided) is still causing emissions to grow change is not only blocked, but real harm is being cause.
The first bullet point is tough to swallow simply because it gives a clear, scientific view on how successful (not) our global efforts were. It shatters my – what I thought was a scientifically grounded – believe that the surge in renewable energy plants had truly made a difference. Not really. Or rather: yes … but, our misbehaviour in terms of energy consumption outweighs any achievements.
The second bullet point though is the true shocker, but indeed does have a bitter pill to swallow. For that, let me maybe let me rewrite the 2nd bullet point in 1st person singular:
If my ‘sold product’ — the counsel, support, advice and insights I provide — are still causing emissions to grow, I am are not just blocking change, but rather I am causing real harm.
It is a very simple statement.
But indeed it points out exactly where the rubber hits the road.
For a small player in the field like myself it is a double challenge and a paradox:
I at least tend to work with SME companies, many of which are not even near an educated conversation on carbon footprint of their company (no matter what scope it may be about).
Or the footprint in any other relevant environmental or social dimension.
And: Until they will be able (as in: capable, assuming they are willing) to meaningfully reduce their carbon footprint – it can be a year, maybe two if not more.
For my own Scope 3 emissions I should not work with these guys. But only with the few who are already sufficiently progressive and mature enough to delivery the required carbon reductions on the timeline required for the Paris Agreement.
Just – who is going to offer support, insight and advice to the huge Bell-Curve-Centre of those who are not at that point yet?
Someone has to – because they, too, are part of our global carbon footprint. Someone has to at least try and get them on the band waggon. There is no other option than to try. And to be fully transparent: It’s been a while that I committed to trying exactly that.
The challenge, and ultimate benefit if successful, in working with SMEs is not just their collective carbon footprint. But the collective number of jobs and gross-impact (and rduction thereof) they provide – independent of geography.
- In the EU for example, an average just over 65% of all jobs were created by micro and SMEs (Source) across the 27 member states in 2020.
- Across the world these numbers vary widely, even for more developed jurisdictions: They range from between just over 30% (Russia) to over 90% (Korea, Greece) (Source)
- In developing markets that percentage is consistently very high, more so as a significant percentage of ‘employment’ stems from the informal sector, and is not properly accounted for by official statistics. The latest data pull from across the world – with vastly varying assessment dates – is available from this Source, and ranges the importance of the informal sector at 96% for the Democratic Republic of Congo (most) to just short of 14% for Serbia (least)
Looking at these stats, there are a couple of questions that I feel need more time of reflection:
- Is it worth my time, any one’s time really, to work with companies only half-committed to sustainability in the very present, specifically given the climate emergency that we’re facing?
- And if so:
- Is it better to work with companies that are capable (i.e. mature enough as a company in their operations), and – if I support them as a consultant – will most likely achieve in reducing my Scope 3 emissions, even on the short term?
- Or is it mid-term more beneficial – both, for my Scope 3 and the global climate – to ‘lose’ time on those companies that are not very capable just yet, but that we need to get on the bandwagon because they are such a significant segment of our global economy which we cannot lose (at least as a segment, albeit individual companies may en up having to face the chop) so people can make a living and put food on their table?
There is no doubt what so ever that Scope 3 – not just, but certainly, in climate matters – is THE ultimate measurement ruler for consultants like myself. If manage to do the job we set out and commit to do. If we contribute our drop to the ocan.
But while the actual measurement KPI is very clear, the context in which we measure it is as muddy as can be. Precicely because by far no everyone is as apt and mature in measuring sustainability impacts. Not just in a meaningful way, but measure at all.
And that’s a bit the crux and paradox in this matter.
