Category Archives: English

the guardian on 5 trends that show corporate responsibility is here to stay


Sustainability is not a trend but a global movement. Georg Kell recently published the “five trends that show corporate responsibility is here to stay” in the guardian.

Irregardless if you call it CSR, social and corporate governance (ESG) or sustainability. Several big trends indicate that this topic will stay and evolve:

  1. Transparency
  2. Trust
  3. Community Participation
  4. Accessing new markets responsibly
  5. Initiatives to engage companies

Georg Kell, executive director of the UN Global Compact, clearly emphasizes a valid and transparent communication in line with official standards and initiatives.

Find the full article here.

WRI – Choose your emission pathway


The World Resources Institute took the recent IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) to illustrate possible emissions pathways in an infografic

Learn more about the WRI

Find the Fifth IPCC Assemsment Report here.

Scope 2 Accounting – treatment of green power


An increasing number of companies tend to purchase or even generate green power. Today the focus is mainly on green electricity out of renewable sources or considered as low-carbon or “carbon free” electricity. Despite some clear physical basic conditions it is fact that there are market instruments and technologies out there. These instruments should make a clear difference – it should not only be a calculation trick but should generate a real shift towards a greener power supply infrastructure. This can also be understood as additionality: (according to the IPCC/CDM §43) “an activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the activity” compared to a business-as-usual scenario.

GHG protocol

The GHG protocol adressed this in the new Scope 2 Accounting Guidelines (Clarifying the treatment of green power instruments) which is also available as PDF draft for public comments. (issued March 2014)

What issues are adressed in the new guide?

  • Attributes and Intended Uses
    • Identifying the emissions attributes contained in renewable energy instruments and purchasing mechanisms
    • Identify intended uses of instrument, including as: means of impacting emissions calculation in end-user scope 2 inventories; mechanism for energy supplier disclosure; tracking instrument for supplier quotas, etc.
  • Quality Assurance of Renewable Energy Instruments
    • Identifying requirements for renewable energy purchasing mechanisms such as clear statement of attributes, prevention of double counting (see below), approval for use by reporting or governmental program, appropriately matching vintage of instrument with annual scope 2 calculation, etc.
  • Double Counting
    • Preventing explicit double counting of emission attributes through use of certificate registries and tracking systems
    • Preventing implicit double counting of emission attributes through adjustment of other calculation sources and mechanisms used in scope 2 accounting
    • Identifying best practices for treatment of “null power” where certificates have been sold from generation
  • Overlapping Power Sector Policies
    • Surveying regional approaches to accounting for renewable energy purchasing within an emissions- capped power sector
  • Additionality and Eligibility
    • Identifying the range of reporting program and consumers expectations about the full environmental and market impacts of renewable energy purchasing mechanisms and their ability to drive new renewable development
    • Distinguishing these expectations from the core criteria necessary
  • Calculation and Reporting
    • Identifying appropriate calculation and reporting procedures for reflecting renewable energy attribute ownership in scope 2 of a GHG inventory

(Source: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/feature/ghg-protocol-power-accounting-guidelines)

The final publication is scheduled for fall 2014. DFGE is also part of the WRI/GHG stakeholder group.

CDP

The CDP reporting is also adressing this topic with the recent 2014 CDP climate change reporting guidelines. Companies are able to report on “Purchased and consumed low carbon electricity, heat, steam or cooling” based on the following assumptions:

“Purchased and consumed low carbon electricity, heat, steam or cooling (MWh)” should be used to disclose the amounts of electricity (and heat, steam or cooling) that was accounted at a zero emission factor (0 tCO2e/MWh) or that can be considered “low carbon” and that are supported by appropriate tracking instruments. This means that any portion of electricity (and heat, steam or cooling) that comes from renewable/low carbon sources and is incorporated into a distribution grid average/residual mix, and that is not backed by some kind of instrument retired by the company, or by someone on their behalf should not be counted.

Source: CDP climate change reporting guidance 2014, page 128

What is considered as “low carbon” for CDP?

“Unfortunately there is no precise, generally accepted definition of what “low carbon energy” is. No definition is found also in the GHG Protocol standards or ISO. Nevertheless, it can be reasonably established that “low carbon energy” will be any type of energy that will have no direct emissions and which the indirect emissions can usually be considered as negligible considering the life cycle of the given technology. It is generally accepted as such power technologies like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and most hydro power. Nuclear power is also usually considered low carbon, although other considerations make it a more contentious technology. Natural gas, combined cycle gas turbine and Combined Heat and Power (cogeneration), despite being less carbon intensive than other means of electricity production like coal, are not considered here in the definition of low carbon.”

Source: CDP climate change reporting guidance 2014, page 129

What is considered as Appropriate tracking instrument?

“Tracking instruments can have different names depending on the specific system they originate from. They can be designated as a “certificate”, “tags”, an “instrument”, “credits”, a “guarantee of origin”, etc. For the purpose of this guidance we will use “instruments” as the overarching concept for all these different designations. When accounting for renewable energy based on tracking instruments, companies should be made aware of what constitutes a good system for tracking electricity. From a CDP perspective, there are 4 simple criteria that need to be fulfilled:  There is an entity responsible for the instruments generation (issuing body) that issues the instrument in a publicly available registry(ies) against renewable energy delivered by a generator. Only one instrument is issued per unit of energy (e.g. MWh) and this link is properly audited. A set of attributes are present in the instrument (or can be legitimately inferred from it) namely: name of producer; technology type; year of installation; year of production; state support/aid; emission rate; other environmental characteristics. Properties should not be disaggregated e.g. it is not allowed for one party to count for the GHG emission factor and another party to count for the fact that it is renewable in origin.  There is an auditable chain of custody, that is, all information can be verified/audited by users in the system and the whole system is audited by external parties, guaranteeing that the link between generation, distribution and final consumption is effectively established and that there is no double counting.  The information in the system can be used to avoid the double counting of attributes. CDP will generally consider the following systems (and instruments) as appropriate for the purpose of tracking renewable electricity: Systems based on European Guarantees of Origin (GOs) such as the EECS (European Energy Certificate System).  Systems based on USA Renewable Energy Certificates such as the Green-e Energy program in the USA. In addition to the issuance, tracking of properties and guarantee of the chain of custody, there can be certification schemes that will testify for the appropriate use of an instrument for a given purpose. Further discussion of these issues as well as specific terminology can be found in the technical note “Accounting of Scope 2 emissions”, available at https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/guidance.aspx.”

Source: CDP climate change reporting guidance 2014, page 97

To consider these tracking instruments is also crucial for any activities within “carbon neutral” or “carbon zero” certifications.

UK Defra

Especially in the UK there is a clear methodology which is also favored by the DFGE. Be clear on your physical emissions but consider what has been achieved to make a real difference. To ensure a transparent and valid calculation of the carbon footprint/emissions a gross/net approach can be uses.

The gross figure for emissions show the real physical emissions based on average factors. The net emissions take into account that you have a low-carbon emission factor, consider a renewable energy source (generating own electricity) or even feed-in to the grid through various technologies.

More details on the gross/net or the gross/gross approach of the UK DEFRA can be found here.

Read more about the UK government “Environmental Reporting Guidelines: including mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting guidance“.

Article: Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math


Read this interesting article by Bill McKibben in the Rolling Stone Magazine.

McKibben investigates Climate Changes scenarios and corresponding Carbon Footprints with three numbers:

– 2° Celsius (maximum temperature rise humans can cope)
– 565 Gigatons (of CO2 that humans can pur in the atmosphere to stay below 2°)
– 2795 Gigatons (of CO2 that we currently plan to burn)

Now you can do the math.

Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math
Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe – and that make clear who the real enemy is

Further Reading:
Book: The Burning Question by Mike Berners-Lee

NYT – The Facts on Fracking


Interesting Facts on Fracking published in the New York Times

Environmentalists should consider the pros and cons of fracking in comparison with other technologies.
ID-100128146

Read it here.

Image courtesy of  FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Avnet Ranked #139 Among Greenest Publically Traded Companies in the U.S. by Newsweek


Avnet recognized on Newsweek’s Annual Green Ranking list for Fourth Year in a Row

PHOENIX — Avnet, Inc. (NYSE:AVT), a leading global technology distributor, was recognized for the fourth year in a row on Newsweek’s Green Rankings list. Avnet placed No. 139 overall, moving up six spots from 2011 and 82 spots from 2010 on the annual ranking, which compares the largest publically traded companies in the U.S. on environmental performance. Newsweek rankings are based on a company’s environmental footprint, corporate management and transparency.

“Now more than ever, our stakeholders around the world are placing a higher value on how we impact the environment,” said Bob Gracz, Avnet’s vice president of Corporate Real Estate. “Reducing Avnet’s carbon footprint and overall energy use has been an important objective in how we manage all our facilities. Each year we continue to build upon our efforts in becoming a more sustainable company not simply because it’s good for business, but because it’s the right thing to do.”

Avnet has begun preparations to participate in the Global Reporting Initiative’s sustainability reporting process, which is widely used by companies around the world as a way to report sustainability information in a way that is similar to financial reporting. Involvement in this global initiative represents an opportunity to aid in benchmarking progress with elements of external reporting accountability.

Avnet’s 2012 global Carbon Footprint Analysis, which was conducted by German consulting firm DFGE, measured the amount of greenhouse gases Avnet emits directly or indirectly in day-to-day business activities. The results showed a 10 percent year-over-year improvement in overall carbon emissions as measured against revenue over the same period.

Avnet has taken numerous steps to reduce its impact on the environment. Some examples include:

  • Occupying or updating buildings and warehouses with more sustainable designs.
  • Modernizing locations to meet strict environmental standards such as LEED and ISO 14001.
  • Implementation of a wide-variety of both innovative and practical projects that have improved the power efficiency of Avnet’s data center operations. These projects included a new data storage management system, virtualization, a system hibernation script, green lighting, and physical improvements. As a direct result, Avnet has saved millions of dollars and avoided a multi-million dollar power build out to its Americas data center.
  • Enhancing recycling efforts at all facilities and the adoption of more environmentally-friendly packaging materials.
  • Using more energy efficient lighting, which has saved Avnet’s Chandler, Ariz., component distribution center 3.8 million kilowatt hours per year, equating to more than $260,000 in energy savings.
  • Enabling employees to work remotely, significantly reducing the amount of carbon released for those commuting to work and reducing the amount of office space required.

In addition, as announced April 2012, Avnet’s entry into the electronics aftermarket services market helps position the company as a strategic provider of environmental solutions by providing total solutions for the aftermarket needs of electronics OEMs, service providers and corporations.

Newsweek collaborated with leading environmental researchers, Trucost and Sustainalytics, to rank companies in three categories: an Environmental Impact Score, an Environmental Management Score and an Environmental Disclosure Score. The complete Newsweek rankings, as well as the ranking methodology can be found at http://greenrankings.newsweek.com/.

Avnet’s approach to corporate sustainability incorporates a broader perspective on total corporate social responsibility (CSR). In addition to environmental concerns, CSR takes into account initiatives such as community relations, employee practices and economic development. Learn more about the company’s ongoing efforts: http://www.localglobalgreen.com

Learn more on Avnet’s Environmental Sustainability blog: http://blogging.avnet.com/weblog/green/

Follow Avnet on Twitter: @AvnetComms

Connect with Avnet on Facebook and LinkedIn: facebook.com/avnetinc and http://www.linkedin.com/company/2572

About Avnet
Avnet, Inc. (NYSE:AVT), a Fortune 500 company, is one of the largest distributors of electronic components, computer products and embedded technology serving customers globally. Avnet accelerates its partners’ success by connecting the world’s leading technology suppliers with a broad base of customers by providing cost-effective, value-added services and solutions. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, Avnet generated revenue of $25.7 billion. For more information, visit www.avnet.com.

Source: Avnet, Inc..

Video – The business value of the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle and Corporate Value Chain Standards


Video: Carbon Footprint of an average US family – by the Discovery Channel


Avnet Celebrates Earth Day 2012


DFGE calculates Avnet’s Carbon Footprint for the 3rd time. Here are the results:

Ray Sadowski, Avnet’s CFO, in this Earth Day 2012 message, overviews the progress Avnet is making on its Green initiatives. Learn how Avnet improved the Carbon Footprint calculated by the DFGE.

Learn more about Avnet http://www.avnet.com

Avnet, Inc. (NYSE:AVT) is one of the largest distributors of electronic components, including connectors and semiconductors; technology solutions, computer products and embedded technology. Avnet connects the world’s leading technology manufacturers with a broad base of more than 100,000 customers by providing cost-effective value-added services and solutions.

Sustainability Nears a Tipping Point


 

by MIT Sloan Management Review. Read the full report: http://mitsmr.com/A3PZo7