Should we give Scope 4 emissions this much attention??
Introduction
If you work in corporate sustainability or follow greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting news, then you’ve probably heard of Scope 4 emissions. The topic has come up several times in my conversations with companies and organizations about sustainability reporting.?
Scope 4 has certainly piqued my interest since Rheaply’s embodied carbon reporting is based on the theory of displacement and avoided emissions. You might think Rheaply is thrilled to learn about the rise of Scope 4 emissions, but it’s more complex than that. Before we dive into my views, let’s talk about what Scope 4 emissions are and why people care.?
What are Scope 4 emissions?
Scope 4 emissions is an unofficial term that companies and professionals use in an attempt to categorize and quantify avoided emissions. The term Scope 4 is new but the concept of avoided emissions is not. According to a World Resources Institute article from 2013, avoided emissions are reduction efforts that occur outside of a product’s life cycle or value chain.?
For example, tire manufacturers can enable their customers to save fuel by producing fuel-efficient tires that reduce rolling resistance. Therefore, the customer is able to avoid emissions by using a superior product. This perspective extends beyond the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s accounting framework, which primarily focuses on the reporting company's direct and indirect emissions.?
Let’s pause for a quick recap on scopes 1, 2, and 3.?
You can learn more about scopes 1, 2, and 3 on our website. For the most part, you can think of the first three scopes as emissions that are being released into the atmosphere as a result of the actions of the reporting company and their value chain. Whereas, Scope 4 emissions account for the greenhouse gasses that never make it into the atmosphere because an alternative product was selected. And not just any product, but an alternative that has less life cycle emissions than the original product.?
It’s important to remember that avoided emissions are separate from scope 1, 2, and 3 so you can’t use them to offset or adjust emissions in an organization’s greenhouse gas inventory.?
Why are people talking about Scope 4 emissions?
Scope 4 emissions have become the talk of the town because organizations like to get credit for the good work they do. Right now, there’s no credible, best practice for reporting avoided emissions.
Despite the lack of a global reporting framework, organizations are still moving forward with calculating avoided emissions. Keep in mind, these methodologies can vary greatly and are difficult to compare and verify.?
Scope 4 emissions represent an increasingly important gap in carbon emission disclosure and reporting. Interpreting these avoided emissions can help organizations better understand how they can drive important climate action. With a firm understanding of Scope 4, organizations can clearly outline the potential outcomes of developing a more sustainable product or service, improving transparency for stakeholders.
Reuse and Scope 4 emissions
I typically think about the carbon impacts of reuse in three ways:
Of those three, the last aligns the most with Scope 4 emissions. Let’s consider construction materials as an example. If an organization chooses to source used construction materials for a new build, then they are avoiding the life cycle emissions associated with the typical, new material. This example makes it sound like we are giving all the credit to the organization that selected the used material and included it in their project. But what about the organization that supplies the used materials - otherwise known as the previous owner - do they get any credit? A lack of standardization and best practices makes it challenging to properly account for avoidance credit.
If you ask me, focusing on how to report avoided emissions shouldn’t stop your organization from making decisions that put the environment first. And let’s be honest, a lot of companies are still struggling to account for all 15 categories that fall under Scope 3 emissions. We see a lot of alignment between reuse and several categories under Scope 3, such as Categories 1, 2, 5, and 12.?
I'm not saying all this chatter about Scope 4 is irrelevant but put it into perspective first. Don’t let this hot topic take away your focus from tracking and reducing your organization’s scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions. More specifically from a reuse standpoint, don’t slow down your efforts to scale reuse programs because there’s no standardized framework for reporting these efforts. There’s no time to waste, and I invite you to share some of the reporting challenges you’re facing in the comments below. You know I always welcome discussions on how reuse can make an impact on sustainability goals and net zero plans.
Business Analyst at Evalueserve || Ex-Wipro || ESG || (GRI, SASB,TCFD,SASB,UN PRI)|| DU
9 个月Thank you for sharing. I believe the primary challenge with Scope 4 emissions currently lies in the absence of standardized reporting methods. While some companies have implemented their own reporting approaches, as you mentioned, many struggle to report even their Scope 3 emissions. This poses a significant challenge for new companies looking to adopt effective reporting practices for Scope 4 emissions.
Climate Action Project Manager
1 年Alexandros Theodoropoulos
Building Climate Tech Companies | Founder of Climate Hive | Accelerating Climate Solutions | ClimateBase Fellow | 20+ Years Growing Impact Businesses
1 年Thanks for sharing this piece Garry Cooper. From where I sit as a marketer/busdev leader for climate tech start ups it brings two things to mind. Understanding Scope 1 - 4 emissions and how companies can make an impact, reduce foot print and change behaviors should strive for simplicity. If it becomes like taxes - we will not get the speed of adoption. Second is more a question - but does Scope 4 lend itself to greenwashing or a grey area for pushing products/services that are not actually helpful to cutting emissions?
Finance | Corporate Development | Energy Transition | Sustainability
1 年Hi Garry, Thank you for your post about Scope 4 emissions, a term which I haven't heard about before. It feels this maybe something companies could become comfortable with more for "philanthropic purposes". Similar to other energy avoidance/efficiency projects, it may become really difficult to put a (market) value behind Scope 4 projects and get funding, something publicly listed companies or companies in general would always ask for. I also think that Scope 4 will become obsolete if we get carbon accounting and market based solutions for Scope 1, 2 and 3 in place hopefully very soon. Recycled or reused construction materials would then come at a discount to new products with higher carbon costs priced in. Just my initial thoughts. Happy to discuss / brainstorm in person in Chicago. Best regards, Thomas
Resilient Futures, Business Intelligence (formerly COLLINS); journalist / producer (BusinessWeek, National Geographic, Discovery); Managing Director, SJM Media
1 年PART 1: Several decades ago, RMI co-founder Amory Lovins coined the term “negawatt” to refer to energy that didn’t need to be generated due to efficiency. Basically, Scope 4 is materials efficiency. I might have coined that term. It’s something I’ve thinking a lot about over the last few months. Materials covers everything from reuse (Rheaply) to recycling, remanufacturing and materials science (biodegradable materials; Emissions Plastics, see LanzaTech). The glorious thing about efficiency, whether measured in electrons or atoms, is that the benefits drop directly to the bottom line, giving consumers more spending power and businesses to more capital to invest in their businesses or distribute as dividends. Negawatts and Negastuff both reduce demand for fossil fuels / inputs and also natural resources, with knock-on benefits for biodiversity. Five years ago, I sat in a coffeehouse in Evanston and cut this little video about energy efficiency. Without the efficiency gains over the last 50 years, we’d been looking at CO2 levels in the 500s, instead of a still plenty sobering 420 ppm (then 408 ppm) https://youtu.be/9sIGrag-LeU?si=dy3thSVq8262dja4