Coffee & Tea Climate Protection Question 3
Has the brand (owner) disclosed the annual absolute climate footprint of its supply chain that is 'beyond own operations', and has it accomplished an overall absolute climate footprint reduction compared to the result of the previous reporting year?
NL: Heeft het merk (bedrijf) de jaarlijkse absolute ‘klimaatvoetafdruk' gepubliceerd van zijn bevoorradingsketen buiten zijn eigen operaties, en is het erin geslaagd deze algehele klimaatvoetafdruk te verminderen ten opzichte van het voorafgaande verslagjaar?
DE: Veröffentlicht der Markenhersteller eine absolute Klimabilanz der Lieferkette außerhalb des eigenen Betriebs? Wurde die Klimabilanz im Vergleich zum letzten Berichtsjahr reduziert?
This question closely relates to ‘Scope 3’ (and not to Scope 1 and 2) of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Here we are specifically referring to emissions made throughout the supply chain. This question relates to Disclosures 305-3 and 305-5 of the Global Reporting Initiative.
In almost all sectors ranked, the supply chain is accountable for a vast and major part of the greenhouse gas emissions compared to ‘own operations’ of the brands, and this is especially true for the coffee and tea sector, even though the production units (like farms and factories) throughout the production and supply chain are mostly categorized as ‘low, or no-influence entities’. As a result, brands have limited influence on reducing the greenhouse emissions in the supply chain, meaning that this is where the real challenges are. Therefore, companies are asked whether they have disclosed the climate footprint from its supply chain and/or realized a reduction in this climate footprint.
NOTE: Although Scope 3 may include emissions from e.g. business travel, transportation & distribution, employee commuting & teleworking, for this question we ONLY take Scope 3 emissions into account that come from suppliers/factories that are NOT owned by the brands themselves.
Finally, as sustainability reporting grows more intricate, future ranking criteria may focus more specifically on relevant, separate components of Scope 3 emissions.
A ‘Yes’ is applicable when either:
- Companies disclose the annual absolute climate footprint from their supply chain (i.e., relevant Scope 3 emissions from suppliers/factories NOT owned by the brands themselves) of the current and previous reporting year.
- Companies indicate that they have reported their Scope 3 climate footprint on a publicly available website (i.e., the Carbon Disclosure Project - https://www.cdp.net/en), and the ranker has independently verified that it meets our criteria (see hints/reminders in section below). Note: CDP does not ask for a total of Scope 3 emissions, so if the company has published its Scope 3 emissions on CDP, make sure to manually sum all reported elements of Scope 3 emissions and compare it to its total Scope 3 emissions from the previous year (assuming the company indicated in the CDP report that the figure for both years can be compared).
- Based on this information, the company has achieved an absolute reduction in the climate footprint of its supply chain compared to the previous reporting year, or reports that its operations are climate neutral.
A ‘No’ is applicable when:
- The brand (company) has clearly not published the absolute climate footprint for the greenhouse gas emissions of its supply chain.
- The brand (company) has not reduced its climate footprint for the greenhouse gas emissions of its supply chain compared to the previous year.
A ‘?’ is applicable when:
- Companies publish their climate footprint only relative to e.g. turnover, number of products sold, number of employees etc. The climate footprint should always be presented in absolute terms.
- The published climate footprint is incomplete: some parts of the supply chain are excluded.
- The published climate footprint is more than two years old, or no climate footprint for the previous reporting year is available.
- [Brand / Company, brand owner of brand] publishes the climate footprint of its supply chain for [previous reporting year] and [current reporting year], and has reduced the absolute climate footprint from [Amount] tons of CO2 to [Amount] tons of CO2.
- [Brand / Company, brand owner of brand] states that it does not publish the climate footprint of its supply chain, from [current reporting year] to [previous reporting year].
- [Brand] reports that the absolute annual climate footprint of its supply chain beyond its own operations has increased from [Amount] tons of CO2 to [Amount] tons of CO2.
- [Brand / Company, brand owner of] publishes the climate footprint of its supply chain, from [year] to [previous year], see [reference including page number], but only relative to [sales / employees / items sold] and not the absolute figures.
- [Brand / Company, brand owner of brand] publishes the climate footprint its supply chain from [year] to [previous year], see [reference including page number]. However, the climate footprint is clearly incomplete, missing [operations in country /activities/stages in the supply chain].
- [Brand / Company, brand owner of] publishes the climate footprint of its supply chain, but [the reported footprint is more than two years old / it is not clear whether a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has been achieved because no footprint for the previous reporting year has been provided*]
-* You can pick the topic that applies to 'your' brand. Note: when linking to a downloadable source document, please refer to the page(s) where to find the respective information with: (see link, page [..]). Optional, but only for ? Answers, feel free to write at the end of a remark: Sustainability information should be easily accessible for consumers to make responsible choices.