Counting carbon - part 1

Google today (in the UK) has blacked its screen…. 

 

The company explains, “We’ve turned the lights out. Now it’s your turn - Earth Hour“. Google explains this is an awareness raising gesture not in itself an effort to save energy (black screens use the same power as white ones). 

What of Google’s efforts to take ownership of its own carbon footprint? The black screen carries a link to an explanatory page detailing research and investment into renewable energy sources. Fair enough. 

But how big is Google’s carbon footprint? The company won’t say, claiming it is commercially sensitive. The data they provide to the Carbon Disclosure Project is not - err disclosed. At the same time Google claims to be carbon neutral, having purchased offsets to balance their (unknown) footprint. 

A scan down the ICT sector data in CDC raises more questions than it answers: 

Dell – 0.38 million tonnes CO2Google – not disclosed but ‘carbon neutral’
HP – 1.6 million tonnes CO2
Intel – 3.9 million tonnes CO2
Microsoft – 0.42 million tonnes CO2
Yahoo – not disclosed but ‘carbon neutral’ 

Should we trust the carbon neutral claims? Both companies say their data is independently audited. Is this enough?

I think not. Even if the data has been properly collected and the offsets rigorously arranged (two huge assumptions) we want to know the size of the problem. The Stern Report estimated that the internet is responsible for approximately the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as global aviation. This was a revelation to many, who had seen the ‘virtual’ sector as almost impact free.  

So how good an argument is commercial sensitivity? I imagine it would be simple to estimate the number of servers (or total storage) Google and yahoo have from their carbon footprints and that’s why they are so shy about carbon. Googling the question reveals a lot of speculation in geek circles, with estimates between 100,000 and 500,000 servers for Google.

Another tack would be to look at their energy bill which might be assumed to be material to their annual accounts. I haven’t checked – but let me know if it’s there. 

If we accept that there are certain sectors where carbon footprints cannot be disclosed to the public, we need to be thinking about a trusted authority to verify claims. Not individual hired auditors and definitely not carbon offset arrangers. Something analogous to the supervision of disarmament in Northern Ireland where the militarised factions would not reveal their armouries to one another. 

On the whole though, openness should be the rule. Openness would mean we could have more confidence in the data, we could understand the consequences of our own IT use and we could trust the likes of Google and yahoo better. Notice anything strange about the other ICT companies in the list above? How can Microsoft and Dell be under half a million tonnes CO2? That will be the subject of my next blog – but at least their willingness to be open with their data allows us to discuss it. 

CR Sage.

Fashion Victims

Amazing, really the speed with which ignorance can pass to concern and then cynicism. In fact in the case of Peacocks, a second league UK fashion retailer, I’m unsure whether they paused even briefly in the ‘concern’ phase.I was literally stopped in my tracks in one of their stores by a huge poster campaign, “Global Warming – beware”.Pictured in toxic landscapes of orange lakes and dead tree stumps (see web banner above) minor models pranced in the brand’s cheap clothing. 

What, I enquired of the store manager, did “Global Warming- beware” mean?  

“It’s advertising” he said.

Yes thank you, but how does it relate to your clothes? 

“Just advertising” he said. 

Now I’d really like to meet the ad executive who dreamt this one up. What possible thought process led to the slogan, “Global Warming – beware” for a fashion line that has no connection whatsoever with the subject? Perhaps I’m missing a new marketing trend – disaster marketing. I do recall a brand of cigarettes called ‘Death’. Maybe it’s the new consumer aspirational marketing. Nihilism equals sexy.

I have a hunch this may be over-analysing the Peacocks marketing strategy. So are Peacocks clothes low-carbon in some way? Is their ethical sourcing an example for the apparel industry? Judge for yourself - this is the entire information on climate change and ethical sourcing on their website: 

”Our ethical sourcing policy sets out a comprehensive list of requirements, which we expect our business partners and suppliers to adhere to, including how they should deal with their own employees. We recognise that in some countries there are legal and cultural differences, which need to be taken into account but we do insist on all of our partners meeting our own set of requirements.“ Move over Gap!

Perhaps it’s a little unfair singling out Peacocks (despite their vacuous posters) because we all know that CR is mainly the preserve of the really huge S&P100 and FTSE100 companies. The message from the high street is – there’s one hell of a lot more work to do. Sage

I am beautiful - aren’t I?

You’re out on a date. You know the (man/woman) opposite you only slightly. They appear interesting and you are paying close attention to everything they say. Each sentence is helping you build a quick-fit image of their personality. Then out of the blue – ‘I am beautiful aren’t I’. It’s so preposterous you’d not believe it could even happen. But it does…

I have resisted bloging for some years. Colleagues beg me to keep my thoughts to myself or at least in the company. They worry about losing their bonus. A blog for your bonus? This blog will mostly be about CR (corporate responsibility to the innocent). It’s a field where few are speaking their minds anymore. So much effort is going in to consensus building (and money making) that critical comment has all but evaporated.

The golden rule for companies talking or writing about their own environmental and social behaviour – is humility. Do not blow you own trumpet. Do not tell your audience how great you are. And above all do not claim leadership. It’s the nature of the subject that people will make their own judgements about the appeal of a company. Telling them you are a great employer is unconvincing. Telling them your pension fund is fully financed might score a point. Indeed making your own mind up is the only reward a reader has for ploughing through the turgid company CR reports and websites.

If you are involved in CR you probably subscribe to one or both of the email services that deliver newly minted CR reports to your inbox. Why on earth do they send these things out on a Friday afternoon? Is it like government slipping out an embarrassing news release under cover of a bigger news story? Are they actually hoping you won’t click the link to their latest collection of ‘homilies, platitudes and soft assurances’(as the MacDonalds CR report was once described).Either that or they are so removed from the real world that they actually imagine Friday afternoon is a prime CR report reading opportunity. Beer after work or group CR report reading anyone?

So mostly I ignore the Friday pm CR spam. But recently one popped up I could not ignore. Heading, ‘The best in sustainability reporting just got better!’Wrong, wrong, wrong. Adidas can’t even claim to have been the best, never winning any of the respected benchmarks like UNEP or ACCA. In fact I recall their previous effort being distinctly flimsy. Even if they were the best and had actually improved – this would be a cringe-making headline. But in their case it’s delusional. Why would you want to spend even one minute reading the report from a company that announces itself so presumptuously? Would you believe a word or figure inside?

When it comes to CR (and personal beauty) best leave the judgement to the eye of the beholder.

Sage