Hotly disputed workplace disagreement provides an important lesson in climate communications
By Tom Hunt, Associate Director
The SBTi’s dispute between board and experts provides an existential threat to the organisation, but also renews a contentious debate
We all love a bit of office drama, don’t we? Well, maybe not if you’re the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which has been embroiled in a public dispute between its board and members of staff.
The debate comes over its position on carbon credits, a permit that allows organisations to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These limits are often adhered to through creative uses of offsetting programmes, such as planting trees, removing plastic litter, or renewable energy projects in communities.
At the beginning of April, the SBTi said it would revise guidance around the use of offsets to help address Scope 3 emissions, coming from an organisation's supply chain. This caused a public backlash from experts within the organisation, many of whom are critical about allowing a greater use of offsets in decarbonisation efforts. The SBTi has since clarified that its standards have not changed, but it will be going through the relevant consultation processes to explore this policy change.
Accreditation should not be a communications exercise
This is an issue that the SBTi needs to get right. The longer the dispute is publicised, the greater the risk to the accreditation’s reputation. Importantly, its decision must not be made based on the lobbying of organisations looking to take the easy way out. Accreditation should not be a communications exercise – it should be reliable and trusted.
It’s also an important decision for the companies who are investing heavily in their net zero transitions based on the targets set out by the SBTi. This is particularly important amidst an uncertain global economy and the recent backlash against ESG. As much as it is protecting its reputation, the SBTi also needs to protect investor confidence in the money that organisations are spending to reach net zero based on its accreditation.
Supporters in favour of carbon credits and offsets might argue that they could have long-term benefits – that they may reduce the short-term financial pressures of reaching net zero, could help with addressing the more challenging Scope 3 emissions and might incentivise restoring biodiversity and other green projects.
However, the risk is in delay; organisations might focus their resources on investing in offsets rather than putting in the hard yards to decarbonise their supply chain. Equally, it could lead to more greenwashing, where an organisation aims to make themselves look better by misleading stakeholders on their green credentials. By offsetting emissions, organisations could feasibly claim they are net zero while still pumping carbon into the atmosphere. The quality of many carbon offsetting schemes is also in question. For example, some tree planting projects can actually be disruptive if the relevant groundwork hasn't been put in beforehand to ensure they suit the region’s biodiversity and are done in partnership with local communities.
This is the core reason why there are so many sceptics of carbon offsets. In principle, no one is saying that organisations shouldn’t invest in green projects. The worry is that it creates a false sense of security that prevents organisations from addressing the system-wide challenges that need to be addressed to truly achieve net zero. At a time when we need to rapidly accelerate the pace of change, greater use of offsets would have the perverse incentive of letting companies take their foot off the gas.
This clash of heads will likely become more prevalent in the years to come, particularly as we draw nearer to the net zero deadline dates for many organisations. Organisations will need to manage business growth in an unstable economy, which may encourage some to try and cut corners where they can. As we edge closer to 1.5C, the likelihood of scientists and experts allowing that to happen without criticism is low.
Stakeholder communication is vital
The SBTi’s predicament provides an important lesson for communicators. Ensuring there are clear lines of communication between important stakeholders is vital. For whatever reason, internal disgruntlement was not addressed before the SBTi went public with its intentions. A more robust internal engagement strategy, using tactics such as staff consultations would help to prevent situations like this from happening again. Even more radical, the SBTi could consider some kind of staff representative on its board to provide a voice for its scientists.
More broadly, the story highlights a renewed desire for urgency as we creep ever closer to 1.5C. Patience is wearing thinner towards organisations that want to continue to delay and compromise the inevitable investment that will be required to avoid disastrous levels of global warming.
The value of authentic communications
That means we need to be even more vigilant about our climate communications. By now, most organisations know you cannot just hide a strategy behind a press release. The more clear and detailed you can be in your communications the better. Being authentic in your communications is equally vital. Greenwashing not only presents a huge reputational risk but will also be much more tightly watched with the FCA’s incoming anti-greenwashing rule and the ASA’s recent crackdown. Some organisations are doing this really well already, others need to step up their game.
The level of detail in reported data can help with authenticity. There are several guidelines for organisations on sustainability reporting, including the Transition Plan Taskforce Disclosure Framework, European Sustainability Reporting Standards and Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. Within that reporting, it is important to be open about both successes and challenges. Normalising this will help to alleviate greenwashing, and help to create a culture of learning from one another. Finally, as net zero becomes more aligned with business growth, decisions will inevitably come down to the board. Therefore, executive buy-in and climate expertise on the board is critical.
The debate around offsets won’t go away. There will continue to be advocates as much as there will be critics. Yes, there is potential for them to help, but only when carefully considered and balanced with other environmental and social needs. That means ensuring projects are themselves ethically above board, and that the hard work to decarbonise continues alongside them.
As for the SBTi, while it may have been the catalyst in resparking this debate for the wrong reasons, it has an opportunity to take a leading position on carbon credits moving forward. All eyes will be on them in July, when the guidance is set to be published.