- Female-founded companies received only 2% of all venture capital (VC) investment in 2022.
- Gender bias and a scarcity of female investors are thought to hamper VC investment in female-owned businesses.
- By expanding female-led VC communities, highlighting successful VC funding for female businesses and confronting stereotypes, more VC funding should flow to female-founded companies.
By most measures, women are making steady gains in professional opportunity, pay and status and decision-making power at work. Their progress, while slow and uneven, is reflected in economic empowerment indexes put out by the OECD, World Health Organization, UN agencies and others.
One area where women are advancing little, however, is venture capital (VC). Companies founded solely by women received only 2% of all VC investment in 2022, and only about 15% of all VC ‘cheque-writers’ are women.
In the Middle East, where my company is based, venture capital investment is increasingly seen as a critical component of national economic competitiveness and a source of innovation. The region’s VC funds and corporate VCs are competing with sovereign wealth funds, among the world’s largest and most active VC investors. Yet, startups founded by women in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) received only 1.2% of funding in 2021 and about 2% last year.
Image: Data Source: McKinsey
What’s behind the disparity?
The glaring imbalance has sparked lively debate about what’s causing it.
Venture capital is a male-dominated industry and bias, whether conscious or subconscious, is clearly a factor. A Harvard study showed that 70% of VC investors preferred pitches presented by male entrepreneurs over those presented by female entrepreneurs, even though the pitches were identical.
Another analysis has shown that VC investments in enterprises founded or co-founded by women average less than half the amount invested in companies founded by male entrepreneurs.
Image: Data Source: Women in VC
In Inc.’s Women Entrepreneurship Report, 62% of female entrepreneurs said they experienced some form of gender bias during the funding process. Feelings of bias are especially acute among women entrepreneurs in MENA. In a survey of 125 female founders in the region, 58% said MENA investors were less likely to invest in women-led startups than global investors.
The scarcity of female investors – those who sit on fund boards, lead deals, and make investment decisions – is also an issue. However, the authors of a Harvard Business Review article on the VC gender gap caution women founders against focusing solely on pitching to female investors.
“There are still very few female investors, and they tend to be concentrated in funds that focus on earlier-stage investments, where risk is higher and funds invested are smaller. Today, female VCs simply do not control sufficient assets to continue investing in female-led firms as they scale. This means that female founders will ultimately need to attract male investors to grow — and if you’re a woman, our research shows that’s a lot easier to do if you raise at least some capital from men from the start,” they wrote.
Another hard reality is the lack of a pipeline; here I speak from experience. Our corporate VC arm, Agility Ventures, received about 1,000 pitch decks last year. How many came from women-founded or women-led businesses? I can count them on one hand.
The lopsided numbers in MENA are especially perplexing because of the inroads women in the region have made in the educational fields that generate most of the innovation and ideas sought by venture investors. Women now account for 57% of STEM students at MENA universities, according to UNESCO.
What do you think are the biggest obstacles facing women founders?Image: Data Source: Wamda, TiE Dubai – survey of 125 female founders in MENA, published in collaboration with TiE Dubai and TiE Women
Why address the VC gender gap?
Apart from the need to address basic inequity, there are plenty of reasons to tackle the gender chasm in venture capital. The biggest is the chance to unlock economic gains.
Venture funding de-risks the innovation process through bets on promising ideas from smart people who need resources to get their ideas to market. It’s a wellspring of new technology, business growth and economic development, which makes the diversity of entrepreneurship and VC leadership economic imperatives. A widely cited BCG report says global GDP would rise 3% to 6%, boosting the global economy by up to $5 trillion annually if women entrepreneurs received the same investment as male entrepreneurs.
Accept our marketing cookies to access this content.
These cookies are currently disabled in your browser.Accept cookies
What’s the answer?
Expand women-led VC communities
That means networking, mentorship, technical assistance and other support. It means building on the work of investment community participants, such as Women in VC, the world’s largest global community for women in VC to connect and collaborate; AllRaise, an organization dedicated to accelerating the success of women founders and funders; and the Female Founders Fund, an early-stage fund that offers pitching resources and technical help in addition to investing in women-led tech startups.
It also means more non-profit and public-sector programmes, such as empowerME, an initiative aimed at female entrepreneurs in the Middle East; Monsha’at, a Saudi government small business authority with an entrepreneurship programme targeted at women; She Innovates, the global UN Women programme that connects female innovators via app and platform; and Global Invest in Her, a platform for women entrepreneurs seeking funding.
Celebrate success
We need to elevate the visibility of female role models who have raised capital and successfully brought products and services to market. Stories of success act as inspiration and provide models for females in business to emulate. Mona Ataya, CEO of Mumzworld, is a good example.
Confront stereotypes
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) highlights one damaging stereotype: that businesses started by women typically aren’t the kind that are right for outside investment because they’re low-tech enterprises in sectors with little potential to scale, trade across borders and go public through stock offerings.
“More attention needs to be given to women who are starting and growing high growth, high innovation and large market businesses. Stereotypes that frame women entrepreneurs as a disadvantaged group feed a false narrative that women lack the same competency as men regarding business leadership,” the GEM team says.
License and Republishing
World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.
- While advancements in renewable energy sources like solar and wind are significant, the infrastructure and market aren’t fully prepared to abandon fossil fuels immediately.
- Bridge solutions, such as natural gas and nuclear power, are needed to ensure energy security and economic stability during the clean energy transition.
- More collaborative efforts between the public and private sectors would be beneficial in developing practical regulations that encourage investment without stifling innovation.
Powering the grid
Power generation is the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions. The International Energy Agency recently sent hearts aflutter with the news that “unstoppable” low-carbon technologies have global fossil fuel use on track to peak much earlier than expected – by 2025 or before. According to the International Energy Agency, four-fifths of the new power capacity being added today is generated by renewables.
That’s encouraging but the fact remains that our electrical grid is not yet renewable-ready and that roughly 80% of our power is still supplied by fossil fuels. Our ability to continue adding capacity from solar, wind and other alternatives is limited unless we progress on the hard, time-consuming and expensive task of extending or adding transmission lines and costly infrastructure.
Moreover, some key assumptions underlying earlier forecasts are no longer valid. Power demand is not static. It is surging as we put more electric vehicles on the road, build new data centres and add semi-conductor manufacturing capacity. Chip factories and data centres consume 100 times more power than typical industrial businesses.
Bridging the energy transition
Even with added solar and wind generation, we’ll need reliable new baseload power sources to replace what we get today from fossil fuels. That’s why there is so much interest in scaling and commercializing clean hydrogen.
In the meantime, however, we need “bridge” solutions. Natural gas and nuclear power are cleaner than coal and oil. While both are environmentally problematic, we risk damaging the global economy and threatening our energy security if we cut them off prematurely without using them to aid our transition.
Political opposition is blocking investment in new natural gas infrastructure – pipelines, liquefaction facilities, shipping – when we could invest in ways to reduce LNG methane emissions by mitigating leaks associated with drilling, storage and transport.
Earthmind’s Franklin Servan-Schreiber makes the case for the growing importance and viability of nuclear power, particularly in the Gulf. Advances in “transmutation” nuclear energy processes make it possible to generate power in a way that is safer, cleaner and cheaper while also addressing fears of nuclear weapons proliferation.
“Nuclear energy represents the only carbon-free baseload energy available in this (Gulf) region without rivers, making it an indispensable component of any net-zero energy mix,” says Servan-Schreiber.
Increase in deployment of climate technologies needed to reach emissions reduction targets by 2030, from 2021.Image: McKinsey
On the road
In road transportation, zero-carbon solutions are being considered but are not practical today. And that’s not all bad: the “greenest” car in America isn’t a fully electric Tesla or Rivian. It’s the trusty hybrid Toyota Prius, which is hugely popular, versatile, reliable and affordable.
Sadly, there are few hybrid options when it comes to long-haul trucking. The bulk of research and development and investment have gone toward developing emissions-free vehicles: battery-electric and hydrogen-fuel trucks.
For now, trucks powered by heavy, industrial-scale batteries have a maximum range of about 300 miles and require several hours to recharge. Hydrogen-powered trucks refuel faster (about 30 minutes) and can cover up to 500 miles at a time. In both cases, adequate fueling networks and infrastructure are years away. In the meantime, current versions of zero-emission vehicles are still roughly three times more expensive than diesel trucks, even after tax breaks and incentives.
In business
On the policy front, businesses are struggling to keep pace with new emissions mandates and disclosure requirements. This year, new reporting rules in Canada and Germany prompted howls of protest from businesses begging for more time to comply. The EU recently rejected new rules requiring detailed reporting on the environmental and labour impacts of member countries’ supply chains.
Elsewhere, companies have retreated from their climate commitments and struggled to persuade investors that sustainability investment will be rewarded with returns.
“Access to capital for new low-carbon investments isn’t a major constraint, but ensuring a return on investment certainly is,” stated Bain & Co. in a September report on the energy transition.
The pushback from business highlights the importance of more collaboration between the public and private sectors. Business leaders recognize the need for environmental and sustainability standards that will advance the net-zero agenda. However, they also want to ensure that new guidelines and mandates don’t crowd out investment or undermine new technology before it can be fully developed.
Accept our marketing cookies to access this content.
These cookies are currently disabled in your browser.Accept cookies
Prioritizing resilience
More than 40 countries – home to about half the global population – will hold elections this year. To some extent, the voting will be a referendum on climate policies that are increasingly shaping everyday life. Politicians and policymakers need to counter apathy and climate fatigue with information that brings home the urgency of our transition. But to avoid a popular backlash, we need to avoid fixating on zero-carbon technologies at the expense of low-carbon tech that is cheaper and can deliver immediate impact at a fraction of the cost.
That also means that we can’t allow our pursuit of a zero-carbon future to prevent us from investing in adaptation and resilience. Even if we’re able to accelerate the energy transition, we need to spend money on seawalls, stormwater management, water supply, distributed power grids, and weatherized buildings, homes and power infrastructure.
The clean energy revolution is paying dividends every day, though not always in the way we expect. Technological refinements are bringing us closer to a carbon-free future. Still, companies that set out to do one thing sometimes end up doing another, as in the case of Molten Industries. This hydrogen startup invented a new way to produce graphite, which is used to expand battery storage capacity.
It’s not a matter of lowering our sights or settling for the incremental over the transformative. We need both.
What Is Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)?
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is an alternative fuel for aircraft. Unlike conventional jet fuel, SAF is produced from renewable feedstocks, such as used cooking oil or animal fats. It significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions and presents an opportunity to reduce aviation’s environmental impact.
The production of SAF starts with collecting raw materials, such as used cooking oil or animal fats. The raw materials are then processed to create a renewable feedstock suitable for use as aviation fuel. This involves several steps, including removing impurities and filtering out contaminants before the resulting product can be blended with conventional jet fuel to create SAF.
There are a number of airlines around the world that use SAF to power their aircraft. These include major airlines such as American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, British Airways, and Lufthansa. Additionally, smaller regional carriers such as Alaska Air Group and Southwest Airlines have also committed to using sustainable aviation fuel.
One way to increase sustainable aviation fuel usage is to replace traditional jet A fuels with more sustainable alternatives. Jet A fuel is a kerosene-type jet fuel used for commercial and military aviation. It has higher flash point requirements than its predecessor, jet A-1, and is used for all jet aircraft operating within the U.S. and Canada.
A jet fuel blend with sustainable alternative jet fuel (SAJF) can help reduce the carbon footprint of jet engines without sacrificing engine performance. Additionally, jet engines powered by SAJF emit fewer nitrogen oxides than those fueled by jet A, resulting in better air quality and improved health outcomes.
Why Is SAF Important?
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a sustainable and renewable fuel alternative to traditional jet fuel, and it holds the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from commercial flights significantly. SAFs are made from sustainable, renewable sources such as vegetable oils, animal fats, municipal solid waste, and recycled cooking oils. Using sustainable fuels, the airline industry can reduce emissions and take a step toward carbon neutrality.
SAF also is more sustainable than traditional jet fuel because it uses sustainable energy sources, such as solar power or wind turbines, to create the fuel. By using renewable energy sources, SAF reduces reliance on fossil fuels that produce harmful greenhouse gasses when burned. Additionally, sustainable aviation fuels are less likely to contribute to air pollution and ozone depletion since they burn cleaner than traditional jet fuels.
SAFs are also sustainable because their production process is much less energy intensive than traditional jet fuel. This means that the production of sustainable aviation fuel requires fewer resources and causes less environmental damage. As sustainable fuels become increasingly popular and more widely adopted, they will help the airline industry move towards a sustainable and carbon-neutral future.
Sustainable aviation fuel can potentially be a major contributor to the bioeconomy. Aircraft flights are responsible for 2-3% of global human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, and SAF provides an opportunity to reduce these emissions through its production with sustainable, renewable resources while still providing the same power output as traditional jet fuel.
The production of sustainable aviation fuel is part of a larger movement to create an economy powered by renewable energy. By transitioning from fossil fuels, the bioeconomy provides a much-needed shift toward sustainability. This shift can help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality while providing economic opportunities for new green industries.
One way to contribute to sustainable aviation fuel is by engaging in public policy advocacy. By speaking up for stronger environmental regulations and policies, you can help create a landscape that encourages more investment in the development of alternative fuels and incentivizes airlines to transition away from traditional fossil fuels.
Additionally, support research into less carbon-intensive energy sources and explore ways to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation. Lastly, support efforts to increase efficiency and reduce emissions through investments in new technology, improved operational processes, and better infrastructure.
Doing these things can help ensure a sustainable future for air travel that is more eco-friendly and resilient to climate change.
The Cost of SAF Compared to Traditional Jet Fuel
Traditional jet fuel, also known as jet A-1 aviation turbine fuel, is a petroleum distillate used for international aviation. It is the most common jet fuel due to its availability and stability in extreme temperatures, from -47°C to 40°C.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is an alternative jet fuel made from renewable sources such as vegetable oils, animal fats, and woody biomass. It has similar chemical properties to jet A-1 fuel but with lower carbon emissions. SAF is approved for commercial use by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and can be blended with jet A-1 fuel up to a maximum of 50%, depending on the jet engine manufacturer.
In addition, SAF has a higher energy content than jet A-1 fuel which means it provides more thrust power and greater efficiency, resulting in lower costs for commercial airlines. It also produces fewer emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter.
The cost of SAF compared to traditional jet fuel depends on several factors, including availability, production cost, transportation costs, and government incentives.
Availability is a key factor that affects cost. Currently, SAF is only available in limited locations, and production levels are still relatively low. This means that the price of SAF can be significantly higher than jet fuel due to limited supply and high demand from airlines.
The production cost of SAF also plays a role in pricing. Depending on the feedstock used to produce SAF, production costs can range from one-third to two-thirds higher than traditional jet fuel. For producers to remain profitable, this added cost must be passed along to consumers.
Transportation costs also play a role in the price of SAF. The cost of transporting SAF from its production site to the end user can be several times higher than transporting traditional jet fuel. This is due to a need for more infrastructure and specialized equipment needed for transport.
Finally, government incentives and subsidies can play a role in the cost of SAF. In some countries, governments provide financial support to producers or users of SAF to encourage its use. These incentives can reduce the cost of SAF, making it more competitive with traditional jet fuel.
Sustainable alternative fuels (SAF) are becoming increasingly important in international aviation, offering numerous benefits compared to traditional fossil jet fuel. SAF has a much lower carbon intensity than fossil jet fuel, which can significantly reduce emissions released into the atmosphere during international flights.
SAF also generates fewer harmful particulate emissions while burning more cleanly and with less noise pollution than traditional fuels. Additionally, SAF is often more cost-effective than fossil jet fuel, allowing international airlines to reduce operational costs and pass on savings to customers.
As international aviation continues to grow, it’s increasingly important that sustainable alternative fuels become the new standard to protect the environment while continuing to support international travel and commerce.
How Much Carbon Does SAF Save?
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) offers international aviation a viable option to reduce its carbon footprint by lowering carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption.
According to the International Air Transport Association, SAF can offer up to 80% lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than traditional jet fuel. This is partly due to the use of renewable energy sources and waste products such as vegetable oil, animal fats, and recycled cooking oil for its production.
Is SAF Suitable for All Aircraft?
Despite the potential environmental benefits of using SAF, it may only be suitable for some aircraft. This is because SAF has different properties from traditional aviation fuel. Some aircraft may not be able to use SAF due to the amount of energy it provides and its resistance to pre-ignition, which can cause engine damage if not managed correctly.
If you are using your aircraft for recreational purposes, it is important to understand that SAF may offer some performance benefits over traditional jet fuels. Due to its lower carbon content and higher energy density, SAF can reduce the fuel needed for a flight, resulting in cost savings. It may also offer improved engine efficiency and smoother operation.
However, SAF may not be a suitable option if you are using your aircraft for business or another purpose requiring higher performance and speed. For example, this type of fuel is not recommended for use in engines designed for high-performance engine operations such as air racing.
GE and CFM commercial jet engines can use SAF. Synthetic aviation fuel (SAF) is renewable energy produced from waste and other non-fossil sources. It has the same chemical makeup as regular aviation fuel and offers several benefits to airlines, including improved efficiency and lower emissions.
Several helicopter manufacturers and operators are also already utilizing SAF in their aircraft. While some additional considerations must be considered when using this fuel, it has been proven reliable for helicopters.
Many airlines around the world are transitioning to more sustainable fuels. In 2020, Alaska Airlines began using a blend of traditional and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) on flights out of Seattle Tacoma International Airport. This makes it the first airline in North America to use SAF on regularly scheduled commercial flights.
Other global airlines that have made commitments to reduce emissions through SAF usage include Lufthansa, KLM, Air France-KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Avianca, and American Airlines.
United Airlines is currently researching the impact using SAF would have on their fleet and how it would affect the performance of their aircraft. The research is ongoing, but if successful, it could be a significant step towards reducing the airline’s carbon footprint and helping to fight climate change.
What Is the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol?
The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol is an internationally recognized accounting tool designed to help businesses, governments, and other organizations understand their GHG emissions. It provides a consistent framework for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions that organizations of all sizes can use.
The GHG Protocol defines four scopes of emissions: Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, and cooling consumed by the organization), Scope 3 (other indirect emissions resulting from activities of the organization but occurring at sources owned or controlled by another entity) and GHG removals (activities that permanently remove GHGs from the atmosphere).
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) covers six key greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbon (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).
Carbon dioxide is the most common of these gases and has been produced in large amounts due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Methane is released through natural processes like agriculture, waste management, and landfills, while fertilizers and other industrial processes can emit nitrous oxide.
Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic compounds used in refrigerants and aerosol cans, while perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are produced by industrial processes. All six of these gases have been identified as having an impact on climate change, so organizations need to track their emissions to reduce their environmental impact.
The Protocol was developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), with sector guidance from partner organizations. The Protocol is now accepted as a global standard, adopted by governments, businesses, civil society, international organizations, and financial institutions worldwide.
Scope 1: Direct Emissions
The first among 3 emissions, Scope 1 emissions, are direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that arise from sources owned and operated by the organization, such as fuel combustion in vehicles or machinery. These emissions can be reduced through initiatives such as more efficient engines, renewable energy use, and improved fuel switching.
Natural gas is a Scope 1 emission. This means that it is an emissions source directly released by an organization or facility. Natural gas combustion releases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other air pollutants into the atmosphere.
Therefore, organizations must track their Scope 1 emissions from natural gas use to accurately report their total emissions. Additionally, organizations should strive to reduce their natural gas use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere.
By implementing efficiency measures and transitioning to renewable energy sources when possible, organizations can take meaningful steps towards reducing their Scope 1 emissions from natural gas use.
Organizations can also work with suppliers to reduce Scope 1 emissions along their value chain. To measure these emissions, organizations need to understand their energy consumption and the sources of their fuels.
They should also consider monitoring air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or particulate matter (PM). Verifying Scope 1 emissions requires organizations to collect high-quality data from all relevant sources and develop detailed records.
Organizations need to track scope 1 emission factors over time to measure the progress of their efforts and understand the impact of any changes implemented. This will help inform strategies for further reducing Scope 1 emissions. Organizations should also consider engaging stakeholders (such as employees or members of the public) to gain additional insights and feedback on the success of their GHG reduction initiatives.
Scope 2: Indirect Emissions – Owned
Scope 2 covers emissions from the consumption of energy purchased by an organization for its own use. This includes electricity, heat, and steam from sources owned by another entity (such as power plants, natural gas processors, and water boilers). It can also include other non-electrical purchased energy, such as fuel for transportation and other activities. It’s important to note that Scope 2 only covers emissions from energy purchased by an organization and does not include any of the company’s production activities, which are considered Scope 3 emissions.
To track a company’s emissions under Scope 2, it is essential to map out the energy sources used. This includes understanding where the energy comes from and what fuels produce it.
It also requires collecting data on how much energy is purchased and information about the various emissions factors associated with each source (e.g., the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of electricity consumed). The emissions from each source can then be combined to get a total Scope 2 emissions figure.
Organizations can also take steps to reduce their Scope 2 emissions by switching to renewable energy sources or purchasing more efficient equipment and technologies that use less energy. Other strategies, such as joining a green power program or participating in carbon offset projects, are also available. Ultimately, by understanding and managing their Scope 2 emissions, organizations can make progress toward achieving their sustainability goals.
Companies must report their Scope 1 and 2 emissions under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards. The GRI is a set of voluntary sustainability reporting guidelines that guide companies on how to disclose information about their environmental, social, and economic performance.
Companies must report all direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions to meet the requirements of the GRI Standards. Companies may also need to report additional indirect emissions, known as Scope 3 emissions, depending on their business activities and operations.
Scope 3: Indirect Emissions – Not Owned
Scope 3 emissions, also known as indirect emissions, are those resulting from activities related to the production of a company’s goods and services. This includes the emissions arising from the use of purchased electricity and heat, upstream transport of materials and fuels by suppliers, business travel, and employee commuting.
These indirect emissions account for up to 80% of total greenhouse gas emissions for many organizations. Net zero targets include Scope 3 emissions and Scopes 1 and 2. To effectively manage Scope 3 emissions, companies must assess the sources of their indirect emissions and develop strategies to reduce them.
Organizations can take numerous approaches to reduce their Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. These strategies range from switching to renewable electricity and fuels, improving energy efficiency in buildings and equipment, cutting down on travel, and reducing waste and packaging.
Companies can also work with their suppliers to reduce the GHG emissionsassociated with the transportation of goods and materials or take steps to encourage employee commuting by public transport, cycling, car share programs, and other green alternatives. Furthermore, they can offset their Scope 3 emissions through carbon credits or other approaches.
Scope 3 emissions are not mandatory to report, though there are many benefits in doing so. By tracking and reporting Scope 3 emissions, businesses can better understand their company’s carbon footprint and overall impact on the environment and identify potential areas for improvement. Additionally, by reducing Scope 3 emissions, organizations can set an example for other businesses and demonstrate their commitment to sustainable practices.
However, reporting Scope 3 emissions may also be a requirement in certain jurisdictions and sectors, such as those involved in government contracting or international agreements. Ultimately, the decision to report on Scope 3 emissions should involve careful consideration of the potential benefits and costs associated with doing so.
The question of whether companies should be responsible for Scope 3 emissions is a contentious one. On the one hand, some believe that companies should take responsibility and commit to reducing their overall carbon footprints.
[This view is based on the notion that corporate social responsibility entails taking action to mitigate environmental and climate impacts through various strategies like green energy investment, process improvements, and sustainable supply chain management.
On the other hand, some argue that companies should not be held responsible for Scope 3 emissions. They point to factors such as the distance of suppliers from production sites, varying levels of corporate influence on suppliers’ emissions, and uncertainties about the cost-effectiveness of interventions at a local level as reasons why companies should not be held financially responsible for Scope 3 emissions.
Ultimately, it is up to companies and stakeholders alike to understand the implications of Scope 3 emissions and determine how best to address them. Companies can take proactive steps, such as setting climate-related targets and investing in renewable energy projects. At the same time, stakeholders can encourage businesses to reduce their carbon footprints by voting with their wallets and supporting companies that practice sustainability. By taking collective responsibility, we can create a more sustainable future for all.
What the GHG Protocol Requires Your Company To Do
The GHGP covers all aspects of handling, packaging, labeling, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials that are traded internationally. It also provides specific risk assessment and management guidance for safely handling hazardous materials.
Additionally, it provides guidance on emissions reduction, waste minimization, and recycling to minimize the environmental impact of hazardous materials. By providing these standards and protocols, the GHGP helps ensure that global trade is conducted ethically while protecting people and the environment.
The GHG Protocol requires your company to conduct an inventory of its GHG emissions, measure progress towards reducing those emissions, and set improvement targets. Companies must also create a plan to offset any remaining emissions that cannot be reduced. This involves identifying which activities emit the most carbon and setting goals for reducing them.
To conduct an inventory of GHG emissions, your company must first calculate its baseline emissions. This involves collecting data from various sources, such as fuel consumption, electricity usage, and waste disposal. Baseline calculations must include data from the past three years to be considered complete.
Scope 1 GHG Protocol is a set of standardized guidelines for measuring and reporting organizational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The protocol provides guidance on calculating, verifying, reporting, and managing Scope 1 emissions — the direct GHG emissions associated with an organization’s operations.
Once your company has calculated its baseline emissions, it can begin setting reduction targets. These goals should be based on the company’s specific circumstances and can be informed by prior carbon reduction experience or best practices in the industry. Companies should also set reporting goals to ensure that progress is being made toward achieving the targets.
In addition to reducing their GHG emissions, companies may consider offsetting any remaining emissions that cannot be reduced. Offsetting involves investing in projects that reduce GHG emissions elsewhere. Examples of offsetting activities include the installation of solar panels and the planting of trees.
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard requires organizations to consistently measure, report, and manage their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The standard covers both direct and indirect emissions, which include Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect electricity), and Scope 3 (other indirect).
By complying with the GHG Protocol, your company can demonstrate its commitment to sustainability and help create positive change in the world. The process requires careful planning and implementation but can ultimately lead to a more sustainable future for everyone.