Top of the ‘Carbon Class’

GHG protocol

• The CO₂ footprint analysis maps the sources of greenhouse gases in an organization.
• The various greenhouse gases converted to CO₂
• Distinguishing between direct and indirect emissions.

This protocol is captured in the three scopes:

• Scope 1: Direct emissions such as natural gas burning in heating and fuel used by vehicles in the organization.
• Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of energy used such as electricity and heat.
• Scope 3: Indirect emissions from outside the organization such as mobility, transportation, up-stream material manufacturing and downstream waste processing.

The GHG Corporate Protocol determines that scope 1 and 2 emissions must be disclosed while scope 3 emissions are optional. However, many companies wish to understand the complete GHG profile of their operations. In many cases, scope 3 emissions contain the greater part of an organization’s GHG emissions, and often provide emission reduction possibilities. Even though these emissions were not directly related to us, the fact we can influence or choose suppliers based on their environmental profile was considered and therefore we included scope 3 in our assessment.
The assessment was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI-WBCSD, 2015).

Our project was split into two halves: firstly, to find out how sustainable we were as a business (scope 1 and 2) and secondly how sustainable our solutions were and the beneficial affects this had on the GHG of our customers (scope 3). To carry out this exercise we chose Blonk Consultants with whom we have a long-standing relationship and who have developed methodologies not only for ours but also for the food business in general.

INNO+ value chain

In the project, the value chain of INNO+ was described and the emissions from sources were associated. All the partners (e.g. employees, suppliers, etc.) were identified and their contribution to the GHGs were defined. It was important to identify these sources and obtain relevant data for calculating their emissions.

Calculations and data

To quantify the emissions as well as possible, it was important to have the correct reliable data available. This may affect the scope 3 activities included in the inventory. It is therefore more important to understand the relative size and possibilities of the influence of the different sources. At the beginning of a GHG analysis, it is also important to find the “big fish” (80/20 rule) in an organisation and from there, find out where detailed focus should be over the next years to optimise.  Allowing detailed level of data is needed for the different sources.

Results – 1:10

The results showed an annual carbon footprint of around 15800 t of CO₂ and most impacts (about 94%) come from the use of sold products (category 11). Apart from the inventory of all scope 3 emissions produced, we also analysed the avoided emissions of implementing our solutions at the animal farm. The results showed that for every kg of CO₂ equivalent emission produced, we save 10 kg in the chain. By measuring in this way, we can monitor all the indicators (for example in scope 3) and do something about improving our footprint in those areas. For innovations, it also means we can incorporate our learning in terms of resource and material use to ensure new solutions come with a ‘green label’ based on proven evidence. Of course, now if customers ask us what our GHG footprint is, we can now provide this information.

A form of carbon credit

We frequently see companies and government departments looking for ways to improve their carbon footprint by purchasing carbon credits. These initiatives are regarded as a positive step towards reducing the overall carbon load. However, an obvious question we asked ourselves.  If providing our type of technology has such a dramatic effect on our carbon balance, could it not bring the same benefit to others? For instance: