Carbon reporting: Implications for small business

Reporting on your businesses’ carbon footprint may seem like a long way off, but supply chain pressure has been building for some time and the spread from FTSE 100 companies to SMEs is inevitable, says Nathan Wimble commercial director at The CarbonNeutral Company.

AccountingWEB caught up with Wimble to find out how the finance function and carbon can come together to help grow a business.

“What we do is help companies achieve their carbon reduction goals in a way that strengthens their business,” Wimble said. “It's not a philanthropic exercise; it's very much about doing good business and driving your business forward.”

He explained that with the introduction of mandatory carbon reporting (MCR) policy, all of a sudden nearly all of the FTSE 100 are measuring their carbon footprint and it’s a matter of time before they start asking their suppliers what they're doing as well.

Currently around 96% of the FTSE 100 reports to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and by this time next year Wimble believes they will all have carbon footprint reports.

However, he added...

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
Paul Scholes's picture

Same old - Same old

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Since writing this hopeful post more than two & a half years ago, I have given up on the trickle down (or even trickle up) theory of carbon responsibility (whether reported or not).

Despite all the press comment on the report from the IPCC last week, I would imagine that it will just be last week's fish & chip wrapping by now.

Not only has mandatory carbon reporting taken too long, but restricting it to just FTSE 100 companies will guarantee that the supply chain effect will take so long and be so watered down, that I doubt any SME will feel obliged to follow it before we hit 2 degrees +.  

The only way an SME will take notice is if the owner/managers believe in it and then, they need to "do" something regardless of whether they feel the need to report on it.

 

 

Carbon Con

ghewitt | | Permalink

Carbon this and carbon that. What a farce. It's all a con. A HUGE industry has been built on this and it's not going to go away anytime soon. Why? because it is a massive source of revenue for the governments and any number of companies can make and sell you stuff (making more carbon in the process) so that you can become 'compliant'.

The whole thing is nothing more than the Emperors New Clothes and, like the tailors, plenty have gotten rich on it and will continue to.

Apart from the hype and scaremongering, can anyone tell me how their lives have changed from pre-carbon to post-carbon doom? Do you drive less? Has the supermarket got fewer items and are they closing down? Has air travel almost stopped? Has production of things non-essential to life stopped? Are there more or fewer cars on the road? What has actually changed in your life so that you would notice the difference?

We have been supplied with free 'energy-saving' light bulbs. How much did it cost to make one of those as opposed to the normal incandescent one? All those electronics and poisonous mercury; the iffy radiation from them and the clean-up process if you drop and break one. And of course, 'old fashioned' bulbs have been outlawed - as they were bound to be, no doubt 'encouraged' by the new 'eco' bulb makers. Did you know that the 'old fashioned' bulbs can be made to last and last; maybe forever? But then that would not sell more bulbs, would it? But you can buy halogen bulbs  - which work just like the old fashioned ones - glowing filament - for about £3 a pop. And they do.

Here we are all running around checking this data and that, CRC, MCR, Green Status, Carbon Footprint, Environmental Impact, CDP and all the other total rubbish being propounded and no-one asks 'Is this true?' How do we know? Who told us?

Stop and think. Think about it. Ask questions. Question those answers. Don't be fobbed off.

Who is benefiting? Follow the money.

I don't know anyone who can tell me how they know it is true, "I just believe it" they say. Or, "Well, the government wouldn't lie about it would they, I mean why would they?"

I have to laugh.

Man-made Climate Change?

KetcZ | | Permalink

Two real scientists have written a brilliant book that gives the scientific low down on the IPCC. It is "The Neglected Sun" by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning, It explains how the Sun's and Earth's behaviour has influenced our climate for thousands of years due to
 
Sun cycles:
Schwabe sunspot cycles (11 yrs),
Hale cycles (22 yrs),
Gleissberg cycles (87 yrs),
DeVriess/Suess cycles (210 yrs),
Eddy cycles (~1000 yrs),
Hallstatt cycles (2,300 yrs)
Daansgaard-Oeschger cycles (~1,500 yrs)

Earth cycles:
Precession (20,000) yrs,
Obliquity (40,000 yrs),
Eccentricity (100,000 & 400,000 yrs),

Also Daansgaard-Oeschger events (~1,500 yrs), rapid temperature changes.

There are lots of fascinating graphs showing the results of the study.

The book costs under £10 and is money well spent if you are interested in the subject.

So true.

ghewitt | | Permalink

Trouble today is that people do not think.

They believe whatever the media machine churns out.

But that is the whole point of it. Non-thinking, compliant and unquestioning citizens.

When you step back and really think and ask questions the curtain falls away and you see the Wizard of Oz for what it is. We are scammed by banks, corporations, WHO, G7 or whatever, climate change, 'War' on terror, recession the whole lot is one big scam. And we buy in big-time.

It runs on fear. Keep us in fear and 'provide' the 'solution' and we will be ever grateful, sorry we ever thought anything bad against the powers that be; that protect us and keep us safe.

Think about bird flu. One seagull is found on a beach dead. OMG!!!!!! 50 mile exclusion zone; trucks of 'Environmental Officers'; disinfection pads, cars sprayed, flocks killed.

Swine flu. I have a sniffle. OMG!!!!!! Swine flu; scary newscasts, predicted death tolls, martial law not to mention MILLIONS of doses of Tami-flu bought with taxpayers money.

9/11 - don't go there.

 

 

Paul Scholes's picture

and smoking doesn't cause lung cancer

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Hundreds of climate scientists from over 30 countries have finally come up with what even rabid greenies say is a conservative and cautious report over the impact of humans in the undeniable process of climate warming, and all you do is complain about the capitalist industry that wants to make money out of it.

So when doctors and scientists came up with the idea that smoking probably causes lung cancer or that excess animal fat or lack of exercise will result in heart disease do we deny the science or motives of the doctors & scientists by pointing to the stop-smoking, low fat and exercise bike industries?

ghewitt - maybe you're so upset because you are one of the climate scientists they didn't ask to contribute? 

Having actually spent years reading up on this stuff, I'm convinced they are right, it makes sense and yes, despite your belief that there can be nobody who doesn't act like you, I have dramatically reduced my fossil energy use over the past 10 years and still have a good standard of living.

Whether you believe in the human influence or not, dumping billions of tons of GHGs into the atmosphere each year, when we don't need to, is not going to help the heating.  Bit like seeing a chip pan fine and adding more oil.

If the scientists were allowed to get on with their work, rather than have to waste their time with the weird minority (many of who actually do have a financial conflict) we might stand a chance of new technologies and solutions to help us avoid having to return to a pre-industrial existence.

Not at all

ghewitt | | Permalink

"ghewitt - maybe you're so upset because you are one of the climate scientists they didn't ask to contribute? ".

I am not a scientist, asked or otherwise. It is an interesting question though. Which leads to another - were the scientists 'asked' those that would give the outcome required?

At this point I hold my hands up - I should have written 'many people don't think' rather than just 'people' and accept that it may have annoyed those that do; any that where - sorry.

I'm not complaining, I'm expressing an opinion; just like you.

For all the reports for and against the fact remains that there is a huge industry built on climate change; there are any number of things you can buy - all made and adding to the carbon output. One such thing I have seen, for children, is a Pop-Can Robot. It comes with plastic parts; metal screws, an electric motor, other metal parts and wires; all in their own little plastic bags stuffed into a printed cardboard box secured with adhesive tape. We are told, on final assembly, by inserting an empty drinks can into the 'hoops' (to make the body) and a battery (to run the motor) we are helping to 'recycle'. The irony is obviously lost on the part of the maker - far simpler to just put the tin into the recycle bin.

If we are really concerned about climate change we would do something about it. All the time newer models of phones, computers, cars etc., etc., are produced to replace perfectly good ones how can it be taken seriously? Have you walked down Oxford Street lately? Hardly an advert for caring about the planet.