Emission reduction a matter of scale and scope
Usually, if you can split something into as few as three categories, the expectation is it’s probably quite simple. Or perhaps, to be more accurate, that should be ‘perception’ because if we have an expectation of something, it’s likely that someone has led us to perceive it will be so.
And as we all know, what we perceive is not always the same as the reality.
The reason why I bring this up is because of something I read regarding distributor Westcon-Comstor’s significant progress in reducing carbon emissions and expanding its use of renewable energy. According to the distributor’s latest annual Responsible Business report, Westcon-Comstor sourced 50% of electricity globally from renewables, up from 42% last year. The company added that it had “already transitioned fully to renewable energy in the UK, Australia and New Zealand”, adding that 88% of purchased electricity across Europe was from renewable sources.
The goal is to source 100% of electricity from renewables by 2030.
So that’s good news. As is the the fact that Scope 1 emissions were down 8% and Scope 2 emissions fell by 29%, “with a total reduction of 24% since FY22, meaning the company is nearly halfway to its 2030 target of a 50% reduction”.
But as Westcon-Comstor notes, Scope 1 and 2 emissions are from sources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the distributor. Scope 3 emissions, however, are not. And as the distributor concedes, after improving the methodology for calculating emissions it doesn’t directly own or control, there was a 10% increase in those emissions compared to last year.
The plan, going forward, is to enhance Scope 3 data collection and processing procedures and “work with vendors and partners across the IT channel, designing and delivering initiatives to reduce its Scope 3 emissions”. This is likely to be quite tough as the company has set a target of a 25% reduction in absolute Scope 3 emissions by 2030.
The problem for channel companies is that Scope 3 emissions pretty much account for a vast proportion of their emissions. In the report, Westcon-Comstor states that over 99% of its overall emissions are Scope 3 originating from activities upstream and downstream of its business with upstream manufacturing and transportation of purchased goods and services (48%) and downstream energy consumption for hardware (45%) accounting for most of them.
So despite all the work and effort that Westcon-Comstor puts into reducing emissions that it directly controls or owns, any attempt to reduce Scope 3 emissions is very daunting, particularly when you consider that those emissions rose by 10% last year for the distributor. To put it into perspective, reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 100% would still leave more than 99% of Westcon-Comstor’s overall emissions untouched.
While vendors and partners are probably keen to be seen as working to reduce Scope 3 emissions, turning that into reality is proving very difficult. One huge wild card being thrown into the mix is the Trump administration’s mission to more or less destroy all climate targets and eliminate all actions against emissions. If it succeeds in imposing those ‘values’ on US-based/owned companies, many of which are major vendors in the technology space (not forgetting attempts to bully other countries to take US manufactured products and services), that will probably undermine any attempts to reduce emissions.
So, as you can see, the reality for channel businesses and their role in the global effort (or slightly less global if Trump’s administration continues on its present course) to reduce emissions in the supply chain is far more difficult than it might appear.
Subscribers 0
Fans 0
Followers 0
Followers