The concept of planting trees to combat climate change is appealing in its simplicity and natural appeal. And many companies have touted their efforts and pledge to plant trees to offset their impact. However, while trees are indeed valuable allies in our environmental efforts, relying solely on planting trees as a means to reverse climate change is an overly optimistic and insufficient approach. This article aims to shed light on the beneficial role of tree planting while highlighting its limitations, backed by quantitative data and examples.
The Role of Trees in Carbon Sequestration
Trees are nature’s carbon-capture powerhouses. On average, a young, healthy tree can absorb about 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of CO2 per year and up to about 48 pounds (22 kilograms) annually as it matures. Over its lifetime, a single tree can absorb roughly one ton of CO2. While these numbers demonstrate the individual power of trees, the broader impact requires a much larger scale.
The Limitations of Tree Planting
Despite the clear benefits, several factors limit the efficacy of tree planting as a standalone solution to climate change:
Space Constraints: The sheer volume of trees needed to make a substantial dent in global CO2 levels is staggering. A study in the journal Science (2019) suggested that planting about 1.2 trillion trees could theoretically absorb two-thirds of human-made carbon emissions. However, this would require over 3.5 million square miles of land – an area about the size of the United States – dedicated solely to this purpose. Currently, there isn’t enough suitable, available, and unoccupied land to reach these numbers without encroaching on vital agricultural or urban areas.
Growth Time: Trees take time to grow and reach their full carbon-absorbing potential. This delay means that the benefits of today’s planting efforts will not be fully realized for several decades, a timeline that doesn’t align with the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.
Ecological and Agricultural Considerations: Planting massive numbers of trees, especially in monoculture formations, can disrupt local ecosystems. Moreover, converting large tracts of land to forests could impinge on agricultural productivity, posing threats to food security. This can lead to making diversity disappear for an elusive benefit.
Emission Reduction Overshadowing: Emphasizing tree planting can detract from the critical need to reduce current CO2 emissions. To put it in perspective, global CO2 emissions in 2019 were approximately 36.8 billion tons. Even with effective tree-planting campaigns, this massive emission volume cannot be offset solely by forests and we have to find, and develop other alternatives.
Beyond the physical limitations of Tree planting
An additional caveat to consider : Many of the tree-planting projects that company claim to offset their emission are plain green-washing as they cover areas that are already forested and oftentimes even protected parks that would have otherwise remained forested so the claims are in fact detrimental as we allow the corresponding emissions to be released when in fact no offset was made.
For instance, the World Resources Institute in Mexico found issues with Mexico’s billion-dollar government-funded environmental recovery program, Sembrando Vida. The program was intended to help meet climate targets under the Paris Agreement by paying farmers to plant trees. As a result, 80 million trees were planted in a few years (14% of the goal); sounds great right ? However, an the same time, the amount of trees cut dwarfed the amount of trees planted, and to make matters worse, 80% of these trees died within 5 years as they were not taken care of or suited to the local climate and incurred a few corruption scandals in Mexico.
This whole topic is discussed in the excellent video from John oliver on the topic :
Conclusion
Planting trees undoubtedly offers numerous environmental benefits, including carbon sequestration, biodiversity support, and ecosystem preservation. However, the scale of the climate crisis demands a more comprehensive approach. Significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a shift towards renewable energy sources, and widespread adoption of sustainable practices are imperative. Trees are a part of the solution, but they cannot shoulder the burden of climate change mitigation alone. A balanced, multi-pronged strategy is essential to address the complexity and severity of the ongoing climate crisis.
In the ever-evolving landscape of business, sustainability has shifted from a peripheral concern to a central strategy for long-term success. Integral to this shift is the concept of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) – a framework that expands the traditional reporting framework to include social and environmental, alongside financial performance. This article aims to elucidate the TBL concept and illustrate its application using a compelling example from the textile industry, as highlighted in the influential book “Cradle to Cradle” by William McDonough and Michael Braungart.
Understanding the Triple Bottom Line
The Triple Bottom Line, conceptualized by John Elkington in 1994, revolutionized how businesses measure success. Traditionally, the singular focus was on profit – the financial bottom line. However, TBL introduces two additional ‘bottom lines’: social (People) and environmental (Planet) performance.
Profit (Economic Sustainability): This dimension is about ensuring that a business is economically viable and profitable. But in the TBL framework, economic success goes beyond mere profit. It involves contributing to the economic health of the wider community, maintaining fair practices, and ensuring long-term financial stability.
People (Social Sustainability): This aspect focuses on the social implications of business operations. It encompasses labor practices, community engagement, and the overall impact on society. Businesses are expected to operate ethically, respect human rights, and contribute positively to the communities they affect.
Planet (Environmental Sustainability): This dimension involves the company’s environmental footprint. Sustainable practices, such as reducing waste, minimizing emissions, and using renewable resources, fall under this category. The goal is to minimize negative environmental impacts and contribute to the planet’s health.
At the junction of these three areas, sustainability emerges as a holistic approach that balances profit with people and the planet. It’s a dynamic equilibrium where each aspect supports and reinforces the others, creating a model of business that can endure and prosper over the long term while contributing positively to the world.
When the focus is only on two of the three components, the approach is not called sustainability but :
Bearable: When it intersects the environmental and social aspects of the TBL. Sustainability is considered bearable when it does not compromise the planet’s health or the well-being of the people living on it. In other words, it’s about ensuring that environmental practices are not only ecologically sound but also socially acceptable and beneficial. For example, a company might focus on reducing emissions (good for the environment) in a way that also improves community health (good for people).
Viable: When it intersects the economic and environmental pillars. A sustainable practice is viable when it is both environmentally friendly and economically feasible. This means finding solutions that not only reduce environmental impact but also make economic sense for the business. For instance, implementing energy-efficient technologies can reduce costs in the long run while also reducing the environmental footprint.
Equitable, when it intersects the social and economic aspects. A practice is equitable when it fairly distributes economic benefits without compromising social equity. It’s about ensuring that economic activities contribute to social welfare and that all members of society have fair access to these benefits. For example, a business practice is equitable when it provides fair wages and safe working conditions, contributing to the economic stability of workers and their communities.
Sustainability is the intersection of the three pillars of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) – economic viability, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. Any approach that aims at less than that is therefore NOT sustainability. At its best, sustainability is a dynamic equilibrium where each aspect supports and reinforces the others, creating a model of business that can endure and prosper over the long term while contributing positively to the world.
APPLYING THE TBL : The Textile Dye Example from “Cradle to Cradle”
An excellent illustration of the TBL in action is found in “Cradle to Cradle,” specifically regarding the textile dyeing process. The traditional dyeing process in the textile industry is notorious for its environmental and social impacts. It often involves toxic chemicals that pollute water sources, harm aquatic life, and pose health risks to workers and nearby communities.
The authors of “Cradle to Cradle,” however, present an innovative approach where they want to break from the linear model of Take, Make, Dispose for textiles. They describe a new dyeing technique that not only eliminates the use of harmful chemicals but also turns the whole process into a positive one, where the production of a sweater is not harming people or the planet and where you could even eat your sweater at the end of its lifecycle. This method uses safe, non-toxic dyes and a closed-loop system that recycles water and materials, significantly reducing environmental harm and many other benefits to all stakeholders.
Applying TBL to the Textile Dye Example
In this case, the TBL approach leads to a holistic transformation of the dyeing process, where the author tried to eliminate any chemical dye and ended up selected only a few organic and harmless products, with impressive results for each of the stakeholders :
Profit: Economically, the new dyeing method proves beneficial. It cuts costs on waste management and environmental compliance by an estimated 50%, while also reducing raw material usage. This efficiency leads to an approximate 20% reduction in overall production costs. Furthermore, market research indicates a growing consumer preference for sustainably produced textiles, opening new market opportunities.
People: The health and safety impact on workers is markedly improved, with a reduction in toxic exposure leading to a reported 40% decrease in health-related complaints and absenteeism. It even led to high employee retention as the work environment no longer felt like a lab, but a safe place to work in. In local communities, improved water quality has led to a 30% decrease in waterborne diseases, highlighting the method’s profound social impact.
Planet: Environmentally, the closed-loop water system and reduced chemical usage have led to a 70% decrease in water pollution and a 60% reduction in carbon emissions. These improvements showcase the method’s alignment with environmental sustainability goals.
The textile dye example is a microcosm of the broader implications of the TBL. It demonstrates how innovative thinking and sustainability can create a harmonious balance between profitability, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. Businesses adopting the TBL framework can lead to transformative changes, paving the way for a more sustainable future.
Conclusion
The Triple Bottom Line is more than a concept; it’s a roadmap for businesses to contribute positively to the world. By balancing economic viability with social and environmental responsibilities, companies can achieve long-term sustainability and set new standards in their industries. The textile dye example from “Cradle to Cradle” is a testament to the power of sustainable innovation, embodying the essence of TBL. As businesses continue to navigate the complexities of the 21st century, the TBL offers a guiding light towards a more sustainable and equitable world for all.
In the next articles, we will deep-dive into the circular economy, which is really at the heart of this foundational book “cradle to cradle”
In April 2021, the European Parliament introduced a new regulation called Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. This directive will require most of the biggest 50,000 companies in Europe to analyze and disclose their sustainability impact as part of their annual disclosure, starting from January 2025 and covering the fiscal year 2024. In addition to the extended scope of the CSRD, which goes beyond just carbon footprint calculation and includes social and ethics, maybe the biggest change is that this reporting now needs to be done in a standardized and comparable way across Europe meaning that companies now operate under the same set of hypothesis when it comes to developing their sustainability plan. This represents an important step toward making businesses understand their impact, but also in making sure their claims in terms of sustainability are better monitored.
Who is concerned by the CSRD obligation?
Reporting requirement: the EU’s ambition
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) ambition is to cover the largest part of the businesses in Europe, and its scope is going to increase over time, until 2028 when it will apply to any companies satisfying quite low criteria: being a listed company in EU, or being an EU non-listed company with over 40M€ in turnover, any outside company that hires more than 500 people or 150M€ in turnover. There are finer details for each of these rules, but they do represent a big change as today, companies with 40M€ turnover have close to no obligations in regards to sustainability, and the scale of the obligation will require profound changes and a lot of education.
Large listed undertakings
These include any companies listed on an EU-regulated market exchange—except for ‘micro undertakings’ that fail to meet two of the following three criteria on consecutive balance sheet dates:
at least EUR 350,000 (450,000$) in total assets.
at least EUR 700,000 (850,000$) in net turnover (revenue).
at least 10 employees (average) throughout the year.
EU-based large undertakings, listed or not
These include any listed or non-listed companies that meet two of the following three criteria on any two consecutive balance sheet dates:
at least EUR 20 (25$) million in total assets.
at least EUR 40 (50$) million in net turnover.
at least 250 employees (average) during the year.
‘Third-country’ undertakings
These include non EU parent companies of EU subsidiaries, with annual EU revenues of at least EUR 150 million in the most recent two years, and also own:
a large EU-based undertaking, or
an EU-based subsidiary with securities listed on an EU-regulated market exchange, or
an EU branch office with at least EUR 40 million in net turnover.
Thus, the CSRD casts a wide net to ensure that a significant number of companies, across different sectors and sizes, are making sustainability central to their business practices.
The phasing of the CSRD reporting obligation
A modest start for 2025
While the EU’s ambition is to cover the majority of businesses by 2028, the approach is going to be progressive and only the largest companies will have to report on CSRD in the first year. Indeed, only companies that already have to comply with NFRD (Non-Financial Reporting Disclosure) will have to start reporting on CSRD, meaning that this is “only” a change in improved methodology and format for these companies. This represents about 11,000 companies and leaves a substantial segment of the market without the same level of scrutiny and accountability when it comes to sustainability.
The EU plan to extend the CSRD reporting obligation
The phasing of the CSRD obligation will be made progressively until 2028 when the full criteria listed above will be enforced. By 2026, the criteria are already so much lowered that it starts to be really significant, though again it only applies to listed companies! Overall, it should cover about 50,000 companies, which is only 0,2% of the 23M businesses in Europe that will have to report on CSRD. The obligation is leaving the vast majority of smaller businesses outside of its scope, surely, in an attempt to not make business impossible (or at least too difficult) to start. While there is no clear figure of how much the EU GDP this will cover, it should be a substantial proportion, as taking the example of France, only the CAC40 (top 40 French companies) represents already 51% of the French GDP. While conscious that this % cannot be used for all EU, it can give a positive outlook.
Starting in financial year 2024 (and reporting in 2025): Compliance is mandated for organizations (or ‘entities’) already mandated to comply with the NFRD. This includes all organizations listed in an EU-regulated market with 500 or more employees.
Starting in financial year 2025 (reporting in 2026): Compliance is mandated for large listed undertakings (see above) not already mandated to comply with the NFRD.
Starting in financial year 2026 (reporting in 2027): Compliance is mandated for small and medium-sized undertakings (also called small and medium-sized entities, or SMEs)—companies listed on an EU-regulated market that meet at least two or three of the following criteria:
at least EUR 4 (5*) million in total assets.
at least EUR 8 (10*) million in net turnover.
at least 50 employees average throughout the year.
Starting in the financial year 2028 (reporting 2029): Compliance is mandated for third-country undertakings.
Corporate Sustainability reporting expectations :
Deliverables
The main deliverable is a comprehensive annual sustainability report. This report should detail the company’s environmental and social impacts, sustainability policies, goals, and the progress made towards achieving these goals. The report should also include proposals for mitigating any significant negative impacts and align with the obligation to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) covers a wide array of sustainability impacts, going beyond just carbon emissions. Companies will need to provide information on their environmental, social, employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery issues. This includes, but is not limited to, greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy use, and the impact on biodiversity. The CSRD aims to provide a comprehensive view of a company’s sustainability performance and assess its double-materiality (an important concept that recognizes the impact materiality of sustainability topics at the same level as the financial ones that have been the core of annual reports for decades now).
This report needs to be clear, concise, and accessible to stakeholders and must adhere to the standardized reporting format to ensure comparability across different companies and sectors. This will allow the public, investors, and other stakeholders to assess and compare the sustainability performance of different companies.
The European Commission is expected to deliver the first draft of the template for Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR) submissions by the end of 2022, but as far as I know, this was not yet done. The proposed approach is to base the reporting on 12 European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) , which detail disclosures and metrics across sustainability matters in four (4) categories:
Cross-cutting: General principles and general disclosures.
Environmental: Climate change, pollution, water and marine resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, resource use, and circular economy.
Social: Own workforce, workers in the value chain, affected communities, consumers and end-users.
Governance: Business conduct.
Cross-cutting reporting is required of all organizations governed by the CSRD, while environmental, social and governance reporting is mandatory for those organizations that consider them material.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
Failure to comply with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) can result in significant penalties. While the exact penalties can vary by country, they may include financial fines, reputational damage, and increased scrutiny from regulators.
In addition to financial penalties, companies that fail to comply may also face legal consequences. These can range from lawsuits by shareholders, who may argue that the company’s lack of transparency constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, to regulatory actions by government agencies.
Furthermore, non-compliance can lead to reputational damage. In an era where consumers and investors are becoming increasingly conscious of the environmental and social impacts of businesses, companies that fail to disclose their sustainability impact may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
Summary and Conclusion
Pros
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) promotes transparency among large companies in Europe.
It could lead to more sustainable business practices as companies analyze and disclose their environmental impact.
The directive will provide a standardized way of reporting across Europe, making comparisons and analyses easier.
It could stimulate competition among companies to be more sustainable.
The CSRD could potentially increase trust among consumers and stakeholders due to increased transparency.
Cons
Compliance with the CSRD could impose additional administrative and financial burdens on companies.
Smaller companies or those just outside the top 50,000 may not be subjected to the same scrutiny, potentially creating an uneven playing field.
The standardized reporting may not accurately reflect the unique sustainability challenges and efforts of each company.
The effectiveness of the CSRD in promoting real change versus just “greenwashing” or superficial sustainability efforts is not guaranteed.
Companies may face reputational risks if their sustainability reports reveal negative impacts.
In conclusion, the introduction of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) by the European Parliament is indeed a significant first step towards making sustainability central to business practices. While it does impose new responsibilities and obligations on companies, it also provides an opportunity for businesses to become leaders in sustainability. Yes, the effort required for compliance is substantial. Companies will need to assess their environmental and social impacts, develop comprehensive sustainability policies, and consistently monitor their progress. However, this effort is not without its rewards. By driving transparency and encouraging sustainable practices, the CSRD promotes a level playing field where companies are rewarded for their commitment to sustainability. It’s a challenging yet crucial path forward, and the benefits far outweigh the costs. In the long run, businesses, stakeholders, and the environment stand to gain from this directive.
We will cover each component of the reporting in more detail so stay tuned for more information on the topic!
On 2 May 2022, the 8th Environment Action Programme (EAP) entered into force, as the EU’s legally agreed common agenda for environment policy until 2030. This little publicized move is creating a number of noticeable changes throughout Europe and is perhaps marking the beginning of the revolution: less talking, more doing with more actions being felt at every level: businesses, governments, and individuals.
The long-term priority objective is that, by 2050 at the latest, Europeans live well, within planetary boundaries, in a well-being economy where nothing is wasted. Growth will be regenerative, climate neutrality will be a reality, and inequalities will be significantly reduced.
enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability to climate change
advancing towards a regenerative growth model, decoupling economic growth from resource use and environmental degradation, and accelerating the transition to a circular economy
pursuing a zero-pollution ambition, including for air, water, and soil and protecting the health and well-being of Europeans
protecting, preserving, and restoring biodiversity, and enhancing natural capital
reducing environmental and climate pressures related to production and consumption (particularly in the areas of energy, industry, buildings and infrastructure, mobility, tourism, international trade and the food system)
These objectives are ambitious as they are all-encompassing and if realized, will make Europe a truly great place to live in, but how do they translate into the daily life of hundreds of millions of Europeans?
How does that commitment translate to daily life?
Business side
Europe is already a constraining destination when it comes to doing business, or at least it is often said, because of all its regulations, and this is likely to get worse, but for the good cause. Businesses already have to comply with many obligations regarding the safety of the products (CEE for instance), and about child/forced labor, etc.. and have soon to comply with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (LINK article), but this is not the only change that impacts businesses.
Here are a few of the latest or upcoming changes, note that this is not a comprehensive list, just a few items that I thought significant because they go beyond the education framework and translate into real impacts:
IPhone charging cable: Maybe the latest and most written about change, is when the EU forced Apple to get rid of their charging cable and sell iPhones that use the same USB-C cable as all other phones to limit electronic waste.
Reparability index in France for instance, manufacturers are required to indicate the level of repairability of their products, this is the latest in a move that is designed to give consumers more transparency onto what consumers are buying and eventually drive changes. France is now taking this even further, with the creation of a subsidy for people to repair electronic goods instead of throwing them away. This is a great move as this creates both a new habit for consummers, and an industry for repairing electronics.
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive: the next level of CSRD. When CSRD only sets up the framework for reporting the sustainability impact of a company, this directive would oblige these companies to develop a plan that’s in line with the objective of carbon neutrality and Paris Climate Change.
Ban of single-use plastic items: From 3 July 2021, single-use plastic plates, cutlery, straws, balloon sticks and cotton buds cannot be placed on the markets of the EU Member States
Overall, the general increased sensibility to sustainable topics in Europe is a big driver for corporate behavioral change, as consumers are now considering these criteria more and more in their buying decisions.
Government side
Governments have long been talking about sustainability and how to implement measures to fight climate change. Over the years, many cities have taken initiatives to make living in it more sustainable: promoting greener transportation, increasing energy efficiency and limiting public lighting, or the maybe more controversial meat reductions in school canteens. Now, Europe is going one step further by giving cities a more pregnant role with real, measurable objectives that they have to commit by. I’ll take the example of France, which set up the Climate-Air-Energy Territorial Plans (Plans Climat-Air-Énergie Territoriaux, PCAET), which are individual to each city and lay out the different initiatives to take along with clearly defined KPI. This approach is bounded to be replicated across EU (and cities like Copenhagen haven’t waited !)
France’s PCAET: The Climate-Air-Energy Territorial Plans in France exemplify this shift. Mandatory for inter-municipalities with over 20,000 inhabitants, PCAETs encompass a range of sustainability metrics that they will have to hit :
Here is a table outlining various sustainability topics along with two examples for each:
Sustainability Topic
KPI 1
KPI 2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Reduce emissions by 40% from baseline by 2030
Achieve carbon neutrality by 2050
Renewable Energy Adoption
Source 50% of the city’s energy from renewables
Install solar panels on public buildings
Energy Efficiency
Reduce energy consumption in buildings by 30%
Implement energy efficiency retrofits in homes
Sustainable Transportation
Increase public transportation usage
Add miles of protected bike lanes
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Achieve a 60% recycling rate
Implement city-wide composting programs
Water Conservation and Quality
Reduce potable water use
Improve water bodies to exceed environmental standards
Urban Greening and Biodiversity
Increase green space per capita
Plant a specific number of trees
Air Quality Improvement
Reduce levels of air pollutants like PM2.5 or NOx
Implement low-emission zones
Climate Resilience and Adaptation
Develop strategies against climate risks like flooding
Enhance resilience in vulnerable neighborhoods
Community Engagement and Education
Involve a percentage of the community in sustainability initiatives
Establish partnerships with local businesses for sustainability
This table provides a structured view of the various initiatives and goals that cities might set to promote sustainability and combat climate change. Each topic is accompanied by specific, actionable examples that illustrate how these goals can be translated into practical measures.
Copenhagen’s Climate Plan: Copenhagen, Denmark, is at the forefront of urban sustainability with its ambitious Climate Plan aimed at becoming the world’s first carbon-neutral capital by 2025. Key initiatives include:
Extensive cycling infrastructure, promoting a bike-friendly city where more than 60% of residents cycle to work or school.
Large-scale investment in renewable energy sources, particularly wind power, contributing significantly to the city’s energy mix.
Innovative green building practices and energy-efficient housing developments.
Implementation of integrated waste management systems focusing on recycling and reduction of landfill waste.
Progressive urban planning incorporating extensive green spaces and water management systems to combat the effects of climate change and enhance the city’s resilience.
The European Union’s determined approach, as embodied in the 8th EAP and reflected in initiatives like France’s PCAET, marks a significant transition from dialogue to decisive action in environmental sustainability. These comprehensive strategies, spanning from business regulations to urban planning, demonstrate a commitment to reshaping Europe into a sustainable, resilient, and equitable society. This evolution from planning to implementation signifies a crucial step towards meeting the global challenges of climate change and environmental degradation, setting a commendable example for regions worldwide.
And you, what recent change do you think is the most important ?
In a move that resonates with environmental and practical implications, a landmark decision by Apple to transition its iPhones to USB-C ports is making waves. This shift, beyond aligning with European Union regulations, actually shows how a seemingly small decision can have a huge impact.
A Universal Charging Solution: Beyond User Convenience
Apple’s decision to switch its iPhone lineup to USB-C ports represents a pivotal moment in sustainable tech, as it shows that even the biggest business listened to the EU and represents some hope with a “small change” that can have such a big impact. This transition offers the practical benefit of unifying charging solutions across a range of devices, but more importantly, it heralds a substantial reduction in electronic waste. With this change, the need for different cables for different devices is significantly reduced, minimizing the number of accessories produced and eventually discarded.
The switch to USB-C in iPhones is not just a response to regulatory changes; it’s a step towards a sustainable technological future. This move aligns with the growing need for a circular economy in the tech world, where products are designed for longer lifespans, reusability, and efficient recycling.
Why was the decision taken to move to USB-C chargers and why Apply did resist that change initially?
To start, it is important to note that USB-C chargers offer several technical advantages over Apple’s Lightning chargers for iPhones:
Widespread compatibility: thus reducing the need for different cables and generating less waste.
Faster Data Transfer: USB-C enables quicker data synchronization with higher transfer rates, beneficial for managing large files efficiently.
Higher Power Delivery: It supports more powerful charging capabilities, allowing faster charging of devices, including power-intensive smartphones.
Despite these benefits, Apple was initially reluctant to adopt USB-C for iPhones for a few reasons:
Proprietary Control: The Lightning connector allows Apple to maintain control over its product ecosystem, ensuring accessory compatibility and quality.
Revenue Stream: Through the Made for iPhone program, Apple gains revenue from third-party manufacturers using the Lightning connector.
Brand Differentiation: Keeping the Lightning connector helps differentiate Apple’s products in a market dominated by USB-C and micro-USB devices.
As we know, iPhone did lose this fight and since iPhone 15, the phone comes with USB-C charging instead of the lightning cable. So let’s dwelve on the impact this can have.
Quantifying the Environmental Impact
Estimating the precise carbon reduction and avoided waste material from Apple’s switch to USB-C chargers for iPhones involves several assumptions and calculations based on available data. Here’s a simplified approach to estimate these impacts:
Estimating the Global Active iPhone User Base:
As of 2021, estimates suggest there are over 1 billion active iPhone users worldwide.
Replacement Cable Purchase Rate:
Assume a conservative estimate that 20% of these users purchase a replacement charger each year. This means 200 million replacement chargers annually (20% of 1 billion).
Chargers Included with New iPhone Sales:
Apple reported selling approximately 217 million iPhones in 2020. If we assume that around 50% of these new iPhones are sold with chargers (considering Apple’s policy of not including chargers with every new phone), this results in an additional 108.5 million chargers (50% of 217 million).
Total Chargers Annually (Replacement + New Sales with Chargers):
Total chargers annually = Replacement chargers + New sales with chargers = 200 million + 108.5 million = 308.5 million chargers.
Carbon Footprint of Charger Production:
Using the assumed carbon footprint of 1.5 kg CO2e per charger, the total carbon footprint = 308.5 million x 1.5 kg CO2e = 462.75 million kg CO2e annually.
Reduction in Production with USB-C Adoption:
Assuming a 30% reduction in charger production due to USB-C adoption, the reduction = 308.5 million x 30% = 93 million chargers not produced.
Corresponding CO2 reduction = 92.55 million x 1.5 kg CO2e = 138,825 tons of CO2e saved annually (the equivalent of 40,000 cars driving annually)
Material Waste Reduction:
Average charger weight: 75 grams.
Material waste avoided = 92.55 million x 75 grams = 6,941.25 million grams or approximately 6,941 tonnes of avoided electronic waste per year.
Conclusion
Apple’s decision to adopt USB-C for its iPhones could set a new sustainability standard in the tech industry. While the exact environmental benefits in terms of material savings and CO2 emission reductions require precise calculations, the potential impact is clear and far-reaching. Yet, let’s not celebrate this too much, as eventually charging cables are only a tiny piece of Apple’s carbon footprint and real sustainable value will be delivered by producing longer-lasting phones, that can be more easily repaired and recycled. With 65kg of CO2e per iPhone (down 30% against baseline), making an iPhone’s life going from 3 to 4 years means a 20kg CO2e saved per iPhone, so much more than that 1,5kg that a charger represents; maybe this is the real question here ?
I found this particularly interesting because, for the first time, I was reading about a company going beyond the usual framework of “understand your suppliers, tell them what you expect from them, and relax.” This approach was saying, “we will help you get there,” embracing the fact that suppliers and procurement could work together to achieve significant results where everyone benefits: Schneider Electric, the suppliers, and the suppliers’ customers.
Sure enough, just getting visibility on one’s supply chain is difficult, tedious, and sometimes costly, but organizations are now understanding that this can be an opportunity to build customer loyalty and make an impact on the world.
Procurement has realized this and has increasingly become the guarantor of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies within organizations, ensuring their supply chain aligns with the company values and objectives. The range of topics procurement has started to look at includes energy, health and safety, child labor, slavery, embargoed countries, certificates of origin for diamonds or rare earth, etc. When all procurement teams have raised their standards on these topics, the world will be a different place.
Why is procurement uniquely positioned to fulfill this mission?
Procurement selects the suppliers and ensures they abide by the company’s standards of supply chain and sustainability. If there is no demand for products that do not meet a certain threshold, the suppliers will have no choice but to go out of business or comply with these requirements. This process is exactly the same as for B2C.
Procurement can create a snowball effect by imposing new standards on their suppliers, who in turn will “greenify” their suppliers generating a vertuous circle.
Procurement teams are the company’s ears and eyes on the suppliers’ market. As such, they can gain visibility on the latest sustainable innovations within the industry and bring them to their business.
Faurecia’s VP of procurement, Nathalie Saint Martin, understands this unique position and makes procurement a key pillar for their CO2 emission reduction strategy:
“Procurement is essential […] they represent 60% of our total emissions.” She adds that with “their new procurement policies, over 90% of the parts used are sourced within the region they are produced,” reducing their carbon footprint immensely.
What mechanisms can be used to achieve this objective?
CSR and sustainability is a long journey for organizations, which requires having a real discussion with the various business owners to define the objectives and allocate resources to achieve them. In a nutshell, the framework used is the following:
Define the principles and Supplier Code of Conduct: Done with the business owners, this involves listing the most important topics that matter to the company, documenting them, and sharing them with suppliers. These documents are the backbone of what the organizations stand for and should be signed by any supplier you do business with. They should remain fairly generic, with supplier or category-specific topics addressed separately, in more detail.
Define the right selection criteria for your purchases: Procurement can set two types of criteria when it tenders: the qualifying and differentiating ones.
The qualifying criteria will be the list of things you expect any supplier to meet to even be able to quote: Anti-slavery statement, no fiscal debt, etc. Usually, you would ask for these in the Request for Information.
The differentiating ones will be the criteria that are going to be weighted in the award decision: Can the supplier recycle their products? Do they use green energy, etc.? The important point here is to give some weight to these criteria in the decision process.
Audits: Know your suppliers. Combining on-site visits and technological surveillance (think AI scanning the internet for news mentioning your suppliers, or blockchain to track shipments), procurement now has efficient levers to audit their suppliers and ensure their supply base is complying with the required standards. The most famous example at the moment is EcoVadis, which helps you get an assessment of your suppliers and provides ongoing surveillance to avoid being caught off guard.
Supplier Relationship Management (SRM): SRM is a powerful tool for procurement to create more value by accompanying suppliers to meet the required standards, like Schneider Electric, or by working jointly with already best-in-class suppliers to co-create new products or services (like the 100,000 custom-made electric van deal between Amazon and Rivian).
There is, of course, a multitude of different solutions to help organizations simplify and digitalize this process, but regardless of how, when all companies have established these processes successfully, the world will indeed be a better place. Stay tuned for more information on the solutions that I’ll share regularly
