With the ACCC and the European Commission clamping down on greenwashing, the conversation surrounding climate action, carbon neutrality, net zero, and offsets has never been more pertinent. Companies must be transparent about their emission reduction efforts and the use of carbon offsets.
This development underlines the importance of transparent, accurate, and competent climate advice – an area where initiatives like Climate Active want to play a pivotal role. Climate Active, an initiative set up by the Australian Government to drive voluntary climate action, has implemented a “Registered Consultant” system and a verification process to support this endeavour. However, concerns exist about these processes, leaving room for potential inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Under Climate Active’s approach, consultants can achieve “registered” status by answering just a few questions without requiring formal education or training in the field. This low barrier to entry leaves room for consultants to offer advice without a thorough understanding of complex concepts, such as Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) processes.
The lack of understanding around MRV is a particular concern as it has led to instances of incorrect advice being provided, causing potential detriment to clients’ sustainability goals. Furthermore, this registration process can create an aura of implied legitimacy, which should be seriously questioned given the aforementioned issues.
Compounding these issues, Climate Active’s verification framework, specifically the so-called Type 1 verification, permits only the identification of activity data discrepancies, ignoring other shortcomings. Other errors in applying emission factors, inaccuracies in calculating global warming potentials, methodologies and assumptions, and incorrect boundary setting can also significantly impact an organisation’s reported emissions. Yet, the current verification framework doesn’t systematically screen for these errors, often leading to flawed climate action plans.
Getting the detail right
Furthermore, there are some instances where Climate Active references standards in an incorrect context (i.e. ISO 14001 and ISO 14065). It is easy to dismiss incorrectly referenced standards as mere typographical errors or deem them inconsequential. However, given the inherent technical nature of MRV processes, attention to detail is paramount.
Standards serve as the blueprint for methodologies and calculations that underpin these processes. Misapplying them could lead to significant emission reporting errors, compromising the validity and credibility of a company’s sustainability efforts. Therefore, it is not just about getting the standards right; it is about adherence to them, underscoring the precision required in this critical work towards climate action.
These issues combined – the low entry requirements for consultants and the verification process limitations – undermine the industry’s credibility, dilute trust between businesses and their consultants, and, most importantly, impede our collective fight against climate change.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
To rectify this, it is crucial for Climate Active to review its “Registered Consultant” approach by raising the entry requirements, such as requiring formal education or relevant qualifications. It is also important that organisations consider whether the service fees are commensurate with their consultants’ understanding of MRV and other crucial concepts. After all, as the old saying goes – you can either have the lowest price or the best consultant; seldom can you have both.
Time to raise the bar
Regarding the verification process, a more robust framework is necessary to comprehensively address all types of errors and inaccuracies, not just those related to activity data. Also, utmost care must be taken to ensure the accuracy of the standards referenced by Climate Active.
Despite these challenges, it is important to note that Climate Active possesses potential, particularly for small businesses. Climate Active’s mission to help businesses reduce their carbon footprint is laudable. The accessibility and simplicity of the program may not be ideal for organisations with international disclosure requirements, but can be a valuable asset for small businesses seeking to navigate the complexities of climate action.
As a final food for thought, it is crucial to question whether statements like “well, at least we got something” are good enough in these critical times. While it is true that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, it is also essential to recognise that settling for “good enough” should not impede our progress towards “we can do better.”
To advance towards a more sustainable, carbon neutral or net zero future, we need competent, well-informed consultants guiding businesses and a thorough, accurate verification framework to achieve this.
