An organization that is committed to the decarbonization of its activities has an interest in promoting this approach through appropriate communication, which is neither misleading nor excessive, to convince its customers of the credibility of its actions and prevent any attack.
Why communicate about your environmental approach?
Examples of outrageous greenwashing can dissuade organizations from communicating about their environmental approach.
It is, however, possible to design communication that avoids the pitfalls of greenwashing by remaining proportionate to the commitments made and the results obtained.
This type of communication has multiple interests.
From the point of view of the general interest, coherent, precise and transparent communication makes it possible to inform consumers about their choices and to direct the economy towards more sustainable consumption patterns.
From the point of view of the interest of the organization, communicating about its objectives and its results in terms of reducing its emissions is obviously positive, whether for the employer brand or the brand image.
On the one hand, employees who identify with the values of their organization are both more engaged and more efficient. A good employer brand also helps attract talent. Young people wanting a career in major oil groups are fewer in number than twenty years ago, the quest for meaning takes precedence today over the quest for profit ...
On the other hand, as the threat that business as usual to the future becomes clearer, consumers are increasingly sensitive to the environmental impact of the products and services they consume. They tend to favor companies committed to the fight against global warming. Thus, according to the Acting for the Environment study, published by the IFOP in November 2020 , 87% of French people are ready to boycott products with a harmful climate impact.
At this point, we can already say three things:
- Everyone has a role to play;
- Communicating everyone's efforts is necessary to amplify reductions on a global scale;
- Greenwashing is harmful to the cause it claims to serve.
Carbon neutrality and greenwashing
Ademe has published an expert opinion on the use of the expression carbon neutrality in communications . The conclusion is unequivocal: for ADEME, carbon neutrality only makes sense on the scale of the planet and, at most, of countries .
The carbon neutrality of a company is a more vague notion, which can lead to confusion . By definition, due to its existence and its activities, a company maintains an environmental impact. A premises, a company vehicle, a computer are enough, through the energy they consume, to emit CO2.
While it is possible to purchase carbon credits to offset emissions, carbon sinks (water, trees, soil) will unfortunately never be sufficient to achieve carbon neutrality on a planetary scale without there being at the same time a drastic reduction in emissions: not everyone will be able to “offset” their carbon footprint by planting trees. This is why the term “contribution” tends to replace that, poorly connoted and considered misleading by ADEME, of “compensation” .
Be careful when applying the notion of neutrality at the scale of an organization!
From a wording point of view, we would prefer to say that a company “contributes to global carbon neutrality” or that its reduction trajectory is “compatible with the Paris agreement” rather than saying that it has “achieved carbon neutrality”. carbon".
Despite these reservations, it remains possible to speak of carbon neutrality regarding a product or service, subject to respecting the following three conditions, mentioned in article 12 of law n°2021-1104 of August 22 2021 :
- Have carried out a carbon assessment of the product or activity concerned;
- Have published an emissions reduction trajectory linked to this product or activity;
- Have compensated for residual emissions.
However, this type of communication represents a significant risk for the company.
For what ? Because it is particularly vulnerable to greenwashing attacks and public opinion, better informed, is less and less receptive to this incitement, as shown by the removal of Easyjet advertising promoting zero carbon flights , following a bad buzz.
How to communicate about an organization's greenhouse gas emissions report?
Carrying out a carbon assessment is the first step in any serious and effective long-term decarbonization strategy.
Indeed, to establish a transition plan and begin to reduce your carbon footprint, you must first have identified and quantified your organization's sources of emissions.
However, the operational scope of a carbon assessment integrates more or less categories of emissions. We are talking about scopes 1, 2 and 3 , which each bring together defined sources (or positions) of emissions.
If the BEGES (regulatory reports) only include the first two scopes, Ademe strongly recommends taking into account scope 3 (indirect emissions linked to the organization's activity) which often represents more than 70% of the total. .
It is therefore recommended to include the scope of the balance sheet in its communication.
Furthermore, not all methods used to calculate an organization's carbon footprint are equal. It is appropriate to choose a reliable and recognized method, such as the carbon footprint® method developed by Ademe and updated by the Bilan Carbone Association, or the GHG Protocol, the SBTi, etc.
When communicating about your organization's carbon footprint, specifying the method used to calculate it constitutes a guarantee of credibility.
How to certify your reduction trajectory to communicate credibly?
While many companies seek to get involved in the fight for the climate by reducing and/or offsetting their emissions, several standards have emerged to clarify the different commitments and differentiate ambitious actions from greenwashing.
Among them, the Sciences Based Targets initiative (SBTi) constitutes the international reference, while the Net Zero Initiative is the French equivalent. In either case, the goal is to align the reduction actions to be implemented with the objectives to be achieved, as defined by the Paris agreement.
These new standards all emphasize one point: since compensation is not viable on a global scale, to the extent that carbon sinks will never be able to cover the quantity of current emissions, the priority is reduction. . The objectives are ambitious: the goal is to reduce emissions by 90 to 95% by 2050.
Only the remaining emissions, 5 to 10% of the total, can be offset by the purchase of carbon credits.
To better understand the terms carbon reduction, avoidance and sequestration, here is a diagram that classifies them:
By having our reduction trajectory certified by these reference organizations, we base our approach on scientific data to initiate long-term structural changes.
This makes communications more credible and protects the certified organization from green laundering attacks.
Compensation VS voluntary carbon contribution: how not to be accused of greenwashing?
Under the pretext that we finance the planting of trees in the Amazon (or that we support any carbon sequestration project), can we claim to be carbon neutral?
A priori, no. As long as projects are not protected from future carbon releases (fires, etc.) and emissions from the activity have not been significantly reduced, it is in any case difficult to justify.
However, considering CO2 sequestration projects as window dressing is no less simplistic.
Until now, compensation has suffered from abusive use, serving above all to avoid reduction actions, given the very competitive price of certain credits on international markets.
However, since all players must reduce their own emissions, the efforts of some cannot replace those of others .
The second problem that compensation poses is that of the quality of the projects supported and the effectiveness, or not, of CO2 sequestration.
We suspect that between a carbon credit at $8 and another at €110, there is a difference. This can relate to the seriousness of the project, its certification and its monitoring, but also the co-benefits it entails.
For example, the planting of hedgerows, in addition to CO2 sequestration, allows the maintenance of biodiversity, the limitation of erosion, the optimized management of water, the production of timber, etc. Conversely, monoculture tree planting harms biodiversity and poses greater fire risks.
It is therefore appropriate to study the projects in depth before purchasing carbon credits resulting from them. Which doesn't mean giving up!
On a global scale, carbon neutrality will be achieved when emissions induced by human activity are absorbed by carbon sinks. There are therefore two parameters: emissions on one side, sinks on the other. Promoting the growth or maintenance of these is also crucial to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
Because the term is equivocal and has served as an alibi for abusive practices, it is now preferable to avoid talking about “compensation” and to favor the voluntary carbon contribution . For an organization, this aims to finance projects to reduce or sequester GHG emissions in France and throughout the world, outside its operational scope.
The voluntary carbon contribution is therefore broader in that it also includes reduction projects outside its scope of activity, in addition to the sequestration projects covered by traditional compensation.
In a note, Ademe indicates the 5 good practices of the voluntary carbon contribution , which it is good to have in mind before getting started:
- Take stock of GHG emissions, reductions and offsets and make it public;
- Choose labeled compensation projects (low-carbon label, VCS, Gold standard, etc.);
- Favor projects presenting “sustainable development” approaches;
- Define the right mix of projects supported on national soil and projects supported internationally (projects in France will speak more to French stakeholders);
- Communicate responsibly.
What communication media should I use?
Once an organization has started making commitments to reduce its emissions, it can start communicating about them.
Different supports exist. Here is a table which summarizes the most common ones, indicating their advantages and disadvantages.
| Benefits | Disadvantages | |
| Press release | General public Official source |
Price More or less wide distribution depending on the media |
| Blog article/news | Precise description of the Sustainable Content SEO Improvement |
Writing time Visibility varies depending on traffic |
| Post on social networks | General public Wide audience |
Recurrence Ephemeral Moderation |
| Infographic | Impactful Pleasant to consult Memorability Sustainable content |
Price No developments possible |
| Video | More fun than a text format Impactful Sustainable content |
Price Technical editing Quality script required |
| Internal announcement | Employee engagement Enhancement of the employer brand |
No visibility outside |
| Advertisement | Simplicity of the message High visibility Improved brand image |
Ecueil greenwashing prize |
The 7 assets for communicating transparently and relevantly
- To begin, take an inventory of your emissions using a recognized method, such as the Bilan Carbone® method, the GHG protocol, etc.
- Integrate scope 3 to calculate your entire carbon footprint and identify all reduction levers.
- Have an ambitious AND realistic transition plan drawn up, indicating all the means. implemented to reduce its emissions, in line with the Net Zero Initiative.
- Avoid saying that a good or service has no impact (“carbon neutral product”, “zero carbon impact”, “100% offset”, etc.)
- Also avoid talking about “carbon neutrality” to describe an organization, as this presents a risk to the company's reputation.
- Prioritize your efforts by giving them a place proportional to their importance in your communications.
- Emphasize the process of reduction rather than the results.
Conclusion
Thus, if it is urgent to act and decarbonize activities in all sectors, everywhere in the world, it is no less necessary to communicate around the actions carried out to disseminate good practices and encourage other actors to follow them.
But be careful, because of the questionable practices observed (eco-laundering or greenwashing), communications on this subject are sensitive and must be considered so as not to be counterproductive, harm the brand image or trigger bad buzz .
At A4T, we support public and private organizations from calculating their carbon footprint to reducing their emissions, by following a transition plan. At the same time, we advise them on how to integrate this approach into their CSR strategy and communicate objectively and effectively in the long term.