In the grand scheme of things, sustainability teams -- wherever they exist -- are very recent additions to companies' formal organizational structures. As such, many of them are facing the disadvantage of no pre-existing commonly-accepted best practices or tools to use in their work. Sustainability professionals are often overwhelmed by the distance they have to cover between setting high-level goals and figuring out what specific steps they can take to make meaningful progress. This workshop, led by a thought leader with a few decades of experience in the field, former Leader of the Sustainability Transformation & Sustainability Strategy practice at Deloitte, will reveal a new wave of practical tools aiming to help automate common sustainability-team workflows.
RE Capital's Visionary Leadership under Newman Leech
Practical Tools for Sustainability
1. A New Generation of Practical Tools for Sustainability
Professionals
Daniel Aronson, Valutus @DanielAronson
John Williams, Impact Infrastructure @ImpactNFSTR
Emma Stewart, Autodesk
Deborah Stern, 2020 Strategies
Reed MacMillan, The Triana Group @MacMillianGroup
2. Man is a tool-using animal. Without
tools he is nothing, with tools he is all.
— Thomas Carlyle
3. The most satisfactory definition of
man from the scientific point of view is
probably Man the Tool-maker.
― Kenneth Page Oakley
4. We become what we behold. We
shape our tools, and thereafter our
tools shape us.
― Marshall McLuhan
5. The stone age was marked by man's
clever use of crude tools; the
information age, to date, has been
marked by man's crude use of clever
tools.
6. Men have become the tools of their
tools.
— Henry David Thoreau
7. One only needs two tools in life: WD-
40 to make things go, and duct tape to
make them stop.”
— G. Weilacher
8. The expectations of life depend upon
diligence; the mechanic that would
perfect his work must first sharpen his
tools.
— Confucius
9. It doesn't work to urge people to think
outside the box without giving them
the tools to climb out.
— Laurie Dunnavant
13. Workshop:
A New Generation of Practical, Web-based Tools
for Sustainability Professionals
What About Infrastructure
and Buildings?
Speaker: John F. Williams, Chairman and CEO,
Impact Infrastructure, Inc.
John.williams@ImpactInfrastructure.com
13
14. Introduction
Infrastructure and
Building Projects
Multi-Trillion Dollar Market
Source of Massive Costs and Benefits
Pivotal position in long term Financial, Sustainability,
Resilience outcomes
14
15. ABC Tells the Complete
Value Story
Financial
Economic
Social
Environmental
Resiliency
15
16. ABC is Offered by
Impact Infrastructure and Autodesk
Harvests Data from BIM allowing
Economic Assessment
Calculates Financial and Sustainable Returns on Investment
Identifies Costs and Benefits by Stakeholder Group
Enables Project Sponsors and Financiers to use
- a common standard
- automation
- planning and design professionals
- addressing the cost, capacity and comparability
due diligence challenges
16
17. ABC Makes Business Case
Analysis Practical
Reduces the Cost of Economic and Risk Analysis
Provides real time Assessment informing Planning
and Design Decisions
Provides a means of Comparability between Projects
Informs project Prioritization, applications for Merit
and Impact Capital funding
17
18. Embraces the GOLD Standard
for Project Valuation:
CBA Building on Recent Progress
CBA under the Federal TIGER Grant (merit) Program 2008
SROI Framework introduced into the public domain 2009
Urban Sustainability Directors’ Network TBL Calculator 2010
ISI’s EnvisionTM Sustainable Rating System 2011
18
19. Embraces the GOLD Standard
for Project Analysis:
BIM More Recently
Business Case Evaluator (BCE) for Envision v1.0
- economics and risk assessment tool
- released at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design 2013
- V2.01 released in early 2014
- free, public domain via ISI, spread sheet, manual,
documentation
BCE focuses on specific Infrastructure and Building sectors
Stormwater Management, Transit, Highway and Bridges, Energy,
other environmental and social infrastructure 2014 -2016
19
20. This Fall: ABC Solution for
Infrastructure and Buildings
Automated Business Case Evaluator
Portfolio of Sector Specific Metrics and a Common Analytical Engine
Harvests:
- planning
- design
- publicly sourced data
Captures
- financial
- economic
- social
- environmental
- resilience costs and benefits
Real Time Assessment
20
21. Monte Carlo Simulations to Address Uncertainty and Risk
Multiple Beneficiary CBA account for the Winners and Losers
Project specific Value for Money
Enables Decisions for Optimal Outcomes
Answers the What’s in it for me? Question
21
ABC Addresses
Uncertainty and Risk
Focus on Stakeholder Interests
39. Conclusion:
Reducing the
Due Diligence Burden
Ask for Comprehensive Business Cases
Project Sponsors Will Provide Them
39
40. Speaker: John F. Williams, Chairman and CEO,
Impact Infrastructure, Inc.
John.williams@ImpactInfrastructure.com
40
Workshop:
A New Generation of Practical, Web-based Tools
for Sustainability Professionals
What About Infrastructure
and Buildings?
41. 41
Sustainable Brands/MIT New Metrics ‘14
Tools for Sustainability
Management
Deborah Stern
Founder & CEO, 2020 Strategies LLC
Senior Advisor, Tennaxia
ReScore Group Team Leader
2020 Strategies, LLC
42. Researching Corporate Responsibility
Using Tools to Improve CSR Data Capture & Reporting, a 2014
Market Research Study:
1. Review of existing literature
2. 57 interviews & surveys with CSR managers, stakeholders
ReScoreGroup.com
& experts
3. Case Studies
4. Benchmarking study of software platforms
42
Corporate Partners: Triana Group, 2020 Strategies, Tennaxia
43. The Big “Why”
Metrics are essential to build a
robust, coherent market for a
sustainable world.
ReScoreGroup.com
43
44. The Drivers of CSR Reporting are Different in
North America and Europe
ReScoreGroup.com
Stakeholders
Regulation
Voluntary
• GRI
• CDP
• AccountAbility
• DJSI
• SASB
• ISO
Regulatory
• Lisbon Strategy (2000-2010)
• Europe 2020 (2010-2020)
• EU Climate Action
• European Commission
adoption of The Directive
(2014)
44
45. Europe had more early reporters and higher
reporting rates
ReScoreGroup.com
45
46. US increasing reporting rates but less focused
on data quality
Reporting Rates - Converging Assurance Rates – US lags behind Europe
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
ReScoreGroup.com
46
US
UK
France
Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008 2011 2013
0%
2008 2011 2013
47. Use of tools in the US
ReScoreGroup.com
47
Organizational Size
Small Mid-Cap Large-Cap
Organizational commitment to CSR
No System &
No Tracking
Software
Solution
(e.g.
Tennaxia,
Credit 360)
Internally
Customized
Systems
Software
Solution
(e.g.
Tennaxia,
Credit 360)
(e.g.
Oracle,
SAP)
48. Companies are settling for inferior solutions to
tracking and reporting sustainability data
Features Excel
ReScoreGroup.com
Sustainability
Software
Solutions
Cloud-based, multi-user interface
Customized to track specific company KPIs and strategies
Ability to attach supporting documents
Ability to manage workflows (e.g. assign tasks, send reminders)
Customized end user training
Integration with other corporate systems
System in place for validating data and flag data inconsistencies
Easily export data into high level and auditable reports
48
50. Data Management with Tennaxia
3 - 40 days 7 days 18 days Ongoing
ReScoreGroup.com
50
Collect Control Analyze &
Produce
Verify &
Configure Report
Understanding
Clients’ Business
& Objectives
Constructing
Platform
Platform Setup &
Training
Operationalize
Platform
Fast Implementation and Delivery Process:
51. A few Key features of the Software tool
ReScoreGroup.com
51
Fully Customizable
Features
Streamlined
Documentation
Management
Data
Verification
52. Case Study: Group GeoPost
ReScoreGroup.com
52
Background:
• Private Express Delivery: 24,000 employees providing express
delivery of 814 million parcels annually between 230 countries
• Manages 830 operational sites and uses 26,000 vehicles
Business needs:
• Integrate data into parent company (La Poste Group) CSR report
• Pilot a new corporate-wide initiative to build environmental
management ISO 14001 program, including measuring GHG
Emission Reductions
• Support External Communications, Compliance, Audit
Before Tennaxia CSR Tool:
• Costly: 2 weeks FTE min. collecting and verifying data
• Stressful, time-consuming process
• Challenging to assure data quality
53. Case Study: Group GeoPost
After Tennaxia CSR Tool
• Cost Savings: 5-10 minutes vs. 2 weeks every quarter
• Efficiently avoid mistakes, gain peace of mind
• More motivated data providers
• Improved HQ – Subsidiary relationship
• Allows for bigger picture to granular analysis
• Measure and compensate for reduced GHG Emissions
Overall Business Value:
• A true tool: Liberates team for mission-critical work
• Drives performance; Guides decisions
• Mitigates reputational and operating risks – verified data
• “It helped to have an IT tool designed by environmental experts, in
contrast to just IT experts”
ReScoreGroup.com
53
54. ReScoreGroup.com
What’s Possible
• Our case studies have shown that implementing a
CSR tool can have real value to companies
• Also, good CSR tools drive the momentum of
investment and action to achieve a sustainable world
• Unfortunately, several gaps exist that are delaying
adoption
2020:
Flourishing markets to achieve a sustainable world.
54
55. ReScoreGroup.com
Thank you
For research project and more
information on Tennaxia Solution:
ReScoregroup.com
Deborah Stern
Rescore Group Team Leader
2020 Strategies, LLC
dstern@2020Strategies.net
212-838-7678
55
57. Tennaxia at a glance
ReScoreGroup.com
57
European company founded in 2001
Platform utilized at over 3,000 client sites
Accessed in over 70 countries in multiple languages
Compatible with CDP, GRI, ISO & other Reporting Frameworks
Nearly 100% client retention rate
58. Flexible Integrated CSR Service Offering
Strategic Consulting
CSR Report Blueprint
Planning, benchmarking &
communication strategy
Data Management
ReScoreGroup.com
58
SaaS (Software as a Service)
Customized Settings
Deployment in partnership
with client
Training of key staff
Monitoring & on-going support
Materiality analysis,
indicators & KPIs
Ability to take on client data
management
59. Data Management with Tennaxia
ReScoreGroup.com
59
Collect Control Analyze &
Produce
Verify &
Report
•Transfer
historic data
•Assign users
to collect data
•Set up
automatic
data entry
•Track progress
•Validate data
and flag
inconsistencies
•Management
verification
•Simple data
export
• Ability to
visualize data
•Multi-dimensional
analysis
•Audit ready
•Reportable
data for
internal and
external
stakeholders
•View project
history
Configure
•Adapt
software to
processes and
standards
•Set indicators
and scope
•Workflow
validation
60. Key features of the Software tool
ReScoreGroup.com
60
Fully Customizable
Features
Streamlined
Documentation
Management
Data
Verification
61. Working Together: Our Business Process
ReScoreGroup.com
61
Understanding
Your Business &
Objectives
Constructing Platform
Platform Setup &
Training
Operationalize
Platform
• Define stakeholders,
issues & materiality
• Select of indicators
and KPIs
• Define of controls,
calculations, units,
analysis and report
formats
• Define data sources,
pathways and
validation sources
• Configure
management system
for data collection
and reporting
• Input historical data
• Documentation and
training
• System testing and
revisions
• Maintenance and
upgrades
• Produce reports for
external stakeholders
and support audits
• Ongoing support
available
3 - 40 days 7 days 18 days Ongoing
62. Client Testimonials
Tennaxia has a high level of customer satisfaction and a 97 % retention rate
ReScoreGroup.com
62
“Responded to our needs, deployed the tool with a very accurate
timing. All goals of the project were achieved”.
- Group SEB
Small sample of other clients:
63. ReScoreGroup.com
Contact
Deborah E Stern
Dstern@2020Strategies.net
39 Broadway, New York NY
Rescoregroup.com
http://www.trianagroup.com
63
1. The scientific consensus was unprecedented
The level of consensus on climate change was the highest I’d seen on any topic among the scientific community. And the guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the necessary responses was unusually clear:
An average global warming of 2°C is generally taken as the ‘tipping point’ beyond which there is a real risk of long-term irreversible climate change. To have a 50/50 chance of only a 2ºC Rise, CO2 concentration must be held at 450ppm
2. Current practice was ripe for disruption
For all the marketing language about corporate leadership on climate change, anyone with a discerning eye could see that most companies were setting their targets based on what looked good on a press release or what was already budgeted. We suspected they were nowhere near the magnitude required.
Indeed, the CDP’s “Carbon Chasm” report came out right around this time and analyzed the GHG targets of the Global 100. They found that, even when including companies currently lacking targets, at the current rate, the reductions necessary to stabilize the climate would be achieved 39 years too late to stabilize the climate.
3. Regulatory expectations were generally increasing, both for us and our customers
Historically, global policies haven’t been in the right ballpark. As Climate Wedge pointed out back in 2005, even the Kyoto Protocol, the only demonstrable global agreement to reduce emissions, if it were extended to the year 2025, which hasn’t happened, would only cover 1/30th of the reductions needed by 2050.
However, while it’s been slow and painfully incremental, the regulatory expectations on business with respect to climate change have increased in the aggregate. Where political momentum may be lacking at the international and national levels, sub-national governments are stepping into the void. These regulations were hitting our customers – those who design, own, and operate the built environment and industrial sectors – well before they hit a small footprint software company, so finding a novel way to set a science-based, yet business-friendly target, could help catapault our Salesforce into deeper and more strategic relationships with our customers.
When I joined Autodesk in 2009, the initial GHG footprint had already been done by a contractor, but it needed work and no target was in place. With the help of a contractor fresh out of college, we overhauled the data collection system (which was currently essentially just emails and a spreadsheet), implemented an Enterprise Carbon Accounting software platform, and expanded the boundaries of the footprint to include all indirect emissions.
With the house in order, we were now ready to set a target. I had just hired an incredibly talented fellow named Aniruddha Deodhar – who is still a key member our team. At the time, he was new to sustainability but very experienced in financial modeling as well as software development – our core business, so he and I started interviewing other companies about their experiences in goal-setting.
We found that the majority of Fortune100 and half the Fortune 500, including many of our major customers like GE, Boeing, Caterpillar, and Ford, had already set GHG targets of some kind. However, a majority of our competitors had yet to publish targets. Thus, there was a strong argument for taking something ground-breaking to our CEO to help differentiate us.
CLICK: We also concluded from our research that most targets were:
Grounded in little more than ”guesstimates” of what looks good for marketing purposes or what seems reasonably easy to achieve in terms of sustainability investments.
Despite the long-term nature of the climate challenge, 84% of the Global100’s targets were short-term (i.e. 2-3 years out). Some, like Dell, had extremely aggressive short-term targets that far exceeded what our method would derive, but there was no guarantee they would stay on that trajectory when they renewed their goals. We could only find a handful of European companies (France Telecom, Tesco, and Vodafone) with 2020 targets.
Incomparable because they differ in what triggers a redrawing of the carbon footprint baseline (for example, acquisition or divestiture of a threshold size, consolidation of facilities), making it impossible to compare performance even across those companies with similar targets.
Absolute targets were most meaningful climatically, easily communicated, and potentially a future requirement under new regulation. But they are inflexible and difficult to achieve in a high-growth economy.
In contrast, intensity targets tend to be optically pleasing because they’re larger than absolute goals, and perhaps because of this, were becoming more and more popular. But we concluded they were being crafted poorly, with some even masking an actual increase in absolute emissions.
From a prior project, I was familiar with the work at BT by Chris Tuppen and Kevin Moss with help from Professor Jorgen Randers of the Norwegian Business School on what they called a Climate Stabilization Index – which introduced the idea that corporate carbon emissions should be set relative to economic value-add -- and wondered if Autodesk could turn such a concept into a generalizable methodology that used only publicly available information and was applicable to all of the private sector – no matter what sector or geography.
The real modeling would never have happened without the incredible talent Aniruddha, who was wonderfully adept at continually challenging us with questions like “how do we deal with the fact that companies have different baseline years?”, “is Gross Profit really the best proxy for a company’s value add?” and so on.
I asked our consultants at Clear Carbon Consulting – who were acquired by Deloitte around that same time -- to act as a sounding board and foil – which was key – but also helped with selling C-FACT internally because Deloitte is a trusted name in corporate accounting.
We wanted ADSK – and its corporate sector peers -- to reduce GHGs in line with scientific and policy climate stabilization targets (85 percent reduction by 2050 from current levels) but do so proportional to their relative contribution to global GDP - not more, not less
CLICK: We had 3 key principles the method needed to abide by:
Fairness: Acknowledges that corporate commitments should be proportional to their contribution to GDP and not to the corporations’ existing size and footprint. It is nondiscriminatory to companies of varying sizes, GHG footprints, and growth prospects.
Verifiability: Uses generally accepted corporate financial principles, agreed upon methods of carbon measurement, enabling 100 percent verifiability of methodology and progress.
Flexibility: Adapts to inaccurate financial forecasts, economic uncertainty, organic and inorganic changes in business, and inevitable deviations of real performance versus intended target.
I won’t go into detail here because in the spirit of encouraging others to consider using it, we went to great lengths to create a 6-min video tutorial, white paper, and FAQ at our website, which I’ll provide in a moment.
CLICK: In essence, it boils down to 4 steps.
Calculate:
Calculate your base year GHG footprint, which for Autodesk was 83,000 MT.
Define your company’s contribution to GDP, which is certainly not perfect but is the best universally available way to represnet a company’s value to its economy. Do this using Gross Profit, your revenue minus the Cost of Goods Sold. For Autodesk, this was $2.1B for our baseline year. Forecast growth using a combination of publicly available analyst research for the short-term and steady state assumptions for the long term.
Divide the base year GHG footprint by contribution to GDP to calculate the Carbon Intensity Ratio
Use the IPCC’s recommended reduction for the year 2050 (if you operate primarily in industrialized countries, this is an 85% absolute reduction by 2050) to back-calculate your company’s trajectory. In the spreadsheet we made open source, we tried to make this easy by using the Excel function “Goal seek”.
Commit: Choose a target year that balances the long-term nature of climate change, common policy milestones in years like 2020, and the periodicity of your company’s strategic planning process.
Annualize: Annualize the reduction goals over your timeframe through 2050, and ideally commit to reporting these derived annual targets, as well as how you performed against them, at the end of each fiscal year.
Adjust: At year end, update the projection model with the latest available information your new carbon footprint and see if you’ve overshot or undershot your annualized target. Diffuse any error over a 5-year sliding window (shown here as a gray band), which aligns with common budgeting practices in corporate finance and grants you flexibility in meeting short-term targets but prevents procrastination beyond 5 years. Also update your predicted gross profit projections so as to refine your annualized target for next year.
Because C-FACT is based not only on corporate accounting principles but also in macroeconomics, we know that if every private sector company were to adopt C-FACT, private sector emissions would be on track to help stabilize the climate by 2050.
In a recent slog through the Fortune500’s 2,000 sustainability goals, Winston Eco Strategies’ PivotGoals Initiative found that only:
CLICK: 6% of these goals were equivalent to that recommended by science
CLICK: and 0.006% were explicitly linked to science.
CLICK: We predict this will change, as two of the top standard-setting organizations in the environmental field, WRI and CDP, have joined forces with WWF and GRI to issue guidance on science-based carbon targets. And we hope you will join at the front of the pack.
Metrics are essential for building a robust and coherent market that can deliver a sustainable world.
In order to employ metrics pervasively we need good tools – they enable accelerated adoption
The better the tools the more companies will adopt data collection practice, the faster the market will accelerate to a sustainable world
CSR reporting in Europe is a lot more developed and regulated. Companies have been well ahead on reporting for over 10 years now following the different strategies (see details below).
In the US, regulations do not exist for mandatory reporting. Companies that voluntarily report are stakeholder driven, and are reporting mostly with international standards such as the GRI, CDP, UNGC, etc.
Lisbon Strategy – a ten year action and development plan devised in 2000 to be adopted for a ten year period between 2000 to 2010. The Lisbon Strategy was heavily based on economic concepts to “make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. The main fields included economic, social, and environmental renewal and sustainability
Europe 2020 – 10 year strategy plan proposed by the European Commission that follows the Lisbon Strategy for the period 2000-2010. The strategy identified five main targets for the EU to boost growth and employment:
- To raise the employment rate of the population aged 20–64 from the current 69% to at least 75%.
- To achieve the target of investing 3% of GDP in R&D in particular by improving the conditions for R&D investment by the private sector, and develop a new indicator to track innovation.
- To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels or by 30% if the conditions are right, increase the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 20%, and achieve a 20% increase in energy efficiency.
- To reduce the share of early school leavers to 10% from the current 15% and increase the share of the population aged 30–34 having completed tertiary from 31% to at least 40%.
To reduce the number of Europeans living below national poverty lines by 25%, lifting 20 million people out of poverty.
EU Action on Climate – policy developed for adaptation strategies to help strengthen Europe’s resilience to the inevitable impacts of climate change. Targets up to 2050.
Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by large companies and groups – adopted by the European Parliament on April 15, 2014. Large public-interest entities with more than 500 employees will now be required to disclose certain non-financial information in their management report.
…by a long shot….
Reporting is becoming more prolific. But in US, quality of data is still voluntary and questionable. Market is not yet at the tipping point from the standard objective being=report something, to standard objective=report quality data [for benefit of company performance & building robust market for sustainability].
It is surprising that so many companies are settling for inferior such as Excel when there are many high performing systems out there
…But in the US….still over-reliant on weak tools such as excel instead of investing in valuable solutions
Sustainability Software Solutions, such as Credit360, Enablon and Tennaxia
Another point is that even though Excel appears to be the “free” option it is more costly in cumulative administrative time and inaccuracy in data entry
--Now I want to look at a tool, specifically, that addresses the need to not only disclose but collect, report and manage based on quality csr/sustainability data
Tennaxia:Tennaxia provides customized cloud-based software and services to help companies manage EHS Compliance and Sustainability Data. Over 5,000 locations in 70 countries rely on Tennaxia to streamline business processes, reducing costs and risks. Configurable to any framework or KPI, Tennaxia’s turnkey solution achieves nearly 100% client retention.
Users connect from anywhere, multi-users at a time
Real-time data validation
Allows users to add attachments to support data
Managers are able to review and verify data
Ability to export into multiple reporting formats
Software supports multiple languages
Software can integrate earlier company data
Platform highly customizable to meet any specific needs
This graph gives an overview of the implementation process for Tennaxia
Fast implementation (faster than most competitors in the EU)
Here is a view at the Tennaxia software platform.
Costly: collecting and verifying data
Due to highly complex, multiple spreadsheets, challenge in verifying data – results in stressful time-consuming work flow
Cost Savings: Software + Consulting solution – strategic advice without “nickel and diming”
Reporting is not a pain with less resistance, and actually motivated because contributors see that data is being used
Better internal communication and transparency
Adopted by additional departments- PR/Auditors/Finance
Credibility: Proves that their operations are properly managed
We have a true tool! It liberates our time and mindshare, gives us valuable information, allows us to deliver value.
We can now focus on the “real work” of reducing our footprint and operating a responsible, high-performing business to benefit our customers, shareholders, and all stakeholders
Additional Benefits: Guide strategic investment decisions
Not only good for the company because they are reporting but because it is delivering management
People have the perspective that reporting is just a headache, too cumbersome, too complicated and an unproductive task that has to be done without having business value. But actually we now have enough evidence that tracking and report is value add for running effective, efficient business. Allows your company to manage multiple data points and work towards goals
Gaps:
--data acquisition, hard to collect data from individuals, lack of buy-in from management
(Megan Farrell) There is usually push back – facility managers tend to get defensive, think tracking will affect their job etc. It really comes down to successful change management. Need to communicate and help people understand how tracking rolls up into larger reporting. (might be a good point in talking about the benefits of consulting service)
--between the available tools and their perceived value
--The need for the tools and their adoption
--Awareness of the existing tools available – this is lay-up for Daniel’s Tool-Marketplace (AppStore)