To achieve true zero emissions we need to change the business supply chain Grant Reid

Tthe global fight against the effects of climate change is a generational challenge like no other. This is a common task, but it is becoming increasingly clear that mistrust and skepticism are high.

A tough campaign by young activists like Greta Thunberg has challenged the status quo and emphasized the collective responsibility of current leaders to bring about change.

I strongly believe that we must collectively do everything we can to show by our actions that climate promises should not be abandoned empty or that Greta and her contemporaries characterize it as mere blah blah blah.

Key objective? The concept of achieving zero emissions. It is, after all, at the heart of the UN Race to Zero campaign and a key part of the effort to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees.

For a company like us, reaching zero means reducing our greenhouse gas emissions (greenhouse gas emissions) and ensuring that the remaining emissions we add to the atmosphere do not exceed the amount we eliminate. Sounds like a simple equation, but it is complicated to implement.

After all, few consumers are likely to realize the incredible journey that takes Royal Canin to the dog food cup, M&M to their corner store, veterinary services to our thousands of clinics, or the Bens Original dining table. Because, in order to achieve a truly net worth, we need to eliminate or offset greenhouse gas emissions throughout our value chain from farms that always supply ingredients for end use of the product with consumers.

It is a daunting challenge. But science is clear and focusing on the least will not produce the required effect.

When we go to the UN Air Conference COP26 in Glasgow next month, we all have a shared responsibility to work to ensure that the zero targets for both countries and companies are credible and appropriate.

Unfortunately, I see serious risks with recent net announcements. All too often, key components are missing, and this causes significant shortcomings in our joint efforts to prevent the worst effects of climate change. So how can we fill these gaps and put ourselves on the real path to their net zero?

Firstly, I believe that all credible net zero requirements must cover the associated emissions for the whole greenhouse gas footprint, including all emissions in scope 3.

These are emissions for which you are somewhat responsible, but which may not be under your control, such as emissions from our suppliers or retailers. That means consumers use your products. For us, this means how our products are transported to stores and how consumers use them at home. Too often, these emissions are completely excluded from zero-grid plans.

I can’t stress how important it is to cover the entire value chain, as this is often the biggest impact for most companies. For us on Mars, agriculture and related land use change account for about 75% of our emissions footprint. We knew our accelerated commitment to reach net zero by 2050 that there was no negotiation and no excuses to do so.

Excluding the largest emissions from climate commitments will not lead to the critical change needed to combat climate change, and too many of the commitments made will be too limited.

Another essential task is to combine long-term commitments with action now to change the path of climate change. We cannot use distant deadlines as an excuse for inaction and delay.

On Mars, we are mobilizing our entire business and recognizing that the change we want cannot wait for decades. We must continue to make the change that will help achieve these emission reductions and hold ourselves accountable for significant progress along the way.

That is just the beginning, but I am proud that we have already managed to reduce our emissions throughout the value chain by 7.3% despite 2015, even though our business continues to grow. In our direct operations, we have already reduced emissions by almost a third.

But I do not underestimate the size and complexity of our own commitment across our entire supply chain or its importance to others who are committed to doing the same. Old business practices do not produce the required changes, and it is clear that change in business supply chains is critical. This requires a variety of approaches, such as the transition to renewable energy, halting deforestation and transforming natural ecosystems into material sourcing methods, and integrating climate action into the core of the business, including linking management compensation to greenhouse gas reduction targets. We cannot achieve our goals without also challenging suppliers to set their own climate targets and take action.

Finally, we urgently need an agreed and consistent definition of zero emissions. Right now, we have something free for everyone that allows for multiple interpretations.

It does not encourage best practice, nor does it drive the change required by the planet. As the Science-Based Target Initiative finalizes the first global standard by which organizations commit to and achieve net revenue, is expected by the end of this year, we hope it will contribute to the harmonization and ambition of zero net targets. For the sake of clarity, this is not about seeking perfection, but about progress and our common success in creating a common future.

Failure to fill the gaps in some existing net commitments will undermine their credibility and, more importantly, climate action.

We cannot allow that to happen.