Universities Tackling Scope 3 Emissions in The Supply Chain

19 September 2024

The second event in the Global Thematic Dialogue Series for 2024 took place on 19 September (AEST). Participants were brought together across two hour-long sessions to discuss the topic of universities tackling Scope 3 emissions within the supply chain.

The online event attracted registrations from 192 academic and professional staff joining from 75 universities and several global organisations across 24 countries.

 

About the Sessions

Across the two sessions, participants heard case-studies and provocations from: Dr Roger Attwater, Director of Environmental Sustainability, Western Sydney University; Martin Baxter, Deputy CEO, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), Claire Davies, Sustainable Procurement Manager, and Charlotte Wood, Sustainability Manager, Nottingham Trent University; Luis Filardi, Head of Sustainability ANZ at the BSI Group; Professor Jennifer Fraterrigo, iSEE Associate Director of Campus Sustainability at the University of Illinois; Molly Hawes, Head of Environment, University of Oxford; Dr Gerard Healey, Manager, Sustainability Strategy at the University of Melbourne, Emily Stott, Nature Positive Universities Coordinator, Nature Positive Universities University of Oxford; Will Syddall Head of Environmental Sustainability, and Jasmin Lewis, Manager of Sustainable Procurement at UNSW Sydney; William Van Ausdal, Head of Sustainability, Flinders University.  The sessions were chaired by Associate Professor Ben Neville from Melbourne Climate Futures at the University of Melbourne and Dan Fernbank Energy & Sustainability Director at the  University of Reading.

A consistent thread between the two sessions was the desire from those working in Higher Education for more cross-institutional collaboration and the sharing of knowledge and tools, in addition to a focus on the need to build and draw on networks which include those responsible for accounting for emissions within institutions.

Following each session’s case-studies, the conversation in both sessions included: staff culture and mandatory approaches within institutions; raising awareness internally within institutions (and using visualisations such as carbon dashboards); climate risk reporting and internal processes; regulatory expectations on the horizon; the need for universities to lead the way in emissions reduction and creating nature positive institutions; the pros and cons of paying for, and using tools to audit Scope 3 emissions; the uncertainty of data; the challenges of reducing carbon emissions of travel, particularly aviation.

 

Summary of case studies

 

Dr Roger Attwater, Director, Environmental Sustainability, Western Sydney University

Dr Roger Attwater joined from Western Sydney University (WSU), which has been ranked as number 1 in the Times Higher Education Impact rankings. Roger contextualised his focus on Scope 3 emissions by explaining that Western Sydney University’s steps towards climate action are around the UN-led Race to Zero for Colleges and Universities targets: to be carbon neutral by 2023 (which Western Sydney University has achieved); and moving towards being Climate Positive by 2029. WSU is in its second year of certification through the Australian Climate Active Organisation. Roger gave an outline of the university’s high-level carbon transition plan, which is divided into four main areas: building stock, supply chains, renewables, and fuel switching and electrification. Through this, Roger explained that Scope 3 is 92% of the current footprint. Specifically focussing in on Scope 3 emissions, Roger took participants through the different categories of Scope 3 emissions for the university, and gave an overview of a discussion paper Western Sydney University has put together with four Scope 3 focuses: carbon-neutral products and services, circularity in products and services, offsetting at source where necessary, and embedding a cultural shift within the university. Roger explained some of the collaboration and engagement existing both within the institution (such as between the procurement team and environmental sustainability team), and externally (such as with the NSW government through the NSW Sustainability Advantage).

 

Martin Baxter, Deputy CEO, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)

Martin Baxter started by explaining that one of the challenges in the standards space is that there are now so many standards in the area of environment sustainability that it makes it difficult for organisations to navigate where they need to be. Martin suggested that there are opportunities, too; by using international standards, institutions have a common set of terminology, which means that organisations can speak to many different kinds of suppliers with a common language. Martin highlighted four specific standards, which, in the context of Scope 3 emissions are helpful for organisations to be aware of:

  1. IWA 42:2002, Net zero guidelines – a free guide to support organisations towards net zero, based on principles and examples from over a thousand people around the world.
  2. ISO 14067: 2018 – Greenhouse gasses – Carbon footprint of products, which specifies principles, requirements, and guidelines for the quantification and reporting of the carbon footprint of a predict (CFP), in a manner consistent with International Standards on life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO14040 and ISO14044)
  3. ISO 14064-1:2008 – Greenhouse gases Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organisation level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals
  4. ISO 14001:2015 – Environmental management systems – management framework to translate net zero and wider environmental ambitions into action.

Martin also shared links to some initiatives in the UK specifically relating to Scope 3 emissions, which are coming through public procurement practices.

 

Claire Davies, Sustainable Procurement Manager, and Charlotte Wood, Sustainability Manager, Nottingham Trent University

Charlotte Wood began by explaining that Nottingham Trent University (NTU) has a commitment to be net zero by 2040, and when finding a baseline for NTU they discovered that supply chain emissions accounted for over 50% of the carbon footprint, which is typical for the sector. It was priority to understand those emissions in order to reduce them, but NTU wanted to move away from a spend-based methodology, disconnecting spend from the university’s carbon footprint.

With an aim to engage with suppliers, and to harness the purchasing power the university sector as a whole without adding to the reporting burden, NTU decided to develop a net zero carbon supplier tool in 2022 (link at bottom of Dialogue summary). The tool works as a single platform, and provides two options for suppliers depending on where they are in their net zero journey. Option 1 is for suppliers who already have a carbon reduction plan know their carbon footprint, who can upload a web link and provide the carbon footprint breakdown, annually. Option 2 is for suppliers who don’t have a carbon reduction plan, who can use the system to calculate their carbon footprint through inputting their fuel and energy usage, and select from a framework of carbon reduction commitments and actions to create their own bespoke carbon action plan which they can update to show progress on their actions as often as they like. The tool is free for suppliers to use, regardless of size or turnover. Claire Davies explained that universities are able to use the platform to efficiently engage with thousands of suppliers in a single platform, and can extract data from the suppliers to calculate supply chain emissions and inform sustainable procurement decisions.

After an initial 6-month testing phase with a small number of universities, the tool is now being used by over 31 partner universities to deploy the tool with their suppliers and continually improve the development of the tool, which equates to over a hundred sustainability and procurement professionals all working together. From November, the tool will be available for the whole of the UK university sector.

 

Luis Filardi, Head of Sustainability ANZ, BSI Group

Luis Filardi described a set of guidelines for best practise that embeds several standards alongside local requirements within the guidelines. He explained how these guidelines were put together by gathering inputs from 1200 organisations, and taking into account existing best practice. Luis explained that the guidelines are intended as a framework to guide boards and senior leaders, as well as those working within institutions. In terms of Scope 3 emissions, the guideline demands that Scope 1,2 and 3 emissions are reduced – and gives a standard for supply chain and procurement assurance, based on a principles-based approach. Luis suggested keeping things simple – using simple calculations and data as a starting-point for measurement.

 

Professor Jennifer Fraterrigo, iSEE Associate Director of Campus Sustainability, University of Illinois System

Noting that the USA does not currently have mandatory reporting, Jennifer Fraterrigo gave an overview of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, in order to contextualise her discussion of Scope 3, as one of three schools within the University of Illinois System, a large public university (60,000 students, 15,000 staff). Jennifer explained that there has been a Climate Action Plan for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign since 2010, which is updated every five years based on progress and new goals, including around reaching carbon neutrality by 2050, and around promoting zero waste, biodiversity, conservation, education and engagement. As part of the zero-waste goals, there are targets towards reducing Scope 3 emissions through developing and implementing sustainable purchasing policies and sustainable procurement reporting guidelines. As a first step towards developing these policies and guidelines, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is using a data-informed approach to identify items where policy change might have the largest impact on Scope 3 emissions, for example through assessing purchasing patterns of research and office supplies. Jennifer explained that without mandatory reporting, it is more difficult than in other parts of the world, but Jennifer gave two examples of successes in reducing Scope 3 emissions in procurement practices. The first example was shifting purchasing practices through bringing in an automated system to default to purchasing recycled paper over non-recycled paper (also brought about through a change in state procurement policy). The second example was that of being able to filter for ‘greener choices’ in the purchasing system, such as for nitrile gloves with supplier-reported higher sustainability criteria. Finally, Jennifer highlighted a number of challenges: that choices are made based on cost or strong legacies, especially in research; that it is difficult to enforce sustainable procurement policy; and that there is a lack of information about suppliers’ emissions.

 

Molly Hawes, Head of Environment, University of Oxford

Molly Hawes spoke of the ambitious two-pillar approach taken by the University of Oxford to assess the impacts of the university’s supply chain – capturing both the carbon and the biodiversity impacts.  Carbon impact assessments include spend-based data and travel data.  Molly explained that the university also has particular targets to report and reduce the carbon impact of food, and will bring together academics this October to look into using research to inform policy.

In terms of biodiversity, Molly explained that previous assessments have shown that the university’s biggest impact on biodiversity is driven by the impacts of its supply chain, and five environmental impacts on nature are assessed: air pollution, greenhouse gases (GHG), land use, water use and water pollution. Molly explained that the majority of the University of Oxford’s estimated impact on biodiversity is attributed to the university's supply chain for research and operations, contributing to nearly 70% of the University’s overall impact. This includes the supply chain for research (including laboratory equipment, chemicals, rubber, plastic and glass) plus the supply chain for running the day to day of the University (including IT, electrical machinery, furniture and paper). Molly shared that the methods that the university has used have been published in the journal Nature and applied to the Guardian Newspaper’s operations (links can be found at the end of this summary).

 

Dr Gerard Healey, Manager, Sustainability Strategy, University of Melbourne

Dr Gerard Healey gave an overview of the general carbon targets of the University of Melbourne, including the target to be certified as carbon-neutral by 2025. Gerard showed a graph of the categories of greenhouse gas emissions for the University of Melbourne, indicating which were Scope 3, and brought in the University’s Estate Master Plan, outlining upcoming major construction projects, to illustrate how emissions relating to construction materials and services are expected to double or triple over the next two to five years, as the Master Plan is carried out.

Gerard suggested that early planning decisions are where universities can have the biggest influence, and explained some of the tensions between minimising carbon, and maximising campus experience and productivity. An example was that of the benefits of retrofitting and adaptive reuse of buildings to minimise carbon emissions in construction, versus the need to create a cohesive campus experience and productivity through clustering faculties, and creating precincts for industry and partner collaboration.

Gerard explained some of the challenges to measure reductions in upfront carbon emissions for construction, including the spend-based approach to tracking emissions, versus a life-cycle analysis (LCA), which can be project specific and requires more detail. The choices within LCA, such as measuring against business-as-usual practices, which allows for a familiar reference point (but sometimes encourages inflation of these figures to show an apparent reduction), or using a fixed benchmark, were explored. Gerard gave a case-study of the difficulty of tracking and auditing emissions reductions in the construction supply chain, through an example of a paper-trail of more sustainable concrete mix used at the University of Melbourne, highlighting the challenges involved.

 

Emily Stott, Nature Positive Universities Coordinator, Nature Positive Universities, University of Oxford

Emily Stott’s presentation highlighted biodiversity impacts, and Emily explained how Nature Positive Universities is an inclusive global community of higher education institutions from over 100 countries, working together towards nature positive goals and to restore habitats and ecosystems. Nature Positive Universities aims to bridge the gap between the focus on the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis by, for example, focussing on things like land use, air and water pollution and mining of materials, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

Emily explained that many universities have made a nature positive pledge, and the Nature Positive Universities pledge has a flexible baseline, so that the baseline can either be just about biodiversity on campuses, or more ambitious baselining around setting targets to reduce impacts through procurement practices.  Whilst work so far hasn't tried to capture the impacts of banking, pensions, or investments, the choices that are made in those areas have huge impacts on deforestation and other aspects of nature. Nature Positive Universities encourages the starting point to be in two areas – firstly in deciding which aspect of operations to focus on, and where impact will be, and secondly deciding on how to map or capture data about supplier management of biodiversity impacts.

Emily noted that whilst there is not a requirement for mandatory reporting on biodiversity impacts yet, it is an opportunity for universities to be pioneers to begin making links between nature and climate, and to lead action in this space.

 

Will Syddall Head of Environmental Sustainability, and Jasmin Lewis, Manager of Sustainable Procurement,  UNSW Sydney

Will Syddall gave a brief overview of UNSW’s targets (links at end of summary) to reduce Scope 3 emissions by 30% by 2025, and to net-zero emissions by 2050, without including off-setting. Will described how UNSW used the Greenhouse Gas protocol to do a value-chain emissions footprint from 2018. In terms of Scope 3 emissions, supply chain emissions count for about 50% of UNSW’s footprint.

Jasmin Lewis discussed how, in order to draw on the data and start taking action, UNSW has put together a Sustainable Procurement Framework (links can be found at the end of this summary), supported by a three-year roadmap, both of which are endorsed by the senior leadership team. These documents highlight the commitment to reducing the harmful impacts of UNSW’s supply chains on the environment. Jasmin explained how the Framework has been anchored against ISO 20400 guidance which also brings together the focus areas of modern slavery and social procurement, and is also anchored against policies, processes, and people, including UNSW staff students in the community, and engaging with suppliers.

Jasmin outlined the emissions risk management in processes via tender projects, and through internal processes to encourage reuse (such as the LEAF program in science labs). Jasmin also discussed the trial of a ‘carbon dashboard’ that will be rolled out to all faculties and divisions, to raise awareness of each faculty and division’s goods and services related emissions, staff commuting and air travel emissions.

 

William Van Ausdal, Head of Sustainability, Flinders University

William Van described the particular challenges of having a large physical footprint at Flinders University, which is based in Adelaide and spreads up through the Northern Territory, and the impact this has on assessing emissions. William considered the challenges of having a baseline set in the middle of a pandemic, especially when considering factors such as air-travel, and construction, which have increased significantly in recent post-pandemic years. William drew attention to the complicated nature of using standards, whilst acknowledging their importance. For example, he considered the issue of timescales – whether the lifespan of a building (for example, 100 years) should be factored into the analysis of data in tracking emissions relating to construction.

 

Useful links and resources shared in the Dialogue:

 

It was a privilege to hear such insightful contributions from around the world on operationalising and actioning the reduction of emissions within the supply chain of universities. We would like to thank those who participated, presented, and shared their thoughts at this Global Thematic Dialogue.

Universities tackling scope 3 emissions tile