有些詞匯體現(xiàn)了各種因素的協(xié)同效應(yīng),有些總結(jié)了經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)。今年,公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者在財報電話會議中反復(fù)提及一個新詞:范圍三排放。
范圍三排放被用來代表因非公司直接所有或直接控制的實(shí)體的經(jīng)營活動所產(chǎn)生的碳排放。例如一個生產(chǎn)公司采購和交付的產(chǎn)品所產(chǎn)生的排放就屬于范圍三排放。這類排放在該公司的碳足跡中占很大一部分。
據(jù)財務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)公司Sentieo統(tǒng)計,今年到目前為止,有689份公司季度財報電話會議和投資者會議的文稿中至少提到一次范圍三排放。Sentieo研究總監(jiān)尼克·馬辛告訴《財富》雜志,這一數(shù)字比2019年的47次增加了15倍。
思科(Cisco)CEO羅卓克在11月份召開的公司財報電話會議中表示:“我們在9月承諾2025年前實(shí)現(xiàn)范圍一和范圍二凈零溫室氣體排放,2040年前實(shí)現(xiàn)全面凈零排放,包括范圍三排放?!?/p>
馬辛表示,公司活動現(xiàn)在經(jīng)常用范圍三排放指代“碳排放”。隨著越來越多公司開始公布其環(huán)境影響,“范圍三排放”和“碳排放”這兩個術(shù)語實(shí)際上已經(jīng)變成可以互換。
馬辛表示,提及范圍三排放的大部分是公司的管理層,而不是華爾街的分析師,因?yàn)樗麄兘?jīng)常只負(fù)責(zé)聽報告和提問題。他發(fā)現(xiàn),公司管理層提及范圍三排放的次數(shù)是分析師或投資者的六倍。
上市公司經(jīng)常會估算其環(huán)境影響并介紹公司為減少環(huán)境影響所做的努力,但實(shí)際上這并非強(qiáng)制規(guī)定,而且他們的估算往往很難進(jìn)行事實(shí)核查。有些公司可以言之鑿鑿地宣稱其消費(fèi)了多少加侖汽油,例如快遞業(yè)巨頭UPS,但直接面向消費(fèi)者的企業(yè)卻很難評估其碳排放量,比如銷售家用戶外燒烤架的公司。
范圍一和范圍二排放用于測算公司經(jīng)營產(chǎn)生的直接排放,非盈利組織世界資源研究所(World Resources Institute)和世界企業(yè)永續(xù)發(fā)展委員會(World Business Council for Sustainable Development)在2001年提出了這三個用于說明碳排放的術(shù)語。
但事實(shí)證明,間接排放的測算比直接排放更加困難。哈佛商學(xué)院(Harvard Business School)榮譽(yù)教授羅伯特·S·卡普蘭和牛津大學(xué)(Oxford University)布拉瓦尼克政治學(xué)院(Blavatnik School of Government)的卡西克·拉馬納在《哈佛商業(yè)評論》(Harvard Business Review)中寫道,公司“基本上不可能可靠估算其范圍三排放?!?
除了范圍三排放以外,第三季度的其他商務(wù)熱詞還包括“通貨膨脹”、“瓶頸”、“勞動力短缺”、“凈零排放”(另外一個表示抵消碳排放的術(shù)語)和“基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施法案”等。這些術(shù)語體現(xiàn)了美國當(dāng)前的政治環(huán)境以及因?yàn)樾鹿谝咔榈仍驅(qū)е碌墓?yīng)鏈混亂和勞動市場問題。(財富中文網(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
有些詞匯體現(xiàn)了各種因素的協(xié)同效應(yīng),有些總結(jié)了經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)。今年,公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者在財報電話會議中反復(fù)提及一個新詞:范圍三排放。
范圍三排放被用來代表因非公司直接所有或直接控制的實(shí)體的經(jīng)營活動所產(chǎn)生的碳排放。例如一個生產(chǎn)公司采購和交付的產(chǎn)品所產(chǎn)生的排放就屬于范圍三排放。這類排放在該公司的碳足跡中占很大一部分。
據(jù)財務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)公司Sentieo統(tǒng)計,今年到目前為止,有689份公司季度財報電話會議和投資者會議的文稿中至少提到一次范圍三排放。Sentieo研究總監(jiān)尼克·馬辛告訴《財富》雜志,這一數(shù)字比2019年的47次增加了15倍。
思科(Cisco)CEO羅卓克在11月份召開的公司財報電話會議中表示:“我們在9月承諾2025年前實(shí)現(xiàn)范圍一和范圍二凈零溫室氣體排放,2040年前實(shí)現(xiàn)全面凈零排放,包括范圍三排放?!?/p>
馬辛表示,公司活動現(xiàn)在經(jīng)常用范圍三排放指代“碳排放”。隨著越來越多公司開始公布其環(huán)境影響,“范圍三排放”和“碳排放”這兩個術(shù)語實(shí)際上已經(jīng)變成可以互換。
馬辛表示,提及范圍三排放的大部分是公司的管理層,而不是華爾街的分析師,因?yàn)樗麄兘?jīng)常只負(fù)責(zé)聽報告和提問題。他發(fā)現(xiàn),公司管理層提及范圍三排放的次數(shù)是分析師或投資者的六倍。
上市公司經(jīng)常會估算其環(huán)境影響并介紹公司為減少環(huán)境影響所做的努力,但實(shí)際上這并非強(qiáng)制規(guī)定,而且他們的估算往往很難進(jìn)行事實(shí)核查。有些公司可以言之鑿鑿地宣稱其消費(fèi)了多少加侖汽油,例如快遞業(yè)巨頭UPS,但直接面向消費(fèi)者的企業(yè)卻很難評估其碳排放量,比如銷售家用戶外燒烤架的公司。
范圍一和范圍二排放用于測算公司經(jīng)營產(chǎn)生的直接排放,非盈利組織世界資源研究所(World Resources Institute)和世界企業(yè)永續(xù)發(fā)展委員會(World Business Council for Sustainable Development)在2001年提出了這三個用于說明碳排放的術(shù)語。
但事實(shí)證明,間接排放的測算比直接排放更加困難。哈佛商學(xué)院(Harvard Business School)榮譽(yù)教授羅伯特·S·卡普蘭和牛津大學(xué)(Oxford University)布拉瓦尼克政治學(xué)院(Blavatnik School of Government)的卡西克·拉馬納在《哈佛商業(yè)評論》(Harvard Business Review)中寫道,公司“基本上不可能可靠估算其范圍三排放?!?
除了范圍三排放以外,第三季度的其他商務(wù)熱詞還包括“通貨膨脹”、“瓶頸”、“勞動力短缺”、“凈零排放”(另外一個表示抵消碳排放的術(shù)語)和“基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施法案”等。這些術(shù)語體現(xiàn)了美國當(dāng)前的政治環(huán)境以及因?yàn)樾鹿谝咔榈仍驅(qū)е碌墓?yīng)鏈混亂和勞動市場問題。(財富中文網(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
First there was synergy, then there were learnings. This year, corporate bigwigs have a new buzzword they’re repeating in earnings calls: Scope 3.
The term is shorthand for a company's carbon emissions that are the result of activities by entities that aren't directly owned or controlled by that business. These emissions, such as from the production of goods they buy and their delivery, tend to make up the bulk of an organization's total carbon footprint.
Scope 3 was mentioned at least once in 689 transcripts of quarterly earnings calls and investor conferences so far this year, according to financial data firm Sentieo. That’s a 15-fold increase from 2019, when there were 47 mentions, Nick Mazing, director of research for Sentieo, told Fortune.
"In September, we committed to being net zero greenhouse gas emissions for Scope 1 and 2 by 2025, and net zero for all emissions, including scope 3 by 2040," said Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins during his company's earnings call in November.
Scope 3, Mazing said, is now used as frequently during corporate events as “carbon emissions.” As businesses increasingly report on their environmental impact, "Scope 3" and "carbon emissions" have essentially become interchangeable.
Management have mostly been the ones who've used Scope 3, not the Wall Street analysts who often listen and ask questions, Mazing said. Management mentioned the term six times for every one time an analyst or investor did, he found.
While public companies often estimate their environmental impact and discuss what they’re doing to mitigate it, they're not required to do so and their estimates are often difficult to fact-check, said Mazing. While a company like delivery giant UPS may be able to say with near-certainty how many gallons of gasoline it uses, consumer-facing businesses, like a company that sells backyard grills, have trouble evaluating their emissions.
Like Scope 1 and Scope 2, which measure direct emissions from a company's operations, Scope 3, as a term, was created in 2001 by the non-profit groups World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to describe carbon use.
But measuring indirect emissions has proven to be much more difficult than for direct emissions. It is "virtually impossible for a company to reliably estimate its Scope 3 numbers," wrote Robert S. Kaplan, emeritus professor at Harvard Business School, and Karthik Ramanna of Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government in the Harvard Business Review.
Following Scope 3 on the list of most-used business buzzwords in third-quarter corporate transcripts were the terms ‘inflation’, ‘bottlenecks’, ‘labor shortages’, ‘net zero’ (another term meant to denote the offsetting of carbon emissions), and ‘infrastructure bill.’ Those terms reflect the current political climate in Washington D.C. and supply chain kinks and labor market problems created in part by the COVID-19 pandemic.