Corporations are beginning to come to terms with the impact their business travel has on the environment, according to a recent report issued by The Conference Board, a New York-based, not-for-profit national research organization.
Primarily based in Europe, companies including Barclays, Pearson and Telenor are taking and publicizing accounts of fuel emissions generated by their own business travel. While one conclusion is to reduce such pollution by cutting travel or replacing it with remote conferencing, Beaverton, Ore.-based Nike is in the third year of an innovative program with Delta Air Lines that funds efforts to offset pollutants created by Nike business travel.
Meanwhile, many corporations continue, at least, to ask about "green travel" in talks with suppliers.
Nike last year said it would offset the equivalent of 5,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by donating $25,000 to The Climate Trust, a Portland, Ore.-based nonprofit dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas levels. The money comes from Delta Air Lines' and Nike's Eco-Class fund, to which both companies contribute with each U.S. ticket purchase.
The Climate Trust invests the funds into projects that improve energy, building and transportation efficiency. The first project funded this way built a high-efficiency boiler in a Portland school and offset "the equivalent of the total CO2 emissions from our U.S. employee air travel on Delta for the last six months of 2000," according to Nike documents. A Nike spokesperson said this year's funding would be announced in the coming months.
"Historically, companies have focused on manufacturing as the primary source of CO2 emissions, but now environmental, health and safety professionals responsible for determining the 'environmental impact' or 'footprint' of a company's operations are realizing that manufacturing plants are not the only source," according to the Conference Board report, authored by Business Enterprises for Sustainable Travel research advisor Steven Godeke and released in April. "Travel also has a major impact on their environmental footprint."
Dozens of multinational corporations are taking the first steps. Zurich-based UBS named business travel as one of four "major factors" contributing to the company's direct impact on the environment. At Skandia in Sweden, "We define the direct impact as the consequences of our business processes. Business travel accounts for the largest direct environmental impact of Skandia's business activities." London's Barclays Plc said it is encouraging videoconferencing to lower the impact of business air travel emissions, which in 2001 totaled nearly 13,000 metric tons of CO2, up from just under 11,000 in 2000 and less than 10,000 in 2000.
For Pearson Plc, "Transport has an environmental impact and needs to be incorporated into our wider environmental management system," according to the company's 2002 Environmental Review. Pearson last year extended its capture of business travel emissions data to include U.S. car rental usage and also expanded its videoconferencing capabilities.
Norwegian telecom group Telenor said its reduction in business travel during 2002 translated into a 22 percent, or 3,900 ton, cut in emissions. "Of Telenor's CO2 emissions, 88 percent were a result of business travel," according to the company's 2002 Social Report.
"The mileage totals in this section include several estimates, as not all businesses operated effective systems to identify business travel during the period under review," said Prudential Plc's 2002 Environmental Report, offering a universally appreciated argument for travel consolidation. "Complex arrangements with multiple travel agents have also resulted in under-reporting of mileage."
According to Anglo-Dutch Unilever, "Increasing demand for companies to measure their output of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, has focused on manufacturing. But other areas of business, such as business travel, can have a significant impact on carbon dioxide emissions. This was confirmed by a study that compared the carbon dioxide emissions from energy used for production and transport at two adjoining sites of similar size in Port Sunlight, U.K. Before starting work, researchers assumed the energy consumption of the Lever detergent plant would be disproportionately higher than the adjacent site which houses Unilever's research scientists. While the emissions of the factory were indeed three times more than the science block, the scientists produced a significant impact, mainly from business travel."
All that said, even these companies only are beginning to identify the effects; generating policies to save the world is more complicated.
"We're seeing more companies, especially large ones with a lot of corporate travel, at least recognizing that this is an area they need to start tracking," said Ian Watt, corporate accountability specialist with the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies. "Any large company looking to produce a credible inventory of their emissions would include those related to business travel. Very few companies have gone the next step as Nike has, although a lot are looking at offsetting emissions in certain ways, and these emissions numbers are playing around internally."
Watt and CMM Consulting's Cathrine Lundberg agreed that external influence on European and other companies by environmental groups and regulatory policies helps explain their enlightenment on the matter. Among other worldwide programs, certification for the ISO14000 quality standard, the Global Reporting Initiative and a new United Nations Economic Commission for Europe treaty on pollution are prompting image-conscious companies to identify and disclose more information. In the United States, meanwhile, "There is a lot of shareholder activism that has focused some companies on these issues, so you are finding pressure from investors and non-governmental organizations," Watt said.
Given the focus in travel management on safety and security issues during the past two years, environmental work has toiled behind the scenes. The British Institute of Travel Management no longer offers an Environmental Code of Practice that was in effect in the late 1990s. "After environmental concerns were the 'flavor of the month' in the U.K. a few years ago, they were overtaken by other issues," ITM's Mark Harris said.
"The environmental stuff has come as a second concern after the tragedy of 9/11 and the events of the past two years," Lundberg said, "but these issues are still on the table."
According to GreenBiz.com, "3.2 million acres of trees would need to be planted every year to offset the emissions caused by the 240 billion miles the National Business Travel Association claims are racked up by U.S. business travelers annually, but travel buyers remain hard pressed to find options for the environmentally responsible business traveler."
While companies that have accounted for lower business travel emissions in recent years typically cite unrelated economic pressure for such reductions, travel buyers have put pressure on vendors by asking about environmental initiatives in requests for proposals
(BTN, Oct. 25, 1999)."We haven't adopted a policy due to the environment," Unilever supply manager Bill Doull said. "In terms of the influence on travel, it hasn't quite got to the ultimate stage where it determines whether or not we travel. Where we have changed our pattern, it's primarily because of other reasons, but that's not to say we wouldn't if it became a more critical area."
Nevertheless, Doull said, "In all RFP processes, we have asked airlines to advise us what environmental controls they have and, if they apply, what environmental awards they have received. It's not a critical factor on which we determine contracts, but it is now a standard requirement. As good corporate citizens, we're looking to work with suppliers that share our concerns."