Lucy Bertenshaw
Nonprofit conservation group World Wide Fund for Nature in 2009 launched the One In Five Challenge, advocating that U.K. companies within five years reduce by 20 percent the number of flights taken by their employees. Twelve organizations have signed up, and BT within two years was the first to achieve the goal. The Transnationalspoke with WWF-UK campaign manager for transport Lucy Bertenshaw to learn how the program started, how auditing works and other details.
What was the genesis behind the One in Five challenge?
About two-and-a-half years ago, we were looking at the case for airport expansion in the United Kingdom. The economic argument that a lot of businesses put forward was that for the U.K. economy to be buoyant, businesses need to fly. We did some research and spoke with 100 FTSE 350 companies to get a picture of business travel and see if businesses were embracing emerging conferencing technologies. We appreciate that a lot of meetings still need to take place face to face, but a lot of companies told us they are cutting back on their travel, mostly as a cost-cutting measure related to travel budgets. But a lot of companies also told us that they are aware climate change will affect their business. They wanted to cut back on their carbon, and cutting back on your flights can cut your carbon quite quickly. And also, many people don't like to be away from home. So what we found is that a lot of companies are using different types of conferencing, whether audio, Web or video. We asked, "What will encourage more companies to be doing that?" We decided to get a group of companies together; it is all about them committing to cut one in five business flights by using a lower-carbon alternative, such as train, or by using videoconferencing, web conferencing or even just the telephone. The idea is to get the companies to share best practices and demonstrate the savings. It is one thing to say, "Yes, I pledge to cut my flying." But you need quantifiable results to show how much money and carbon is saved, based on flight distance and the type of flying: domestic/short-haul versus long-haul. And you can look at the top routes flown to create a strategy. If you know, for example, that your top flight route is London-New York and you spend huge amounts of money flying your staff, perhaps you could put in place more conferencing equipment [linking those two locations]. Each company has its own culture and priorities, but it has been a good way to focus the company and another way to help implement policies they may already have for cutting back on travel. From a communications point of view, it is a really good way to explain to staff why they have to cut back on travel. BT achieving the award shows what is possible.
Why have the target be one in five flights rather than actual carbon emission reductions?
It's a way to communicate, and an easy way to explain, without going into the details of emissions. Since long-haul flights particularly emit so much carbon, if you cut 20 percent of your flights, you will be cutting a significant amount of your emissions. We didn't want to have a scheme that was overly complicated or too onerous for companies to report back on. But we do have the data audited by an external consultant because we wanted to be sure there was credibility. There are lot of different schemes where companies can pledge to cut X percent of their carbon, but you can't manage what you don't measure, so you need to have a baseline, and then you can set yourself at 20 percent from that baseline. Companies have five years to achieve the 20 percent cut, but BT managed it in a year; they cut 26 percent in one year. BT is using their technology to enable this--you'd expect from a technology company--and other companies in that sector are proving that their technology works by using themselves as a case study.
According to program materials, participants are allowed to use "existing methodology for calculating emissions from flying." If those methodologies rely on self-reported data, how can WWF know they are valid?
Because we knew different companies use different carbon calculators with different methodologies, we did not want there to be too many barriers for them to join and make things more complicated. We basically told them to carry on reporting and measuring the carbon in whichever they have done it, and do it consistently. We have a control metric from DEFRA (the U.K.'s Department for the Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs) which is a way to ensure their calculations are accurate.
Not long after WWF introduced the program, Sabre Holdings CEO Sam Gillilandin a commentary published by Air and Business Travel News, criticized the program for "singling out travel" with a "crash diet." He suggested companies instead should "make each trip more environmentally efficient rather than simply cutting the trip." What is you response?
The idea is to establish culture change within a company and for them to see that they can collaborate differently. Once companies have seen the savings they can make, not only financially but also the carbon savings and increased productivity, they see the benefits as they make cuts and embed that into long-term change. Lots of companies ask, "Why would we go back to flying a lot more after we made all these savings and our staff is just as productive?" It also depends on the types of meetings. Videoconferencing, for example, is a lot easier if you already have a well-established relationship. There are many different scenarios, but on the whole, the companies we have worked with have seen a lot of benefits.
Are there any opportunities to look beyond flight reductions and consider environmental considerations in other aspects of business travel programs?
When we set out, we did think about that. What about fleet vehicles? Business travel is much wider than emissions from flights, but we did not want it to become too complicated and use a lot of different reporting data. Sticking just to business flights would be something a lot easier to capture. So, no, we are not going to do hotels or vehicle data. It is quite a lot of work to set up a scheme like this. I have had quite a few conversations with travel managers and they say it is very difficult to capture and accurately record emissions from hotels. Often, a lot of the hotels do not have a system in place to measure. But it is good for people to start questioning hotel companies about providing this information. Do you calculate and manage the energy you use? Do you manage the waste you generate? It is a good way to drive those hoteliers in a direction they perhaps had not considered before.