Carbmee's Blog über Klimamaßnahmen von Unternehmen, SBTi, Scope 1, 2, 3 Emissionsbilanzierung, Nachhaltigkeit und ESG-Berichterstattung.

Das Fachwissen zur Förderung nachhaltige Transformation

Wissen & Einblicke über C02-Fußabdruck Management

The Science Based Targets Initiative is a carbon emissions reduction partnership between CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project), the United Nations Global Compact, the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). These partners coordinate with the We Mean Business Coalition, a global nonprofit working with influential businesses to pursue climate goals.

The coalition helps businesses achieve an SBTi net-zero standard, meaning that participants seek to balance the amount of carbon dioxide they generate with the amount they remove. The SBTi was launched in 2015 to promote the goals of the Paris Climate Accords agreed upon that year.

What Is the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)?

The SBTi works by helping companies set and achieve science-based targets, which are carbon emission goals aligned with what the latest science recommends to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, in keeping with the Paris Agreement. The SBTi recommends sector-specific emissions reduction targets for certain industries, such as oil and gas, transportation, and information and communication technology. Companies may submit target goals to the SBTi for assistance with the scientific validation of objectives and tracking of progress. Progress is tracked and publicly disclosed on an annual basis.

The SBTi follows the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, the main global standard for measuring carbon emissions, in dividing greenhouse gas emissions targets into three scopes:

Scope 1 consists of direct emissions from sources directly owned by companies, such as boilers, furnaces, and vehicles

Scope 2 consists of indirect emissions from the generation of the electricity purchased by companies

Scope 3 consists of indirect emissions from other sources not owned by companies within their supply chains, such as the production of materials, transportation of fuel, and sales of goods and services

The SBTi further segments targets by other criteria. Certain industrial sectors have industry-specific targets.

Targets may be divided into absolute and intensity targets. Absolute targets aim to reduce emissions by a specific percentage. Intensity targets set targets within a framework relative to an economic or operational parameter, such as reducing emissions per square foot of space.

The SBTi works with participating companies for each target to develop an emissions reduction pathway. This is a long-term plan to promote emissions reduction and sustainability.

The SBTi highlights several benefits to companies that pursue science-based targets. These include:

Contributing to global efforts to address climate change

Improving relationships with stakeholders

Encouraging innovation and competitiveness

An additional benefit is receiving technical support from SBTi experts in achieving emission reduction goals and becoming net-zero companies.

Benefits of Setting Science-Based Targets

The SBTi generally encourages participation by financial institutions and companies from all sectors and sizes, with a special emphasis on sectors with the highest emissions. However, there is currently a pause for fossil fuel companies and automakers due to transitions occurring in those industries. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) can participate by applying for a streamlined validation of their near-term and net-zero targets.

Committing to the process by submitting a letter announcing an intent to participate

Developing a target aligned with SBTi standards

Submitting the target for SBTi validation

Communicating the target to the public and stakeholders

Disclosing annual progress on an ongoing basis

Participants in this process receive support from the SBTi and its partners. Support includes:

Public recognition of commitment to the SBTi project on the websites of the SBTi, CDP, UN Global Compact, and We Mean Business.

Access to digital resources such as how-to guides and videos, sector-specific guidelines, and science based target-setting tools

A library of case studies and events to study for guidance

Sector-specific resources are available for certain industries. Support is particularly robust for the power sector and financial institutions, with detailed methodologies, frameworks, and requirements. Other sectors receiving special support include apparel and footwear, aviation, chemicals, information and communication technology, and transportation.

The SBTi helps companies set science-based targets and achieve emissions goals aligned with current scientific recommendations and global climate regulatory standards. This includes goals for direct emissions from companies and indirect emissions sources such as utility providers and supply chains. Companies participate in SBTi by submitting emissions targets for validation and ongoing tracking and reporting. This helps companies’ internal efficiency and external relations with regulatory authorities, stakeholders, and consumers. This is becoming more imperative in 2023 as regulatory standards increasingly obligate companies to reduce emissions.

If you plan to pursue science-based emissions reduction targets, carbmee provides resources to assist you. We offer a cloud-based enterprise solution to measure carbon levels and manage emissions to achieve your net-zero goals. Additionally, we provide an online knowledge base and answers to FAQs to guide you through your pursuit of science-based targets. Book a free demo of our carbon management platform to have one of our industry experts walk you through our solutions and discuss your needs. 

Why Your Organization Should Pursue Science-Based Targets in 2023

What is SBTI, how does it work, and how does it impact your company? This quick start guide will walk you through basic FAQs about the Science-Based Targets Initiative and what it means for your business.

Was ist die Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)?

Was ist SBTi, wie funktioniert es, und welche Auswirkungen hat es auf Ihr Unternehmen? In dieser Kurzanleitung finden Sie die wichtigsten Fragen und Antworten zur Science-Based Targets Initiative und was sie für Ihr Unternehmen bedeutet.

What Is the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)?

Estimates can vary depending on what’s included, but approximately 51% of global emissions come from the industrial sector. This figure is one that motivates our team of industry, software, and carbon experts everyday to understand the challenges of the world's largest enterprises with some of the most complex supply chains.

While corporate understanding of emissions is still relatively new, both accounting and sustainability professionals have been familiar with LCA and Carbon Accounting for many years. These approaches are both relevant to corporate sustainability but were initially designed for different use cases. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is used to assess the environmental impacts of product systems and decisions, often driven by customer requests or regulatory requirements. Meanwhile, Carbon Accounting measures how much carbon dioxide (and CO2 equivalents) an organization emits and often fulfills requirements for non-financial reporting. This form of accounting was mostly developed in the last two decades with the intent of providing a factual basis for carbon-conscious decision-making. However, it's true efficacy until recently is unclear, given that companies had often based their carbon accounting on speculative upstream and downstream emissions (Scope 3). This means that with inaccurate information – but good optics – carbon accounting has been strongly driven by publicly listed companies for reporting purposes and not for decision-making.

LCA was developed for highly granular assessment of environmental impacts – which makes for reliable carbon footprint models. These assessments require complex data collection processes, involving a high level of manual entry as well as low level of technical innovation. Traditionally, these models were created externally through specialized consultancies or internally by LCA experts with a background in environmental engineering. Carbon Accounting has a fairly simple data collection process that can consist of information such as energy bills, vehicle mileage, or company facility needs, for example. But as this information doesn’t provide the full scope of a company’s activities or supplied goods, it is not useful when it comes to reduction planning and decision-making (beyond participating in the voluntary carbon market to buy carbon credits which is not ‘ultima’ ratio for energy-intensive industries). This is especially the case for industrial companies that rely on processes like assembly, smelting or those with extensive supply chains. Beyond that, frameworks for carbon accounting are very broad when it comes to database and methodology choices, which has often been exploited by companies that have only felt compelled to to do the bare minimum in regards to time and resource allocation. 

If we stand a chance of decoupling economic growth from emissions we need precise data and reliable processes. While addressing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions has been the low-hanging fruit for many companies, Scope 3 still needs to be urgently addressed and is now re-emerging as an urgent topic. Fortunately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, European Commission, and other governing bodies understand the importance of a net-zero future and are now mandating companies to disclose the carbon footprints of their entire value chains, from end-to-end. When it comes to transforming into a net-zero enterprise, companies are finding it challenging to navigate which approaches are best for them to comply with established and new regulations – and understandably find it challenging to understand the current market stance. If that wasn’t complicated enough, there’s also the question of determining whether a Product Carbon Footprint is enough for their reporting and compliance needs, or if what they need is to have a holistic measurement of their entire Corporate Carbon Footprint, but that’s another topic for another day…

Most enterprises face similar obstacles when it comes to their net-zero transformation:

Lack of focus, with little to no clarity on emissions hotspots

Scattered data located across several different ERP and production systems

Managing massive amounts of data, especially in Scope 3 (this includes purchasing transactions, BOMs and supplier data)

Dynamic decision-making supported by forecasting and reduction tracking

Understanding the financial link between carbon optimization and ROI

Execution of SBTI Targets and Net-Zero Strategy

Knowing the ins and outs of this breakdown is crucial to understanding which methodology is right for a company’s decarbonization strategy and it’s also how carbmee supports the world's largest companies to reduce their carbon emissions with one LCA-based, end-to-end carbon management solution, that puts companies in control of their net-zero transformation. 

I’d like to dig a bit deeper into differences within LCA and Carbon Accounting:

Understanding the best carbon reduction approach for industrial enterprises

The spend-based methodology utilizes environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) databases to calculate emission factors for different materials from different regions. These factors are based on spend and have the unit kg COv2e/€. 

The activity-based methodology uses an LCA approach, where emission factors rely on LCI databases and are calculated with the method recommended in the GHG protocol to arrive at global warming potentials for different materials and services. For the activity based approach, ecoinvent models are used as they are, without further changing them. They are chosen based on their best fit to the used materials or services.

The supplier-specific approach works the same way as the activity-based one, but here generic data from the database is replaced by or enriched with primary data from the customer or supplier. This allows to not only calculate emissions more accurately, but also to recommend to-dos to achieve emission reductions. 

Spend-Based Vs. Activity-Based Calculations

A manufacturing OEM is doing a spend-based analysis of their Scope 3 Emissions, based on spend data. They have purchased 500 tonnes of Aluminium for their production process on the 2nd of September 2022, from both a Chinese and a European supplier. Each time, they payed a price of 2,300 €/tonne, which amounts to 1,150,000 €.

The resulting footprint is 3,307,895 kg CO2e for the European supplier and 4,431,767 kg CO2e for the Chinese supplier, due to different energy mixes in the regions.



The same company bought the same amount of Aluminium from their European supplier on the 4th of March 2022, and paid a price of 3,516 €/tonne1, which amounts to 1,758,000 €.

The resulting footprint is 5,056,764 kg CO2e.


The drawbacks of the spend-based approach are:

a. that these calculations can't be broken down into material, transport, production steps, energy consumption - so ultimately, it's not designed to identify reduction paths or go deep along the entire value-chain;
b. and the inaccuracy that can come from material price fluctuations & negotiation processes, so spend can change dramatically, even though consumption is steady.

A manufacturing OEM is doing an activity-based calculation of their Scope 3 Emissions, based on purchasing transactions (volume + material) and transport method. 500 t of Aluminium are purchased from Europe and China.  

The European material is transported by truck for 500 km, the material from China by ship (22,000 km) and then by truck (300 km). 

The OEM receives a footprint represented by the following graphic, with transport emissions are depicted in orange, and material in turquoise.

Advantages to spend-based calculations include that they:
1. can be broken down into material, transport, production, energy down to tier-n;
2. can differentiate suppliers in different countries, including transport;
3. can be flexibly designed to deep dive with supplier data once a hotspot is identified;
4. and are very accurate and designed to plan reduction initiatives with it.

The emission factor is derived from the ecoinvent database and includes generic assumptions about the production steps and energy sources that are used for the aluminum production, based on local grid mixes. This does not allow for recommending reduction steps to specific suppliers, because their respective production methods are not taken into account.

By getting primary data from the supplier of the material, it becomes possible to identify hotspots in the production and recommend meaningful reduction measures. For the example of aluminum, it can look like this:


It becomes clear that a significant share of the emissions from aluminum are caused by electricity consumption during fabrication – that is creating the raw material aluminum oxide – and direct emissions during physical processing. This gives the supplier three levers to reduce emissions that were previously unknown, such as: switching to renewables, changing the sourcing of the raw material, or capturing emissions where they occur.

Carbmee offers an automation layer on top of companies ERP and Manufacturing systems to streamline data and mapping them automatically with LCI emission factors to build highly complex activity-based LCA models at scale. 

This automation layer is purpose-built for companies with complex supply chains and high technical complexity with thousands of suppliers and materials as well as millions of transactions.

Example for Supplier-Specific Calculations

Carbmee offers an automation layer on top of companies' ERP and manufacturing systems to streamline data and mapping them with LCI emission factors to build highly complex activity-based LCA models at scale. 

For companies serious about not only measuring their emissions according to the science-based standards, but reducing them too, you should consider using a platform that uses activity-based calculation. Carbmee's EIS™ Carbon Management solution uses a category-defining data model that allows companies to significantly increase the granularity in hotspot identification, which ultimately enables carbon reduction at scale. 

To experience precise and powerful carbon management, book a demo to test out our solution for yourself.

Decarbonization presents complex challenges for industry companies and the market of solutions, both for software and hardware, is still quite young and sometimes not clearly defined. Read to learn more about the different approaches companies can take to measure and reduce their emissions, and what the best carbon reduction approach is for industrial enterprises.

Der beste Ansatz zur Kohlenstoffreduzierung für Industrieunternehmen

Die Dekarbonisierung stellt die Industrieunternehmen vor komplexe Herausforderungen, und der Markt für Lösungen, sowohl für Software als auch für Hardware, ist noch recht jung und manchmal nicht klar definiert.

The Best Carbon Reduction Approach for Industrial Enterprises

For the fourth year in a row, Spend Matter analysts have highlighted five start-ups that excited them the most and proven to be potential future trend setters. While explaining why carbmee was selected for the Future 5 list, Nick Heinzmann, Spend Matters VP of Research, said:

"Carbmee immediately stood out as a Future 5 candidate due to its strong underlying technology, its ability to quickly find traction, its smart positioning in and partnership approach to the market and its compelling vision.

Compared against other carbon management specialists and adjacent players that are building their own capabilities to estimate and reduce carbon emissions, Carbmee already stands out with its deep support for primary emissions data collection and collaborative calculations approach that draws in data owners and experts to confirm data points, including internal engineers, ESG-employees, external suppliers or even customers. The firm embodies both deep procurement and lifecycle assessment (LCA) expertise, and the Carbmee team includes a set of experts who can both help implement the system and assist in knowledge transfer for how to get the best data out of the deployment."

This announcement comes as the carbmee has already gained attention in the market this year with Gartner Inc. highlighting carbmee as a Cool Vendors in Sourcing, Procurement, & Supply Chain for 2022 and Frost & Sullivan recognizing carbmee with the 2022 Europe Enabling Technology Leadership Award in the Carbon Management Industry.  

Spend Matters has noted that selected Future 5 vendors are on track to qualify for the following year’s “50 Procurement Providers to Watch” list. As carbmee continues to develop its platform and ecosystem, we look forward to earning our place on the 2023 list.

Spend Matters has announced the 2022 roster for their “Future 5” list and this year, carbmee is among the five companies that have proven themselves as potential future trend setters.

Spend Matters würdigt carbmee

Spend Matters hat die Liste der Future 5" für das Jahr 2022 bekannt gegeben. In diesem Jahr ist carbmee unter den fünf Unternehmen, die sich als potenzielle Trendsetter der Zukunft erwiesen haben.

Spend Matters recognizes carbmee as a 2022 “Future 5” start-up

As part of the EU’s path to hitting net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM — a.k.a carbon border tax) was adopted from July 14th 2021. Here’s how the CBAM impacts industry, and how you can avoid high costs by reducing your supply chain emissions.

Global trading has finally begun to take action against climate change: and the result is the world’s first carbon border tax. The European Union’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), poised to start in 2023, puts pressure on companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in a way that directly affects their bottom line: with a carbon border tax that will soon impact all levels of scope 3 emissions.

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

While EU businesses are already required to measure, report, and account for the costs of their own production’s carbon footprint, this will now extend to businesses importing from outside the EU. It is a vital step in tackling global trading emissions.

Border tax is another way of saying import tariff. Specifically, it relates to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the production of certain goods imported into the EU.

From January 2023, some impacted importers will have new carbon reporting requirements to which they must comply. From January 2026, carbon import permits will be introduced; their cost linked to the EU’s domestic carbon price (estimated to reach at least €75 by then). If the carbon pricing in the producing country is compatible with the EU’s, the carbon border tax will not apply. As we mentioned before, carbon emissions clock in at a high price. So if you don’t know how much your entire carbon footprint is, it’s time to prepare for the CBAM and do a life cycle assessment (LCA) of your supply chain activities.

If your company works with non-EU suppliers who don’t comply with EU climate standards (including carbon price), the carbon border tax is highly likely to affect your business in the near future. However, it will initially apply to certain products, including:

Ultimately, this means that the automotive, construction, and packaging industries will be heavily taxed. Indian steel imports could see a 32% rise, while Chinese ones could see a 17% rise. It could also impact the EU’s reliance on Russian oil, and get businesses looking for cleaner supply sources, with a smaller carbon footprint.

The CBAM is to be gradually implemented, giving businesses enough time to prepare and readjust their emissions. It starts with taxing direct emissions first, and the EU will later discuss whether to include more goods and/or indirect emissions in the CBAM’s second phase, due to start in 2026.

If CEOs are not proactive now, they could end up paying a high-price down the line. For example, could your business be importing a crucial component from the US? Since the US does not yet have a carbon pricing mechanism in place, you could be caught out. Leaders of any organization importing from outside the EU will need to rethink their sourcing decisions with a more holistic view of cost-effectiveness: a greener, cleaner impact item may actually save money in the near future and ensure a minimum is passed on to the customer.

With the carbon border tax, EU importers will have to match the corresponding EU carbon price (i.e. the price paid if the goods had been made in the EU) by buying certificates. They have to buy the CBAM certificates from the EU country they are trading with.

Every year, importers will have to declare the emissions and the goods for the year before, and present the CBAM certificates corresponding to these emissions. The price already paid within a third country will be, of course, deducted. However, if the emission information is not available, default carbon prices will be applied.

With this in mind, we can expect to see new trade agreements and the renegotiation of existing ones to ensure the carbon prices correspond with the EU’s, significantly reducing the carbon border tax.

In fact, many EU companies have already been paying for carbon emissions. The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), initiated in 2005, places caps on emissions for most companies. If they go over their quota, they need to buy emission permits from other businesses.

Carbon-intensive EU manufactures, such as the steel and chemical industries, can sometimes find themselves at a disadvantage against the low prices from manufacturers without the EU green standard (and price).

Here, a carbon border tax could mean a fairer field for EU manufacturers, and international pressure to raise environmental standards in general.

It’s a well-known fact that carbon emissions hide in most businesses’ supply chains. Since scope 3 emissions are hard and complex to track, most CEOs avoid the carbon impact they have on their businesses.

However, the most important step that affected businesses can take to prepare for the upcoming carbon border tax is to find out where and how much their emissions are.

They must understand how the CBAM impacts them — not only immediately (taxing only direct emissions) but also in the future (indirect emissions).

This includes, of course, scope 3 emissions. And although carbon tracking in your product’s life-cycle can be a complex task to take on, carbmee’s software is here to deliver all the data you need to decarbonize your production.

The biggest takeaway from the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is not to get businesses ready to reduce their profits, but to pressure them into significantly cutting their carbon emissions on a material-level.

Supply-chain decarbonization is a great competitive and financial advantage — and a crucial step toward credible climate change commitments.

Find out where your emissions are hiding 

What is the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism? What will it mean for your industry? Could there be new hidden costs in your supply chain because of it? Check out our quick guide to find out.

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

Was ist der Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)? Was bedeutet er für Ihre Branche in der EU? Könnten dadurch neue versteckte Kosten in Ihrer Lieferkette entstehen?

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM): A Quick Guide

Julia Hartmann ist Professorin für Management und Nachhaltigkeit an der EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht. In ihrer Forschung beschäftigt sie sich mit den Themen nachhaltige Entwicklung, Corporate Social Responsibility, nachhaltiges Supply Chain Management und Operations. Ihre Forschungsarbeiten wurden im Journal of Operations Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of World Business, International Journal of Operations and Production Management und Journal of Cleaner Production zur Veröffentlichung angenommen. Julia Hartmann erhielt einige Auszeichnungen, darunter der EBS Upcoming Scholar of the Year 2011 Award und der Preis der EBS Studenten für ausgezeichnete Lehrleistung in 2012. Julia Hartmann promovierte im Bereich Sozialwissenschaften, insbesondere Supply Chain Management, in 2008 und habilitierte im Bereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften in 2014.

Braucht jeder Vorstand einen Chief Sustainability Officer?

1. Julia, du beschäftigst dich in deiner Forschung besonders mit den Themen nachhaltige Entwicklung und nachhaltigem Supply Chain Management. Was ist Supply Chain Management und warum spielt es eine entscheidende Rolle in puncto Nachhaltigkeit?


Die meisten Unternehmen definieren für sich die Supply Chain intern. Die interne Supply Chain umfasst alles was am Wareneingangslager ankommt sowie alle Waren die in Richtung Kunde versandt werden. Aber eigentlich umfasst die Supply Chain sehr viel mehr, nämlich sämtliche Produktionsstufen die vorgelagert sind und damit alles was bereits passiert, bevor das Warenmaterial überhaupt am Wareneingang ankommt. Bei der Herstellung eines T-Shirts beispielsweise betrifft sie den gesamten Prozess von der Produktion von Elasthan und Baumwolle, über die Färbemittel bis hin zum eigentlichen Weben, Zuschneiden und Zusammennähen.

Für das Thema Nachhaltigkeit ist die Supply Chain von besonderer Bedeutung: Die Unternehmen haben im Zuge der Globalisierung immer mehr Produktionsschritte ausgelagert. Durch diese Auslagerung der Wertschöpfung findet auch ein Großteil der sozialen und ökologischen Wirkung außerhalb des Unternehmens statt. Da in diesen Ländern andere Standards und Gesetze gelten, müssen Unternehmen die von globalen Wertschöpfungsketten profitieren auch ökologische Probleme im Blick haben.

2. Wo liegt die besondere Herausforderung bei der Reduktion von Emissionen in der Lieferkette?


Es handelt sich um zwei große Problemfelder: Das eine ist die Transparenz und das andere ist die Kontrolle. Beides hängt zusammen, denn die Lieferketten sind historisch gewachsen.

Unternehmen, die entschieden haben einen bestimmten Teil der Produktion auszulagern, haben nicht nur selbst das Know-how über die Herstellung verloren, sondern ihre Lieferanten haben selbst auch weitere Lieferanten gefunden. Das Transparenzproblem entsteht genau an dieser Stelle, denn viele Unternehmen haben eine Vertragsbeziehung mit den direkten Lieferanten, aber kennen die nachgelagerten Lieferanten nicht. 

Das zweite Problem der Kontrolle hängt direkt damit zusammen: Geringe Transparenz bedeutet auch geringe Kontrolle im Bereich der Einhaltung von Menschenrechten und der Emissionsreduktion. Beide Probleme sind durch das Lieferkettengesetz ins Bewusstsein der Unternehmen gerückt worden. 

3. Welche Lösungsansätze gibt es für diese Probleme?


Ein entscheidender Teil der Lösung ist tatsächlich die Digitalisierung, weil hierdurch Informationen in Echtzeit dargestellt werden können. Angenommen man würde Lieferanten zu ökologischen und arbeitsrechtlichen Bedingungen befragen und wissen wollen wer ihre Sublieferanten sind, dann wäre das Ergebnis immer eine Momentaufnahme. Lieferketten sind aber nicht statisch, sondern ständig in Bewegung. Es gibt viele Wechsel und Ausfälle von Lieferanten. Die Digitalisierung hilft an dieser Stelle enorm, denn es müssen nicht alle Änderungen abgefragt werden, sondern die Mitglieder in der Lieferkette sind durch eine Technologie, meist Blockchain, miteinander verbunden. Immer wenn sich etwas in der Lieferkette ändert, haben automatisch alle Teilnehmer die Information in Echtzeit.

Das zweite wichtige Thema ist die Schaffung von Anreizen, damit möglichst viele Unternehmen in diese digitale Welt einsteigen. Viele Unternehmen haben beispielsweise Sorge Informationen über sich freizugeben, da sie um ihren Wettbewerbsvorteil fürchten.

Einkaufende Unternehmen können durch das Angebot eines langfristigen Vertrags einen Anreiz schaffen. Außerdem können sie in die Lieferkette investieren und andere Mitglieder unterstützen an einer nachhaltigen Lieferkette zu partizipieren, indem sie helfen soziale oder ökologische Probleme zu beheben. Es geht bei dieser Thematik besonders darum Vertrauen zu schaffen und ökonomische Anreize zu bieten.

4. Viele Unternehmen haben bereits erkannt, dass Nachhaltigkeit auch ein Wettbewerbsvorteil in der Zukunft sein wird. Trotzdem tun sich einige schwer. Ist es wichtig, dass es in Unternehmen eine zentrale Stelle hierfür gibt, den chief sustainability officer (CSO)? 


Klares Jein. Es ist schon so, dass das Thema Nachhaltigkeit zusätzliche Kosten und Arbeit verursacht. Und natürlich brauche ich eine Ressource, die in der Lage ist, hierzu Auskunft zu erteilen. Wenn ein Unternehmen sich anfänglich mit dem Thema Nachhaltigkeit beschäftigt, läuft es oft Gefahr das Problem nur dem CSO zu überlassen. Nachhaltigkeit muss aber überall im Unternehmen eine Rolle spielen, um umgesetzt zu werden. Es kann nicht eine Person dafür verantwortlich sein, die die Zahlen sammelt und dann noch Verbesserungsvorschläge machen soll. Wenn diese Vorschläge dann nicht implementiert werden, weil die Bereichsverantwortlichen keine Verpflichtungen haben, dann kommt es schnell zur Frustration. Ich glaube es ist wichtig, dass ein Unternehmen für sich die insgesamt eine Entscheidung trifft und eine langfristige Chance sieht sich als Player im Markt zu etablieren. Ich persönlich bin zum Beispiel überzeugt davon, dass in 10 Jahren das Thema Nachhaltigkeit ein absoluter Standard sein wird. Und dann muss es Teil der Strategie sein, es müssen Ziele und KPIs definiert werden. Jeder Einzelne muss in seinem Bereich auch eine Verantwortung dafür haben, dass bestimmte ökologische und soziale Ziele erreicht werden. 

Ein CSO sollte diese Ziele bündeln, um beim Reporting auch die Kunden zu informieren, aber wichtig ist das sich Nachhaltigkeit durch das ganze Unternehmen zieht.

Die Vorschriften werden strenger, die Preise für künftige Kohlendioxidemissionen schießen in die Höhe, und die proaktive Nachhaltigkeit von Unternehmen wird zu einem Wettbewerbsvorteil. Ist es da nicht an der Zeit zu überlegen, ob jeder Vorstand einen Chief Sustainability Officer braucht?

Da die Vorschriften strenger werden, die Preise für künftige CO2-Emissionen in die Höhe schießen und proaktive Nachhaltigkeit in Unternehmen zu einem Wettbewerbsvorteil wird, ist es an der Zeit, darüber
nachzudenken, ob jeder Vorstand einen Chief Sustainability Officer braucht?

ÜBERBLICK

MODULE

BRANCHENBEISPIELE

ÜBERBLICK

MODULE

Fertigung

Automobil

Logistik

Wissen & Einblicke

Das Fachwissen zur Förderung nachhaltige Transformation

The Best Carbon Reduction Approach for Industrial Enterprises

Braucht jeder Vorstand einen Chief Sustainability Officer?

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM): A Quick Guide

What Is the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)?

The Best Carbon Reduction Approach for Industrial Enterprises

Spend Matters recognizes carbmee as a 2022 “Future 5” start-up

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM): A Quick Guide

Braucht jeder Vorstand einen Chief Sustainability Officer?