Mind the gap
To what extent are Danish early adopters of science-based targets addressing impacts across their products’ life cycles?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/plate2025-10312Keywords:
Product life cycle, Scope 3, Value Chain, Science-based Targets, Absolute SustainabilityAbstract
Value chain emissions constitute the largest share of most company's greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, making their reduction essential for achieving science-based targets (SBTs) and supporting global climate goals. This study analyses the decarbonization efforts of six Danish early adopters of SBTs, focusing on their strategies to reduce emissions across product life cycles and value chains. Based on publicly disclosed data from company reports and responses to the CDP Climate Change Questionnaires, the findings reveal a primary focus on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, with limited efforts targeting value chain emissions (i.e., Scope 3) during the early years following target setting. The study highlights significant gaps between the reductions required to meet targets and the reported impact of current and planned strategies, with shortfalls ranging from 17% to 75% of current inventory levels. Additionally, the study highlights inconsistencies and gaps in company disclosures making it difficult to assess actual progress. To close these gaps, there is a need for more knowledge on how companies can accelerate value chain decarbonization - such as through circular economy strategies - and improved transparency in reporting. Enhanced corporate action and disclosure are critical to aligning with SBT commitments and ensuring meaningful climate progress.
References
Aldy, J. E., Bolton, P., Kacperczyk, M., & Halem, Z. M. (2023). Behind schedule: The corporate effort to fulfill climate obligations. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 35(2), 26–34. doi: 10.1111/jacf.12560
Bey, N., Hauschild, M. Z., & McAloone, T. C. (2013). Drivers and barriers for implementation of environmental strategies in manufacturing companies. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 62(1), 43–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.001
Bjorn, A., Chandrakumar, C., Boulay, A. M., Doka, G., Fang, K., Gondran, N., Hauschild, M. Z., Kerkhof, A., King, H., Margni, M., McLaren, S., Mueller, C., Owsianiak, M., Peters, G., Roos, S., Sala, S., Sandin, G., Sim, S., Vargas-Gonzalez, M., & Ryberg, M. (2020). Review of life-cycle based methods for absolute environmental sustainability assessment and their applications. In Environmental Research Letters (Vol. 15, Issue 8). IOP Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab89d7
Bjørn, A., Lloyd, S. M., Brander, M., & Matthews, H. D. (2022). Renewable energy certificates threaten the integrity of corporate science-based targets. Nature Climate Change, 12(6), 539–546. doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01379-5
Bjørn, A., Tilsted, J. P., Addas, A., & Lloyd, S. M. (2022). Can Science-Based Targets Make the Private Sector Paris-Aligned? A Review of the Emerging Evidence. Current Climate Change Reports, 8(2), 53–69. doi: 10.1007/s40641-022-00182-w
Blomsma, F., Pieroni, M., Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D. C. A., Hildenbrand, J., Kristinsdottir, A. R., Kristoffersen, E., Shabazi, S., Nielsen, K. D., Jönbrink, A.-K., Wiik, C., & McAloone, T. C. (2019). Developing a circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies to support circular economy-oriented innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118271
Callahan, W., James Fava, S. A., Wickwire, S., Sottong, J., Stanway, J., & Ballentine, M. (2011). Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard GHG Protocol Team.
Carlsberg Group. (2024). Annual Report 2023.
CDP. (2022). CDP Technical Note: Relevance of Scope 3 Categories by Sector CDP Climate Change Questionnaire.
CDP. (2023a). CDP 2023 Climate Change Response Dataset.
CDP. (2023b). Global supply chain report 2022 - Scoping out: Tracking nature across the supply chain .
Day, T., Mooldijk, S., Hans, F., Smit, S., Posada, E., Skribbe, R., Woollands, S., Fearnehough, H., Kuramichi, T., Warnecke, C., Kachi, A., & Höhne, N. (2023). Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2023: Assessing the transparency and integrity of companies’ emission reduction and net-zero targets.
de Bortoli, A., Bjørn, A., Saunier, F., & Margni, M. (2023). Planning sustainable carbon neutrality pathways: accounting challenges experienced by organizations and solutions from industrial ecology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 28(7), 746–770. doi: 10.1007/s11367-023-02147-z
Dietz, S., Fruitiere, C., Garcia-Manas, C., Irwin, W., Rauis, B., & Sullivan, R. (2018). An assessment of climate action by high-carbon global corporations. In Nature Climate Change (Vol. 8, Issue 12, pp. 1072–1075). Nature Publishing Group. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0343-2
Geissdoerfer, M., Santa-Maria, T., Kirchherr, J., & Pelzeter, C. (2023). Drivers and barriers for circular business model innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3814–3832. doi: 10.1002/bse.3339
Giesekam, J., Norman, J., Garvey, A., & Betts-Davies, S. (2021). Science-based targets: On target? Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–20. doi: 10.3390/su13041657
Hans, F., Woollands, S., Day, T., & Höhne, N. (2023). The corporate climate accountability loop: Introducing key functions of an accountability system for corporate climate action, and selected spotlights on how to improve the status quo.
Hauschild, M. Z., Herrmann, C., & Kara, S. (2017). An Integrated Framework for Life Cycle Engineering. Procedia CIRP, 61, 2–9. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.257
Hauschild, M. Z., Kara, S., & Røpke, I. (2020). Absolute sustainability: Challenges to life cycle engineering. CIRP Annals, 69(2), 533–553. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2020.05.004
Hertwich, E. G., & Wood, R. (2018). The growing importance of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Environmental Research Letters, 13(10). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aae19a
Kara, S., Hauschild, M. Z., & Herrmann, C. (2018). Target-driven Life Cycle Engineering: Staying within the Planetary Boundaries. Procedia CIRP, 69, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.142
Klaaßen, L., & Stoll, C. (2021). Harmonizing corporate carbon footprints. Nature Communications, 12(1). doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26349-x
Krabbe, O., Linthorst, G., Blok, K., Crijns-Graus, W., Van Vuuren, D. P., Höhne, N., Faria, P., Aden, N., & Pineda, A. C. (2015). Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions targets with climate goals. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1057–1060. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2770
Marini, M., Pigosso, D. C. A., Pieroni, M., & McAloone, T. C. (2024). To what extent are circular economy strategies accounted in science-based targets for carbon emission reduction? Computers and Industrial Engineering. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2024.110594
Moshrefi, S., Abdoli, S., Kara, S., & Hauschild, M. (2020). Product portfolio analysis towards operationalising science-based targets. Procedia CIRP, 90, 377–382. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.127
Moshrefi, S., Kara, S., & Hauschild, M. (2021). Eco-efficiency limits of product technologies towards achieving science-based targets. Procedia CIRP, 98, 488–493. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.139
Moshrefi, S., Kara, S., & Hauschild, M. (2022). A framework for future-oriented environmental impact assessment of companies considering Science-Based Targets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 373. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133719
Novo Nordisk. (2024). Annual Report 2023.
Rockwool Group. (2024a). ROCKWOOL Annual Report 2023.
Rockwool Group. (2024b). ROCKWOOL Sustainability Report 2023.
SBTi. (2023a). Catalyzing value chain decarbonization: Corporate survey results.
SBTi. (2023b). SBTi corporate net-zero standard.
SBTi. (2024a). SBTi Aligning Corporate Value Chains Scope 3 Discussion Paper.
SBTi. (2024b). Scence Based Targets initiative; Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1.2.
SBTi. (2024c, November 12). https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action.
The Danish Business Authority, UN Global Compact Network Denmark, & Transition ApS. (2023). Reducing scope 3 emissions through circular economy initiatives.
The Lego Group. (2021). GHG Report 2020.
The Lego Group. (2023). GHG Report 2022.
The Lego Group. (2024a). Annual Report 2023.
The Lego Group. (2024b). Sustainability Progress 2023.
Tilsted, J. P., Palm, E., Bjørn, A., & Lund, J. F. (2023). Corporate climate futures in the making: Why we need research on the politics of Science-Based Targets. Energy Research and Social Science, 103. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103229
UN Global Compact Network Denmark. (2023). COMMITMENT TO THE SCIENCE BASED TARGETS INITIATIVE (SBTi) IN DENMARK A PROGRESS REPORT IN THE LEAD-UP TO COP28.
United Nations’ HighLevel Expert Group on the Net Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities. (2023). Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions.
Velux Group. (2024a). Sustainability Report 2023.
Velux Group. (2024b). Annual Report 2023.
Vestas Wind Systems. (2024a). Annual Report 2023.
Vestas Wind Systems. (2024b). Sustainability Report 2023.
WRI, & WBCSD. (2004). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.
Zomer, T., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. A. (2022). To What Extent Is Circular Product Design Supporting Carbon Reduction Strategies? An Analysis of Nordic Manufacturing Firms within the Science-Based Targets Initiative. Proceedings of the Design Society, 2, 1189–1198. doi: 10.1017/pds.2022.121
