Data

A particular issue facing stakeholders is that there is no standard or consistent method for measuring carbon emissions or the progress of companies towards their net-zero targets.  For example, achieving net zero as a result of offsetting carbon, as opposed to net zero without carbon offset, are two different concepts but are not always distinguished in the media or company reporting.  This raises the issue of working out how to effectively collect data which is credible, comparable and quantifiable.  

As matters stand, much is left to individual businesses to collate their own data and there is no consistent methodology or even a standard list of areas to report against.  However, developers are now creating their own checklists and industry-recognised software is emerging which can help to rationalise the position.  In the real estate sector, the NABERS UK scheme for rating the operational energy efficiency of UK offices was launched in 2020.

The international nature of construction supply chains brings specific challenges in relation to reporting and disclosure.  While companies themselves may have, and be hitting, ambitious ESG targets, there can be less transparency further down the supply chain. Different regulatory frameworks, clients and market practices across the globe make for even further inconsistency in the approach to ESG measurements. 

These points led to a broader discussion on Scope 3 emissions and the difficulties in identifying, let alone tracking, a company’s indirect emissions occurring throughout its value chain.  It appears that much of the responsibility is being left in the hands of companies to calculate their emissions on an individual basis, meaning there is no standard baseline for projects as a whole.  Consultancies such as the Carbon Trust are developing increasingly sophisticated tools to support corporations in measuring and reporting on carbon emissions throughout their value chain. 
What was apparent was that, when developing industry methodologies, there is a balance to be struck between ensuring that data inputs and outputs are sufficiently accurate and avoiding labour intensive processes aimed at forensically capturing all the minutiae. In other words, there needs to be an acceptance that there will be some degree of approximation whilst also making sure any grey areas are not exploited and greenwashing is curbed.

In relation to the “S” of ESG, there is also the challenge that much of the data is inherently subjective and therefore leaving “accurate” reporting exposed to criticism.