Commitment is required to cut through widespread carbon reporting confusion: William Beer

The collaboration between my company Tunley Environmental and Optima Products exemplifies the rigorous commitment required to maintain and verify the accuracy of sustainability claims, ensuring that they translate into real-world impacts.

This partnership recently demonstrated its value when an aluminium extrusions supplier approached Optima with an embodied carbon value that seemed too good to be true.

Optima, with its reputation for high environmental standards, mandates that all aluminium extrusions purchased must have an embodied carbon footprint of less than two kg of CO2 per kilogram.

A potential supplier submitted documentation stating their aluminium extrusions had an embodied carbon of 0.36 kg CO2 per kilogram. On paper, this figure is exemplary, potentially positioning the supplier as a leader in low carbon aluminium production.

Recognising the significance of these claims, Optima turned to Tunley to verify the accuracy of the data presented.

Tunley’s investigation unearthed a significant misunderstanding on the part of the supplier concerning the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the concept of embodied carbon.

The supplier had documented their ‘direct’ emissions contribution with regard to aluminium modification at 0.36 kg CO 2 e/kg.

Although this figure is representative of the additional carbon in the aluminium, the supplier identified and presented these to be the total embodied carbon.

This, however, fails to account for the ‘indirect’ emissions from upstream suppliers.

Tunley Environmental discovered that the indirect emissions amounted to approximately 11.8 kg CO 2 e/kg of aluminium. Consequently, the reported embodied carbon are 12.2 kg CO 2 e/kg, markedly exceeding Optima’s acceptable threshold.

This discrepancy highlights a significant issue in environmental reporting: confusion between different types of carbon metrics is both frequent and widespread in the industry.

CBAM, primarily concerned with levelling the playing field between domestic products and imports by taxing carbon emissions at the border, focuses on direct emissions contributed by a supplier.

In contrast, embodied carbon includes all carbon emissions associated with the production and supply of a material, offering a more comprehensive view of its environmental impact.

The role of Tunley was instrumental in uncovering the truth behind the numbers.

By analysing the supplier’s data and the associated calculations, Tunley not only prevented a potential breach of Optima’s sustainability policy but also underscored the importance of thorough data verification.

Without such diligence, companies risk basing their environmental strategies on inaccurate data, which can lead to serious financial and reputational damage.

This incident serves as a critical lesson for all stakeholders in the environmental sphere. The complexity and variability of carbon reporting necessitates expert understanding and rigorous scrutiny.

This isn’t just about compliance or public image - it’s about paving the way for a genuinely sustainable industrial future.

Dr William Beer is CEO of Tunley Environmental