Avoided CO2 emissions: What are they and why do they matter?
As the world searches for ways to reduce CO2 emissions, the concept of ‘avoided CO2 emissions’ is
gaining traction. Companies are highlighting it in sustainability reports, and it appears to be a key
focus of the CO2 Performance Ladder 4.0. But what exactly does it mean? And how does it relate to
the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol? In this article, we explore the concept of avoided CO2
emissions, its place in current regulations, and how businesses and consumers can embrace it for a
more sustainable future.
What are avoided CO2 emissions?
Avoided CO2 emissions refer to reductions achieved through changes that indirectly contribute to lower emissions.
Examples include:
● Selling low-carbon products (e.g., electric vehicles or energy-efficient appliances)
● Services that facilitate emission reductions (e.g., consulting on renewable energy projects)
● Investing in technologies that reduce emissions outside a company’s direct operations
These activities prevent emissions without falling directly under a company’s control. In the context of the GHG Protocol, this is sometimes informally referred to as ‘scope 4’ although it isn’t an official category. The challenge lies in allocating reductions appropriately, as emissions can risk being double-counted or overlooked altogether. Collaboration across the value chain is essential for achieving meaningful results.
Links to other CO2 regulatory frameworks
The concept of avoided CO2 emissions is less explicitly addressed in the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Instead, the CSRD emphasizes CO2 storage and reduction projects, such as those funded by carbon credits (e.g., E1-7 GHG removals and mitigation projects). This broader approach focuses on direct CO2 reductions but leaves less room for addressing indirect avoided emissions.
However, in the CO2 Performance Ladder 4.0, avoided CO2 emissions are becoming a significant focus. The goal is to drive impactful reductions, although the exact guidelines are still under development. This framework aims to help companies effectively lower their CO2 emissions while advancing collective progress.
The debate around an additional Scope
Some argue for introducing a separate scope (scope 4) within the GHG Protocol to quantify avoided CO2 emissions. These emissions are often harder to measure, more abstract, and less directly attributable than scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Practical examples illustrate these challenges. For instance, in the case of separate waste collection, who should claim the positive effects? The producer delivering sorted waste, the processor reusing it, or the entity integrating it back into the supply chain? Similarly, if a truck has a speed limiter installed, is it the manufacturer enabling it or the transporter making the decision to limit speed? Such questions highlight the complexities of measuring and attributing impact across multiple steps.
Under GHG Protocol scope 3, many avoided emissions already fall under downstream effects within the value chain. For example, selling energy-efficient products directly benefits the scope 1 or 2 emissions of the buyer. Similarly, purchasing sustainable materials upstream can encourage their production and reduce reliance on less sustainable alternatives. Consumer choices, such as buying durable, high-quality clothing, also significantly influence supply chains.
Practical examples
Practical examples can clarify the concept of avoided CO2 emissions. One case involves a packaging producer collaborating with clients to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 30% by Avoiding metallized paper. To achieve this, it was crucial to arrive at new designs based on sustainable choices in collaboration with the customer. Another example is a partnership between a plastics manufacturer and a waste processor using recycled materials to reduce the impact of virgin plastics. This is crucial, because the price of virgin material is often too low to achieve a circular solution. This of course certainly applies in the starting phase. Approaching sustainability with a focus on end products or services allows the entire value chain to benefit. Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are valuable tools for examining the overall impact of specific products or product groups. However, they should be interpreted cautiously to avoid rigid decision-making based on snapshot analyses.
Challenges: adapting this approach to current systems
While the ideas behind avoided CO2 emissions are logical, practical implementation often faces economic and systemic barriers. For example, our consumption-driven economy often prioritizes maximizing output over sustainable choices. The shift from basic bicycles to electric ones, with higher production emissions and shorter lifespans, illustrates this tension. In addition, if it gets a motorist to cycle again, it will of course favourable. If you then see many young people on electric bicycles who would normally have gone from A to B on a regular bicycle, then that is probably something you would rather not have seen happen, but within the given context you try to make the best choices as a company. Opportunities for significant CO2 reductions lie in extending product lifespans. Achieving this requires smart regulations and rethinking how we assign financial value to products and services. Although this is complex and time-consuming, collaboration with partners throughout the value chain can drive real progress.
Conclusion: smart actions for big impact
The concept of avoided CO2 emissions presents significant opportunities for companies and consumers to reduce their impact. The focus should be on exploring sustainable alternatives and collaborating across the value chain rather than rigidly adhering to specific models. By making smart, collaborative choices, substantial CO2 savings can be achieved. The goal isn’t just about filling in the right boxes or creating precise calculations—it’s about adopting broader strategies for CO2 reduction that benefits everyone. The motto “doing more with less” serves as a guiding principle principle for a more sustainable future. This requires a more creative and innovative approach to CO2 reduction. Everyone would like to be involved in that, right?