COP26 Finishes - Or Should We Say "Phases Down"?

Thousands of exhausted policymakers, lobbyists, scientists and journalists, as well as Glasgow’s bar staff, taxi drivers and sex workers, all greeted the end of Cop26 with some relief, I suspect.

It ended with some progress in areas such as methane emissions and deforestation, but with at least equal amounts of disappointment, including the way a historic deal on coal production was watered down at the last minute. As The Times put it,

The president of Cop26 was reduced to tears on Saturday as he tried to explain the last-minute changes made to the deal, dubbed the Glasgow climate pact. India and China had pushed for the replacement of a pledge to “phase out” coal with one to “phase down” its use.

That tiny change in wording is significant, as it reduces the urgency with which countries are supposed to reduce coal use, which is probably the strongest driver of climate change.  “Phase-down” is pretty meaningless, and like many of the “agreements” from Cop26, it lacks firm targets, independent measures, structured delivery plans… all those factors we would look to see in a decent programme plan for any major initiative in our own organisation. 

We know that even a procurement systems implementation is unlikely to work without such  planning; it seems unlikely the world will implement de-carbonisation successfully on the back of a few vague statements of intent.

Journalist and campaigner George Monbiot described the climate summit as a  ”total fiasco”. He says we need a decision to leave all fossil fuels in the ground by 2030, but that was not even discussed – so we get “this pathetic limp rag of a document” as he graphically put it.

But eminent economist and policy expert Andrew Lilico comes at it from an interesting angle. On Twitter, he says, “Now that the latest "last chance to save the world from climate change" has failed, can we finally start admitting that the climate is going to change, like it or not, & focus our energies on working out the best strategy to adapt to that change? “

China, India and other fossil fuel producing countries are not going to agree to lose out by stopping coal or oil production, he says.  In fact, he says the Chinese accept the climate is going to change.  But “their strategy is to be as rich as possible when the change comes, cos a rich country will be more resilient & adaptable. Not a dumb strategy at all. What's ours?”

My view is that we over-estimate the power of governments. They can only move as fast as their citizens allow them to. Even in a non-democratic country like China, the rulers must consider the views of the public if they want to continue ruling. So India, Australia and China look at the UK, which chopped down most of its forests centuries ago, and dug up all its coal and oil in the last century, contributing to cumulative global warming. Those countries judge that the UK is hardly in a position to play the moral card, and their own people would rather have greater economic prosperity now and handle the risks of extreme climate change later.

Until that view from the electorate switches, I fear we will not see the massive changes wanted by some, which has implications for organisations and procurement professionals. Obviously as the author of “Procurement with Purpose”. I believe that we should be doing what we can to support reduction in emissions and so on, but we should also be pragmatic and accept that there is every chance we are going to get climate change that will bring new and bigger supply chain challenges.

So we need a dual strategy; working to support change in our supply chains to reduce emissions, but also taking those risk mitigation steps that will prove vital as we see more extreme weather events, more low-lying areas flooding or even disappearing, and so on.

To finish on a more positive note, there are many steps we could take as individuals and governments that will improve matters for the planet and its people. For instance, we could stop dredging the ocean floors, killing everything in the process, in order to make scallops cheaper on our gastropub menus.  (Did you know that the British fishing boat detained in France recently was a scallop-dredger? Sink it, I say!) 

We can take a more active approach to human rights in our supply chains – we could have pushed  back more about the World Cup going to Qatar, where thousands of migrant workers have died because of a disregard for health and safety approaches.

There are plenty of positive changes we can make that are much more achievable than stopping the Aussies or the Chinese digging up cheap coal. And at least the nations are talking, with China and the USA showing a more collaborative approach with their surprise Cop26 announcement than we have seen for years between the two global superpowers. That has to be good news for a number of reasons, not just climate.

I know it is hard not to fall into despair sometimes about the posturing and selfishness on display at Cop26, Biden’s motorcade and Johnson’s flight back to London for a party; but there are a few reasons to be cheerful too!

Responsibly Looks to Support Procurement with Purpose Analysis and Reporting

Not surprisingly, more and more tech firms are emerging looking to help organisations with sustainability, ESG, procurement with purpose and all the variants of that agenda. (We mentioned how Spend Maters is increasing its coverage of the sector recently here).

Another start-up caught my eye recently following an article on the TechCrunch website.  Responsibly is a Danish start-up that has raised $2M “to benchmark supply chains on climate, diversity”, according to the headline. “The start-up will now soft-launch the first version of its platform, which will look at the supplier data of more than 10,000 suppliers for pilot customers”.

On reading further, and looking at the firms website, I’m not sure “benchmarking” is really what Responsibly is aiming to do. To me, benchmarking suggests taking an active role in comparing firms – in this case against ESG type indicators. Rather, it appears that Responsibly is a platform that enables users to bring together purpose-related data from potentially a range of different sources and analyse / use that data more easily.

So it looks like an aggregator and a user-interface product rather than one that is gathering any original source data itself. I may be wrong of course and perhaps you can still talk about using that approach to benchmark - but it will be important for prospective clients to understand what Responsibly can and can’t do.

That’s not to be critical of the product or the firm. Users are now faced with a host of different options in terms of providers who offer data via audits, questionnaires, analysis of publicly available information and so on. Pulling together that information and making it usable is certainly a challenge.

However, I believe that the biggest issue facing procurement and sustainability professionals in the purpose field over the next few years will be around assuring the veracity of the data and information which is being provided. How do we really know that a supplier in Malaysia or Uganda is telling the truth about the wages they pay their staff? Or that the vegetable oil we buy really does come from sustainable plantations? Or that our consulting services provider genuinely is running their business in a net zero manner (given that they are relying on hundreds of other firms, their suppliers, giving them accurate information in order to calculate Scope 3 emissions).

Then there will be the challenge of making sure suppliers actually do what they promise during the tendering / supplier selection phase of the procurement process.  “Yes, of course we will employ 20 apprenticeships and introduce a zero waste programme for your construction project…”  How are you going to check that? Are firms making the same promises to multiple customers – so employing 20 apprentices across a huge business, and claiming that achievement for each individual contract? At the extreme, how do we know suppliers are not simply lying to us about their commitments in terms of emissions, human rights in their workforce or deforestation and pollution in their own supply chains?

No doubt technology will be able to help with these challenges. We need all the help we can get. But it is also going to need smart strategies, processes, and people to really make procurement with  purpose initiatives meaningful and successful in terms of outcomes. A nice “front end” will not be enough in itself, valuable though that may be in the greater scheme of things.  

Being Ethical is Tough

The ethical issues we all face sometimes seem impossibly complex.  As we get more into the purposeful business agenda, with procurement at the forefront of many of the key decisions, matters get more and more difficult. In summary, being ethical - for individuals, corporations, governments and even chaitieis - is tough.

For instance, are there some firms in some sectors that we should consider corporate pariahs?  Extinction Rebellion (ER) would no doubt put large swathes of industry into that category, including any firm involved in mining, petrochemicals, oil and gas…  even if their founder still drives a diesel car. And I should say that no-one is perfect, so I don’t believe that fact disqualifies here from taking the stance she does. (I do feel that closing down chunks of London does ER no favours at all though).

Personally, I have a growing problem with gambling firms. The way the industry seems to have taken over sport is worrying, and reports which highlight that the poorest communities are most targeted emphasise the social damage gambling can do.  Recent research showed that the UK’s most deprived areas have more than 10 times the number of betting shops compared to the most affluent parts of the country.  

I find the constant barrage of adverts suggesting I gamble along to televised football matches  sickening.  Do those firms now cause more harm to society than cigarette manufacturers?  But then, what about alcohol – think of not only the health issues but the violence and mental health issues  generated indirectly by over-indulgence. Then there is chocolate.  My first job post university was with Mars. Maybe we were not as damaging as fags or betting, but some would argue confectionery is not necessarily a positive contributor to a better world. (I would disagree of course!)

My personal feeling is that I would not work for a cigarette company or a gambling outfit. But I probably would work for Sky – yet they are facilitating gambling with their constant adverts, so my position there is probably illogical. And what about property firms that let out their shops to Paddy Power and others?  I would work for a firm in oil, gas or mining, as long as I was sure they were “doing the right thing” in terms of future net zero plans, human rights and so on. I’d also have issues with the ethics around certain clients of law, banking or consulting firm, although I guess once you are in it is hard to pick and choose who you work with or represent!  

Similar issues even apply to organisations such as CIPS (the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply) and other professional bodies. This has started to worry me recently - should CIPS work not just with firms that might not seem to be very “purposeful”, but also with governments that are repressive, totalitarian, imprison homosexuals or even practice stoning and crucifixion?  I’m not sure CIPS should, but where do you draw the line?  

I’m not offering easy answers here, but as many individuals and organisations look to follow a more purposeful life, there are going to be difficult debates ahead. And the decisions we make when we choose and work with our suppliers will also at times expose the same dilemmas.