This week, BrewDog announced it will be giving up its carbon negative status and withdrawing from the carbon credit market.
The UK-based brewery released an interim sustainability progress update this week, detailing the reasons why it decided to withdraw its carbon-negative strategy and stop “outsourcing” its carbon responsibilities.
BrewDog has been criticised by national media outlets for renouncing its carbon negative status and withdrawing from the carbon credit market, arguing that the company is failing to live up to its ethical commitments, with industry experts labelling the move indicative of a lack of moral responsibility.
However, BrewDog’s decision highlights a critical and broader issue around the effectiveness and credibility of carbon offset schemes, as well as the importance of honesty and accountability in sustainability strategies.
Why is this important?
Carbon credits are purchased through schemes that allow companies to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, typically by funding activities such as tree planting, preventing deforestation and restoring peatlands.
In its recent sustainability report, BrewDog said it was “proud to become the first carbon negative brewing company” in 2020 through a “relentless focus” on reducing emissions across the business and offsetting the remainder through “high-quality” carbon credits.
However, the brewer believes the market has now become unsustainable in the face of exponential growth as companies increasingly seek to offset their emissions, resulting in a “flood of very cheap schemes” where the carbon benefit is “highly questionable, perhaps even non-existent”.
The report says: “At the same time, the number of high-quality, properly verified systems has declined and costs have soared.”
“In fact, the cost is now so astronomical that the only way BrewDog can maintain its claim to be carbon-neutral is at the expense of our own sustainability initiatives. That would be madness. It would be like giving up fruit and vegetables so you could buy vitamin supplements.”
After November, BrewDog’s carbon negative certification offered by business sustainability consultancy Positive Planet will be revoked and the brewer said it will begin reducing its carbon negative messaging on products and bars in the coming months.
“Some people will be disappointed that we are giving up our carbon negative claim, but the use of funds we would otherwise spend on carbon offsets is better spent on facilitating the decarbonisation of our process.” BrewDog Statement.
The company said it will not invest in low-quality projects and plans to “double down” on its emissions reduction strategy, as well as boost investment in its Lost Forest initiative.
The Lost Forest project in the Scottish Highlands saw BrewDog plant 438,950 trees in partnership with Scottish Woodlands last year.
However, an estimated 50% of these young trees did not survive the first 12 months, a failure rate the company’s then chief executive James Watt attributed to “extreme weather conditions” during the hottest Scottish summer on record, followed by a “harsh” winter.
Union Hospitality, the association representing hospitality workers in the UK, described BrewDog’s latest announcement as a “broken promise from a company that has based its entire brand on ethics”.
This follows a national petition launched by the union in January, urging BrewDog to reverse its decision to withdraw real pay for its bar staff.
FoodBev has contacted Union Hospitality for further comment.
Voluntary carbon offsets: a net-zero negative outcome?
While BrewDog’s decision has faced criticism, questions have been raised in recent years about the value of carbon offsetting schemes.
Climate experts have raised concerns that companies may be using offsetting as a form of “greenwashing,” emphasizing their efforts in areas such as tree planting to distract consumers from the lack of work being done to directly reduce their emissions across all business operations.
A 2022 report from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) says over-reliance on voluntary carbon offset schemes is “undermining” the UK’s economy-wide transition to net-zero emissions.
While the global market for voluntary carbon offsets has seen rapid growth, the CCC has reviewed evidence on the impact of these schemes and found that they often deliver fewer benefits than stated while promoting other environmental objectives.
Chris Stark, chief executive of the CCC, said: “Businesses want to do the right thing and it is encouraging to see so many companies aiming to reach net zero soon. But poor quality offsets are crowding out high integrity ones. Businesses are faced with confusion about the right approach to take.”
The CCC said that while voluntary carbon markets can play a positive and complementary role in contributing to net zero, the government must work to improve the standards of such schemes in the UK, as well as provide a clear and reliable definition of what it means to be a truly “net zero” business and encourage companies to reduce their own emissions as a priority before turning to offsets.
For example, a company might be considered “net zero” when it has reduced its emissions to zero or as close to zero as possible and then permanently removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to offset the remaining emissions.
If a company is reducing its emissions and using carbon credits to offset the rest, it is recommended to use standardized terms such as “zero offset” or “on track to net zero” for clarity.
“It is clear that the government needs to strengthen the rules and guide companies towards an approach that prioritises actual emissions reductions over offsetting,” Stark said. “Companies that choose to support the economy-wide transition to net zero emissions should be given the recognition they deserve.”
Evidence-based approach
Mike Berners-Lee, founder and director of sustainability consultancy Small World Consulting, acted as a scientific adviser to BrewDog and believes offsetting is “not helpful”, echoing the CCC’s conclusions with his view that “there is no substitute for reducing total emissions in line with the best scientific evidence”.
He told FoodBev: “While we recommend that offsetting is not a useful concept, companies donating to good causes can be a good thing, as long as it is not used to whitewash a company’s reputation.”
“Seen from this perspective, we recommend that if companies that are already taking strong action on the nature of their goods and services and reducing the impact of their production wish to donate money to organizations fighting for a sustainable future, then they should look very carefully at the causes that can have the greatest influence on the systemic change we believe is necessary for humanity to thrive in the future.”
He gives the example of donating to organisations that push for higher standards of honesty in politics, media and business, or fight environmental legal cases – actions that Small World is encouraging as an alternative to voluntary offset schemes.
“These are critical projects, often requiring relatively small financial sums, and can have a greater impact on global climate response than some of the carefully evaluated carbon removal projects we helped our clients select a few years ago,” Berners-Lee said.
“We support our customers with evidence-based advice at every stage of their sustainability journey. We are happy that our long-standing relationship with BrewDog will continue as long as they are sincere in their ambition to transition to a truly sustainable business.”
Top image: ©BrewDog
#Beer Dog #UNITED KINGDOM #coal offsetting
