First, let me say, that I had been a little skeptical about global warming and other environmental issues. But, over the years, I've gradually seen the evidence build. As a person, I'm concerned. As a CEO, I'm concerned for my company. Treest Power is a multinational manufacturer of engine and transmission components for industrial and consumer equipment. I see the growing awareness of carbon emissions in the public sector swiftly moving into the industrial sector, and there are reasons for Treest Power to act now.
While I have been awakened by the environmental data and evidence, many in my industry still have their heads in the sand. Going green, or whatever you want to call it, is more than just a good thing to do. If Treest Power approaches this strategically and quickly, pulling in our critical supply chain partners as well, we can get a jump on our competitors and capture a growing market of environmentally conscious customer firms. I believe emerging government incentives and stimulus spending will suddenly wake many in my business, so I'd like to get the headstart.
In addition, Treest Power is beginning to get pressure to show our green/sustainable practices, including our management (i.e., reduction) of carbon emissions. Four of our largest customers have asked for documentation on our green practices and the green practices of our supply chain so that they can prove and promote to their customers the greenness of their products. While none of the companies have specifically asked us to make changes, the implication is clear: get on board. This is the push we need as, I believe, eventually industry or government regulations will dictate what we need to do, and I'd rather not be scrambling to meet these mandates — or not meet them and be in real trouble.
How can Treest Power begin taking the necessary steps today to better understand the issues and opportunities that await as we transition from old world to green world? What tools and practices will we need to succeed?
* The Challenge incorporates hypothetical persons, companies, and products and does not portray the actions of any actual persons, companies, or products.

By Frances Way
Treest Power is right to recognize that climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy provide business opportunities as well as risks. Companies are increasingly treating global warming and carbon management as a core business issue, rather than another environmental issue. Vanguard companies have carbon-reduction strategies driven by board members and integrated into business operations; this is no longer merely a "nice to have" as these companies expect a first-mover advantage and a return on their investments. The CDP Supply Chain 2010 report produced by AT Kearney and published Feb. 1, 2010 shows that the real leaders are the companies that have extended their carbon management beyond their own operations and into their supply chains.
It is important that Treest Power approaches carbon management in a rigorous and comprehensive manner to avoid accusations of greenwash. I recommend that you follow these steps:
-
Keeping score: A company can only manage what it measures, so the first
step for Treest Power is keeping score. The process of measuring carbon
emissions for the first time often reveals that company operations are not as
streamlined and efficient as previously thought. This can lead to significant
efficiencies and cost savings. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) provides a
standardized reporting mechanism for companies to disclose their carbon
emissions on an annual basis and track performance over time and against their
peers.
For example, according to EMC, the reporting process "gives a real focus and has led to initiatives focusing, for example, on driving energy efficiencies in remote offices as well as the major campuses, and energy use evaluations distinguishing between the energy intensities of office space vs. labs, data centers, and manufacturing spaces, etc."
-
Setting targets: Once the baseline has been measured, Treest Power needs
to act and start improving its carbon performance. A detailed carbon reduction
target with a baseline and target year should go hand in hand with an emissions
and/or energy reduction plan. Performance against targets should be tracked and
publicly reported on an annual basis.
Companies should have "absolute targets," which set out a goal to reduce carbon emissions over time, and they also can have "intensity targets," which set out goals to reduce emissions over time relative to a business metric such as revenue, sales, or a production unit. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that developed economies must reduce GHG emissions by 80% to 95% by 2050 using a 1990 baseline in order to avoid dangerous climate change [Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, 2007]: it is important that Treest Power sets targets that are aligned with these scientific requirements.
Plans need to be formalized and documented and should include a number of approaches to reduce emissions, such as increased energy efficiency, process improvements, and use of renewable energy. Staff objectives have to be aligned with reduction goals and a board level member should take overall responsibility for meeting targets.
-
Strategic thinking: In order to position Treest Power as a leader not a
laggard in the transition to a low-carbon economy, it is important to
strategically assess the business risks and opportunities from climate change.
CDP collects this information from more than 2,500 companies each year in order
to make it available to requesting shareholders and customers who view it as
material to their selection process.
Multinational companies have to meet regulatory requirements in every country in which they operate. The lack of visibility surrounding the emerging international regulatory framework on long-term emissions reductions has made long-term investments difficult for companies. However, a number of early movers are already successfully taking advantage of climate-change mitigation instruments, such as the Kyoto mechanisms and national subsidies for renewable energy.
As a manufacturer of engine and transmission components, Treest Power operates within a carbon-intensive industry and has to review its long-term business plan and consider how changes in the climate and the move to a low-carbon economy might impact its sourcing of materials, manufacturing processes, the use of its products, and the possible changes in customer demand.
-
Collaboration: The risks and opportunities identified by Treest Power
will not be limited to its own operations. Collaboration with suppliers is key
in order to avoid threats to sourcing activities and to encourage innovation,
process improvements, and reduced emissions. Collaboration with customers
requesting documentation on green practices should strengthen business
relationships and protect Treest Power from possible deselection based on
carbon-management criteria. The CDP Supply Chain Report 2010, produced by AT
Kearney, shows the majority (56%) of CDP Supply Chain members requesting
climate change information from suppliers.
- Reporting publicly: To enjoy the benefits of following these steps, Treest Power should be transparent and report publicly on carbon accounting, plans, and progress. Shareholders, customers, competitors, suppliers, policy makers, and consumers are some of the stakeholders already using CDP's database of corporate climate change data to inform their decision-making.
Frances Way is Head of the CDP Supply
Chain Program at the Carbon Disclosure Project
(www.cdproject.net), an independent
not-for-profit organization that holds the largest database of corporate
climate change information in the world, gathered on behalf of institutional
investors, purchasing organizations, and government bodies. She works with
global corporations to understand the impacts of climate change across the
supply chain, harnessing their collective purchasing power to encourage
suppliers to measure and disclose climate change information.
Frances can be
reached at frances.way@cdproject.net.

By John Nafis
Carbon is challenging business in many ways, and customers, investors, and other stakeholders are paying close attention to how the challenge is met. Treest Power is taking the right approach because those companies that react early and well to the challenge will be seen as innovators and will be rewarded. Conversely, companies that lag the curve run the risk of losing investor confidence, consumer trust, and falling behind in product development. The sooner the process begins, the better prepared Treest Power will be.
According to studies, it is estimated that between 40% and 60% of manufacturers' carbon emissions reside in their supply chains. So a key first step will be in understanding what information needs to be collected and then adopting the right tools to help manage and leverage that data.
Uncertainty surrounding data, policy, and technology could contribute to Treest's unwillingness to invest in rigid enterprise level tools, and rightfully so. Due to the scalability and unpredictability of the challenge, it may not be wise to over-invest in something that could very well be obsolete before its time. Yet the specific needs for this emerging data challenge will not likely be found in the company's existing ERP or other planning system, so new tools will need to be leveraged. Flexible tools will be needed to minimize the risks and allow for changing policies and evolving data sets. Treest should consider tools that will satisfy a few key characteristics:
Data flexibility: Treest will need to accommodate a wide range of data types from disparate data sources (internal and external to the organization) that will need to be easily integrated into one meaningful view. Additionally, this data will be evolving (improving) as different and/or more detailed information is collected.
Supply chain integration: Carbon emissions data that is collected should be integrated with current supply chain data. These new data models will need to treat carbon emissions as an additional cost associated with a part, activity, or a source.
Scalability: Processes and tools should be built around the assumption that carbon initiatives will be completed in stages. Depending on data availability, data quality, and importance, Treest may decide to load data by site, by supplier, or by a specific product.
Simulations: Developing a carbon footprint view of a product is not an insignificant undertaking, and for Treest this may be the ultimate goal. However, Treest will be missing out on cost-saving and revenue-generating opportunities if it doesn't take the next step and leverage the data on hand by incorporating it into "what-if" simulations to understand the carbon impact of daily supply chain decisions. For example:
-
Planners could see the increased emissions costs associated with expediting an
order.
-
Buyers could compare the emissions impact of multiple part sources, potentially
selecting a more expensive locally sourced part in order to lower emissions.
-
Product managers and industrial engineers could optimize their products' carbon
utilization, potentially selecting more expensive components that reduce the
overall footprint.
-
Order policies, supplier selection, part substitution parameters, and
transportation decisions, to name a few, could all be evaluated and optimized,
taking carbon emissions into consideration as a cost factor.
-
Sales and operations planning (S&OP) directors could be given the ability to
analyze changes in carbon emissions as an additional cost factor when
considering the acceptance of a proposed change to a sales forecast.
- Companies falling under cap and trade schemes will take this a step further and consider the revenue opportunities from selling unused carbon allowances.
The bottom line is that Treest Power should focus not only on collecting the data but also leveraging it to its advantage by using carbon emissions as an additional factor in the decision-making process. Integrating carbon emissions data with existing supply chain data will allow for meaningful cost benefit analysis.
John Nafis joined Kinaxis (www.kinaxis.com) as a Solutions Consultant in 2007. Prior to joining Kinaxis, John had 11 years of experience at Cannondale, utilizing RapidResponse to fit a wide range of business challenges. John utilized RapidResponse in roles ranging from product management, purchasing, master scheduling, sales forecasting, and S&OP management. As Director of Global Supply Chain, John encouraged the use of RapidResponse throughout the company and helped lead implementations and upgrades of RapidResponse in Europe and Japan. John earned an M.S. in Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics from the University of Connecticut. He can be reached at jnafis@kinaxis.com
Step on your soapbox! Here's your chance to debate and discuss this month's
Challenge and past Challenges with other readers. Check out the
IW Manufacturing Business Challenge thread
in the IndustryWeek Forums. Add your comments, or read what others have to say.
Click here to view now
![]()
Tell us how your company is improving its green performance. If it meets IW's
publishing criteria, it will be posted in the Archives section of this website.
E-mail your solution to info@iwchallenge.com.
If you wish to be identified with the Solution, please include your name,
title, company and a telephone number where you can be reached. IWMBC selects
Reader Solutions from those submitted and reserves the right to edit
submissions for length and clarity.
![]()
Tell us about a Challenge your company is currently facing. If it passes
editorial muster, the IW Manufacturing Business Challenge experts will offer
solutions in an upcoming e-newsletter. Send your Challenge to
challenges@iwchallenge.com. If you wish to
be identified with the Challenge, please include your name, title, company and
a telephone number where you can be reached.
www.industryweek.com
www.kinaxis.com
www.cdproject.net
To unsubscribe to the IW Manufacturing Business Challenge e-newsletter, send a blank e-mail to unsubscribe@iwchallenge.com.



