SAP’s carbon footprint is up 8% in its second quarter compared to the year-ago quarter. And “emissions per employee (or full time equivalent) increased by 3%”. “There was an 18% increase in air travel.” The firm says that ongoing efforts to reduce emissions, including use of renewable energy, fuel efficiency training for drivers, and investments in energy and carbon efficiency projects, kept emissions from increasing even more.
Business flights and corporate cars account for two-thirds of SAP’s total carbon footprint. Apparently it doesn’t count the emissions from employee cars, as opposed to employees driving company cars. Doesn’t this seem like cheating? Why should it matter who the car belongs to? The driving (for instance commuting) is still required to enable SAP to function. If SAP requires or encourages people to drive to their SAP jobs (for instance by providing big parking lots, or by locating facilities inconveniently for public transport) shouldn’t those emissions be counted as part of SAP’s footprint? [Update: see comment below.]
See details at SAP’s quarterly sustainability report here.
In the second quarter SAP’s revenues increased substantially over the year-ago quarter. That increased revenue was associated with increased activity, especially air travel and driving. Does increased business activity and revenue inevitably cause increased emissions?
The firm says it is “still on track to meet our year-end emissions target of 460 kilotons — in line with our long-term target to reduce GHG emissions to year-2000 levels by 2020.” So even though business activity and emisssions are increasing, the target to reduce emissions is still achievable. There must be some fine print somewhere.