Month: August 2023

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) Checklist

Follow this checklist to learn what action items your organisation will have to take to be in compliance with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and download this version to take our checklist with you. 

= potential Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) overlap

Map out your organisation
Define your organisational boundaries and consolidation approach. 

 Establish your reporting timeline
Consider the CSRD thresholds (250 employees and/or €40M Turnover and/or €20M total assets) and establish your first reporting year.

Map out your value chain
Explore interdependencies across your value chain, including upstream (suppliers, investors, commodities) and downstream (customers, products, investments), and establish clear reporting boundaries.

 Identify overlaps across your compliance and voluntary frameworks
Review complementary and overlapping requirements across frameworks such as the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

 Build your CSRD task force
Assign responsibility for delivering on CSRD and allocate supporting resources including budget, time, and recruitment needs, and engage a third party to perform assurance.

 Partner with external experts
Support your CSRD task force with dedicated experts that can guide you through key elements of CSRD disclosure and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) strategy.

Educate and level-set
Understand the application of CSRD with educational sessions for internal stakeholders and peer benchmarking.

 Review ESG topics and perform a gap analysis
Identify and collate relevant ESG work done to date and compare with key European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) topics.


Conduct a double materiality assessment
Consult relevant stakeholder groups, explore interdependencies within the business model and supply chain, define criteria and thresholds to determine material impacts, risks and opportunities.

Establish material topics and areas of focus
Review your existing ESG provisions and define additional work that’s needed to meet requirements across material CSRD topics. Existing materials may include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions goals and reduction strategy, ESG materiality assessment, and supplier or customer engagement.

Perform risk and opportunity assessments
Explore material risks and opportunities in more depth, including scenario analysis and quantification of potential effects.

Develop mitigation and adaptation strategies
When reviewing material risks, put a plan in place for long-term strategic action.

Develop opportunity plans
Explore how to maximise benefit from material opportunities, including changes to the business model and company strategy. 

Set meaningful targets
Establish goals for taking action in material areas.

Data collection and management
Collect initial data streams, exploring availability and quality of necessary information. Develop data collection pathways and data management processes for all relevant performance measures. 

Engage with your supply chain
Educate your suppliers and empower them to provide key data and information.

Develop policies and action plans
Work internally and with your supply chain to establish internal policies and reduction action plans

Obtain executive sign off
Communicate goals, strategy, policies and action plans internally and secure buy-in from the business. 

Build your CSRD disclosure
Collect and collate information to meet the needs of the standards.


Obtain third party assurance
Engage an external assurance partner to review and assess your processes and disclosures. 


Publish your disclosure
Embed your disclosure within your management reporting in both a human- and machine-readable format. 

Convey key messages both internally and externally.

Implement policies and action plans
Act upon commitments made, implementing short-, medium-, and long-term actions. 


Improve and evolve data
Evolve processes over time to improve data coverage and quality.

Monitor progress
Continue to review performance measures to assess the outcomes of your actions and progress towards your goals. 

Repeat and reassess
Update your CSRD disclosure annually, with regular reassessment to ensure ongoing relevance. 


Peace RECs: Seeing the Impact of Renewable Energy (webinar)

Peace RECs (P-RECs) are a renewable energy product that have a profound impact on communities in energy-poor, climate fragile countries around the world. They are international renewable energy certificates (I-RECs) with a supplementary impact label certifying unique socio-economic co-benefits. They offer a solution for renewable energy buyers that want to maximize the grid decarbonization and positive human impact for every megawatt-hour of renewable energy they procure globally.

The label was developed by nonprofit Energy Peace Partners (EPP) who issues P-RECs from qualifying projects in countries that are characterized by a high risk of conflict, vulnerability to climate change, and low levels of electrification. In its latest technical guidance, RE100 now recognizes P-RECs as an “additional, voluntary label” for renewable electricity purchasing because P-RECs provide critical additional revenue that allows developers to partially finance new renewable energy mini-grids and/or fund projects with shared community benefits like public street lighting and hospital solar electrification.

Register to learn more about this impactful renewable energy solution by listening to a panel that has first-hand experience with the solution discuss the impact and importance of P-RECS. The event is hosted by Noah Bucon, Senior Product Development Manager at 3Degrees with guests Doug Miller, Director of Market Development at EPP, Linda Wamune, Program Director at EPP, Phoebe Romero, Equity Manager, Beyond the Megawatt at Clean Energy Buyers Association (CEBA), and Neil Jorgensen, Global ESG Lead at Block.



SBTi Supplier Engagement Guide: It takes a village

An increasing number of companies are setting science-based targets using criteria set out in the Science-Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) Net-Zero Corporate Standard. One criterion is that companies must set near-term targets on their path to net zero – and if scope 3 emissions make up 40% or more of a company’s total footprint, a near-term scope 3 target must be included. 

Companies that set near-term targets for their scope 3 emissions have a choice of two methods:  

  • Emissions reduction
  • Supplier (or customer) engagement target

As of today, less than 20% of companies with near-term targets have used the supplier engagement method. SBTi recently published detailed guidance about how to set a supplier engagement scope 3 target (“The Guide”), which is the first of its kind! This makes it more accessible – and perhaps more appealing – than ever to set a goal of this kind.

Supplier engagement targets may be particularly valuable for a company that: 

  • Has yet to identify levers for more specific reduction opportunities amongst its value chain partners, and/or 
  • Does not spend enough on individual suppliers to support collaborative reduction efforts

Most companies that have set a supplier engagement target to date have done so because they recognize that they cannot achieve their climate goals alone. 


Supplier engagement targets in a nutshell

The supplier engagement method calls for the reporting company to reduce their scope 3 emissions by influencing companies within their value chain to set a science-based target. The previous guidance for setting a supplier engagement target was fairly limited:

  • Supplier engagement can only be used for a near-term target
  • It must be achieved within 5 years 
  • Supplier targets must be in line with SBTi criteria

Now that more detailed guidance has been released, companies have a wealth of additional best practices, recommendations, and examples to consider when designing and implementing their supplier engagement strategy. 

The Guide does not mandate new provisions—it’s less about what one “must” do and more about what one “should consider” doing. It proposes that setting a supplier engagement target is a 5-step process.


Step 1: Select the right suppliers

Identify scope 3 categories to include in the target

After completing a scope 3 inventory and identifying hot spots, companies should:

  • Prioritize scope 3 categories for inclusion in the target
  • Choose supplier activities with which the company has credible engagement 

The target should state what percentage of emissions from relevant categories (or, in the absence of emissions data, percent of annual spend) is covered by the engagement target. 

Example: A biotech company commits that 73% of its suppliers spend covering upstream purchased goods and services and capital goods will have science-based targets by 2027.Example: A biotech company commits that 73% of its suppliers spend covering upstream purchased goods and services and capital goods will have science-based targets by 2027.

Identify individual suppliers to include in the target

Once the relevant scope 3 categories have been identified, companies should then work on supplier selection by:

  • Ranking suppliers according to their share of total emissions (or annual spend)
  • Selecting suppliers that cumulatively achieve desired scope 3 emissions coverage
  • Considering additional factors that may be relevant to supplier selection, e.g. the amount of leverage the company has, supplier’s greenhouse gas (GHG) program maturity, likelihood of the supplier setting an SBT, and whether the amount of business with the supplier is expected to grow

Once suppliers have been selected, they must set targets aligned with the current SBTi criteria. Validation by SBTi is recommended but not required. However, without validation, the onus is on the company to ensure they can count supplier SBTs towards their target, which would be practically challenging for most companies.

Companies are increasingly turning to software solutions to enable them to collect data from suppliers and track progress against targets. Selecting a GHG measurement and management tool can be a challenge as there are now over 150, so working with an adviser can help you find the best fit tool.Companies are increasingly turning to software solutions to enable them to collect data from suppliers and track progress against targets. Selecting a GHG measurement and management tool can be a challenge as there are now over 150, so working with an adviser can help you find the best fit tool.


Step 2: Secure internal buy-in

The Guide makes it clear that proceeding with a supplier engagement target should be a cross-functional decision. It provides an overview of the various stakeholders, their roles in the supplier engagement target process, their priorities, and tips on how to frame the initiative.

As advisers to many companies setting credible climate goals, we have found that internal education is a critical early step in the target-setting process, especially given the number of stakeholders that need to be part of the overall process. As advisers to many companies setting credible climate goals, we have found that internal education is a critical early step in the target-setting process, especially given the number of stakeholders that need to be part of the overall process. 

Be prepared to get to know your organization – this will take a village! 


Step 3: Implement target

In order to successfully implement your target, it is critical to define team roles/responsibilities and expectations of suppliers, establish supplier communications, and select data collection and measurement tools. The Guide also suggests:

  • When reaching out to suppliers about setting an SBT, the message should come from a senior leader to demonstrate the company’s commitment and help to manage expectations, i.e. whether an SBT a “requirement”, “expectation”, or is merely “encouraged”
  • Choosing a data collection solution that minimizes the number of requests placed on suppliers and advocates with a standard questionnaire (while SBTi does acknowledge that standardization may come at the cost of perfectly meeting the company’s needs)
  • Putting appropriate controls in place to address suppliers’ concerns over confidentiality

If, as the Guide suggests, the program manager of the supplier engagement target is a member of the Sourcing or Procurement team, this individual will need to gain a strong understanding of the SBTi validation process and criteria. If, as the Guide suggests, the program manager of the supplier engagement target is a member of the Sourcing or Procurement team, this individual will need to gain a strong understanding of the SBTi validation process and criteria. 


Step 4: Enable and track supplier performance

In order to educate suppliers on measurement and reporting as well as track their performance, the Guide outlines some best practices:

  • Make training accessible and actionable 
  • Consider collaborating with peers to deliver joint training 
  • Encourage suppliers to conduct scope 3 screens immediately (addressing scope 3 emissions will ultimately be required to achieve long-term targets)

Companies must also consider the types of incentives or support they are willing to provide to suppliers to motivate and reward them. 

Options set out in the Guide include the entire carrot-to-stick spectrum, although from our experience, most companies prefer to motivate suppliers with positive reinforcement actions such as public recognition and provisioning various business benefits tied to climate-related performance.Options set out in the Guide include the entire carrot-to-stick spectrum, although from our experience, most companies prefer to motivate suppliers with positive reinforcement actions such as public recognition and provisioning various business benefits tied to climate-related performance.


Step 5: Monitor and report progress

Finally, companies need to decide how to monitor suppliers’ progress as they themselves need to periodically report to SBTi on the overall progress made. The Guide offers the following suggestions:

  • A central tracking tool that includes a full list of suppliers that are in scope, any relevant categorization or identification information, and their current SBT status
  • An annually refreshed scope 3 inventory and related supplier data over the target timeframe, to account for the fact that the supplier list is likely to fluctuate
  • Creating best practices for managing annual changes to the supplier list, e.g. inviting new suppliers to set SBTs each year if they enter the target threshold

If the supplier is provided with financial incentives or subjected to legal obligations as part of the process, financial and contractual arrangements will need to be regularly reviewed as part of this process as well.If the supplier is provided with financial incentives or subjected to legal obligations as part of the process, financial and contractual arrangements will need to be regularly reviewed as part of this process as well.


What this means for companies that set supplier engagement targets

The amount of effort and internal resources required to implement this target successfully should not be underestimated, but there are a number of examples where large companies have come together to collaborate with their peers and customers in order to share the burden. A successful supplier engagement program can result in multiple benefits across the supply chain, including product innovation, cost management, resource efficiency and higher resilience in the face of supply chain disruptions.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the guidance or require support with any aspects of the target-setting process.  

Financial structures to support carbon project development (Infographic)

Organizations are now able to play a more causal role in carbon project development which provide a highly customized way to strengthen additionality and deepen their organization’s impact. Download the full infographic here. 

Benefits of carbon project investment: 

  • Making a larger impact, while making progress towards business goals 
  • Setting your organization apart from the competition
  • Paving the way for positive environmental and social impact 
  • Helps tackle hard-to-abate scope 3 emissions (can pinpoint a particular industry or sector)
  • Supply access to volume needed by your organization

3Degrees partners with Merge to craft a fleet electrification roadmap for MA-based solar company (video)

Solect Energy is one of the top 10 commercial photovoltaic (PV) solar installers in the United States. Built with a mission to turn energy into business opportunities for their customers, the company works tirelessly to find smart, clean energy solutions with a bankable return. Solect deploys a modest commercial fleet of just under 50 light-to-medium duty PV installation and operations vehicles. Given the nature of its business and the size of its fleet, Solect Energy was an ideal candidate for 3Degrees to pilot a fleet advisory engagement with EV analytics partner, Merge Electric Fleet Solutions (Merge).


Interested to learn how your organization can take the first step in fleet electrification? Schedule a call with our team of decarbonization experts here

Our team will work to assess your transportation emissions and customize a best-fit solution to achieve even the most ambitious GHG reduction goals.

Merging social impact with RE procurement (Infographic)

As purchases of renewable energy by corporates have surged in recent history, the project criteria that buyers are focused on has changed. An increasing number of buyers are interested in projects with accompanying community co-benefits. 

Download our new infographic to better understand how your organization can embed climate justice initiatives into its corporate renewable energy goals and purchasing strategies. 


RNG vs. Biomethane: How the US & EU markets differ

What’s called Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) in the US, is referred to as Biomethane in the EU. That’s not the only difference between the two regions when it comes to this resource.

Learn about the other ways in which these regions differ with our infographic.

Please get in touch if you have any questions about RNG or Biomethane.

What the new ICVCM guidance means for corporate carbon credit buyers

As more companies commit to taking ambitious climate action, industry guidance has increasingly coalesced around one central principle: emission reductions, both within companies’ operations and their value chains, must be at the heart of any robust climate strategy. At the same time, high-quality carbon credits represent an increasingly popular tool that companies can use to mitigate climate change beyond the reach of their own value chains and help address their emissions that can’t yet be abated.

The heightened visibility of the voluntary carbon market has led to criticism that it is difficult for organizations and observers to quickly or clearly identify high quality carbon credits. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), an industry working group seeking to establish a global threshold for credit quality, aims to address this major area of uncertainty. In July 2023, ICVCM released its complete carbon credit quality guidance, which outlines a set of quality principles and an assessment framework to determine which carbon credits can achieve the newly introduced Core Carbon Principle-Approved (or CCP-Approved) label.

What’s in the July 2023 ICVCM framework?

The July 2023 ICVCM framework outlines a two-pronged process for ICVCM to assess carbon credits and apply their stamp of approval (the “CCP-Approved” label). Under one prong, standards bodies (also known as registries or carbon-crediting programs) must apply to ICVCM to ensure their governance practices, basic infrastructure for accurately measuring emissions impact, and safeguards to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals meet ICVCM’s criteria. If this application is approved, ICVCM will grant the standards body “CCP-Eligible” recognition. Under the second prong, standards bodies can submit specific carbon project methodologies for ICVCM assessment and approval at the “category-level.” Once approval is secured under both the program and category assessment prongs, the standards body can label carbon credits issued under its approved project categories as “CCP-Approved.” 

The “CCP-Approved” label will ideally assist carbon credit purchasers in navigating the market by transparently indicating which types of credits sufficiently and consistently meet ICVCM’s elevated quality standard. 

The new category-level assessment framework lays out new requirements for six of the ten Core Carbon Principles, including those related to emissions impact and sustainable development (see Figure 1).

Major takeaways from the category-level assessment framework

Even with ICVCM’s recent completion of its full assessment framework, it is still unclear how many and which credit types will be able to pass ICVCM’s quality bar. While some new requirements already seem likely to make certain methodologies ineligible for CCP-approval, other parts of the guidance leave significant room for interpretation. For example, project types that do not use ICVCM’s recommended approaches to prove additionality can submit an explanation for how their own approach satisfies ICVCM’s broader additionality criteria. As such, category approval decisions are difficult to predict, and will fall largely to the discretion of the ICVCM Category-level working groups. 

Key takeaways on how certain project types are likely to be received by ICVCM working groups are summarized below.

  1. Project types eligible for use under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) will meet many (but not all) of the ICVCM requirements, as ICVCM references the CORSIA principles extensively as the foundation of its guidance. Conversely, project types ineligible under CORSIA may struggle to gain ICVCM approval. This alignment indicates a positive trend towards standardization of credit quality thresholds for the voluntary carbon market. 
  2. ICVCM’s guidance explicitly identifies project types that have faced additionality challenges in the past, implying that ICVCM may not easily approve them. These project types include renewable energy, fuel switching, energy efficiency, and HFC23 reduction projects. However, ICVCM also states that registries’ additionality-based eligibility restrictions on their methodologies will be taken into consideration as part of ICVCM’s category-level review, implying that (for example) application of a renewable energy project methodology might gain approval only in Least Developed Countries.  
  3. ICVCM also identifies and applies unique requirements to nature-based project types that face substantial non-permanence (that is, reversal-related) risks. Some project types in this category include avoided conversion of forestland and grasslands, restoration of forestland and wetlands, and some agricultural project types (e.g., agroforestry and agricultural soil carbon sequestration). These projects must continue monitoring, reporting, and (if necessary) compensating for reversals for at least 40 years, meaning that nature-based project methodologies with monitoring periods shorter than 40 years should not be expected to gain ICVCM approval.  
  4. In addition, ICVCM specifies some newer project types that must assess and manage their reversal risks to gain approval, including biochar, carbon capture with storage, enhanced weathering, and CO2 storage in concrete. While most of these project types do not yet have formal methodologies under major registries, and therefore may not be eligible for ICVCM approval in the near-term, this ICVCM requirement could shape the development of these methodologies to account for long-term reversal risks.  
  5. ICVCM outlines a final set of project types that are ineligible to receive CCP-Approval because they “lock in” greenhouse gas emissions or carbon-intensive technologies, making them incompatible with global net zero goals. These include projects storing carbon via enhanced oil recovery, projects involving any unabated fossil fuel-based electricity generation (with exceptions for certain natural gas projects that are part of national low-carbon energy transition plans), and projects focused on road transport using solely fossil fuel-powered engines. 
  6. Finally, ICVCM states it will await Verra’s forthcoming release of an updated REDD+ methodology (a consolidated version of five separate methodologies for reducing emissions from unplanned deforestation in developing countries) to assess this project category. This implies that credits from reduced deforestation projects that have not transitioned to Verra’s forthcoming consolidated methodologies (for planned and unplanned deforestation) are unlikely to gain CCP-Approval. Whether the new Verra reduced deforestation methodologies gain CCP-Approval will likely depend on whether ICVCM considers them to show sufficient improvement on the areas that led to their predecessors’ failure to gain approval under CORSIA. An example of one such area is insufficient assurance of additionality. 

What does the complete ICVCM guidance mean for organizations looking to procure carbon credits? 

The impact of the ICVCM guidance on the market will depend on how widely it is adopted and who its early adopters are

For the ICVCM framework to become an industry standard, major registries must first bolster the initiative by applying for approval, thus contributing to an adequate supply of CCP-Approved credits on the market. If reputable NGOs and thought leaders shaping other prominent pieces of guidance for corporate climate action (e.g., WWF, WRI, University of Oxford, etc.) also endorse this framework, this will help clearly signal to buyers that they should prioritize procurement of CCP-Approved credits.

Thus far, ICVCM’s complete framework has generally been received positively by carbon credit rating agencies and some major registries, such as Verra and Gold Standard. In addition, the ICVCM was recently endorsed by prominent supply-side guidance on credible carbon credit claims from the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI). Per VCMI’s guidance, organizations wishing to make credible, approved claims using carbon credits must procure credits that have been approved under ICVCM’s framework.

However, whether ICVCM’s guidance will ultimately be widely adopted by registries and buyers remains difficult to predict, as the stringency with which ICVCM’s requirements will be applied to credit categories remains unknown. 

If ICVCM’s guidance is widely adopted, organizations can expect to conduct less category-level due diligence, but must continue to perform project-level assessments

If the ICVCM framework becomes a global standard, organizations can feel more confident that a given credit within a CCP-Approved category will represent one additional, durable ton of reduced or removed carbon dioxide-equivalent. This standardization may allow prospective carbon credit offtakers to conduct less due diligence at the project category level, allowing greater focus on a specific developer’s experience and approach to implementation. 

While CCP-Approval may indicate integrity of a given methodology, significant quality variations will remain at the project level. This means that some CCP-Approved credits may still bear quality risks, while some credits not tagged as CCP-Approved may still deliver high-quality mitigation outcomes. Therefore,supplementary project-level due diligence will still be important to identify and address aspects of project implementation that cannot be covered by category-level criteria, such as a developer’s history of on-time and in-full delivery, reputational risk associated with a partner’s past actions or location of the project, or weak points of the methodology that may have passed ICVCM muster but should still be given extra attention during implementation.

It is too soon to say how the ICVCM framework may impact credit pricing, but forecasts generally expect the prices of high quality credits to increase  

In recent years, prominent forecasts of voluntary carbon market dynamics have consistently projected prices of higher-quality credits to increase more significantly than other credits on the market. If the ICVCM guidance is widely adopted, it will split the market into groups of credits that are of CCP-Approved and non-CCP-Approved. This may inspire more confidence and demand among corporate buyers who were previously concerned with the reputational risk of inadvertently procuring low-quality credits. Therefore, while it remains difficult to predict ICVCM’s direct impact on market dynamics, buyers should look out for increasing prices for certain high-quality project types, especially if widespread ICVCM adoption results in an even more distinct bifurcation in pricing between high- and low-quality credits.

Many emerging carbon removal technologies will not be able to secure ICVCM approval in the near-term, but organizations can still support them with investment-based claims

Many nascent carbon removal project activities (e.g., direct air capture with carbon storage; enhanced weathering) do not yet have approved methodologies under major registries. Therefore, these project types are not likely to achieve ICVCM approval in the near-term. However, scaling these emerging technologies will be vital to meeting long term climate targets, and the lack of a “CCP-Approved” tag for these projects does not necessarily correspond with a low level of quality. Companies can best support these emerging project types while minimizing reputational risk by focusing their claims on the support (e.g., finance) they have contributed to greater emission reductions and removals, as opposed to matching reduction or removal credits with their own unabated emissions and claiming these emissions have been “neutralized” or “offset.” Contributing in this manner to early-stage project types has the added benefit of scaling technologies that could help an organization decarbonize its own operations in the future, but that are not feasible to apply at scale today. 

What’s next for the ICVCM framework?

With the two-pronged assessment framework complete, ICVCM will begin assessing applications from carbon credit standards bodies as well as project methodologies against its quality criteria. ICVCM has announced that it will fast-track certain methodologies that are very likely to be approved, while also prioritizing credit categories with the largest market shares.

With the release of its completed guidance, ICVCM also highlighted the need for continuous improvement, announcing areas for further consideration and plans to release an updated framework by the end of 2025. Key focus areas ICVCM has flagged for improvement include: greater permanence requirements; the role of digital monitoring, reporting, and verification; simplified approaches for small projects; and greater cooperation with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPs & LCs).

Figure 2

The full slate of ICVCM guidance is an important step forward in creating a global quality threshold for the voluntary carbon market. While it remains to be seen how quickly and widely this new standard will be adopted, ICVCM aims to set a critical baseline for quality while committing to improving standards over time as best practices evolve. Despite lingering uncertainty on how flexibly ICVCM will apply its guidance, companies should feel confident in entering the carbon market today as quality standards continue to strengthen. It is vital that companies leverage every tool at their disposal now to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, including actions to mitigate emissions beyond their value chain and scale technologies that will help reach in-house decarbonization targets. 

If you have any questions about how the ICVCM guidance or other carbon market evolutions may impact your climate strategy, please reach out.

Read part one of our ICVCM guidance series, “Balancing quality with quantity in the voluntary carbon market“.


Tory Hoffmeister is a Manager on 3Degrees’ Energy and Climate Practice consulting team




Emma Friedl is a Consultant on 3Degrees’ Energy and Climate Practice consulting team


Climate Disclosures and Supply Chain Emissions: Staying Ahead of the SEC Climate Rule

This discussion delves into the upcoming regulations proposed by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These regulations will require publicly-traded organizations to provide detailed disclosure of their climate-related information, including risks that may significantly affect their business and financial condition, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. These changes aim to establish standardized metrics and enhance transparency regarding climate-related risks for investors and stakeholders. Of particular concern are the potential new requirements for supply chain disclosures given the complex, far-reaching, and largely uncontrollable nature of these emissions sources. 

While some companies may prefer a “wait-and-see” approach towards the SEC’s guidance, adopting this stance could result in missed opportunities for early progress and the numerous value-creating benefits associated with gaining a comprehensive understanding of their climate-related risks and opportunities.

In this session, sustainability and disclosure experts from Persefoni and 3Degrees explore the crucial considerations that companies need to address in preparation for this new mandate with a particular focus on supply chain considerations. The webinar covers the following key topics:

  • A comprehensive overview of the proposed SEC climate rule 
  • A broader examination of other emerging global regulations and standards, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) 
  • Scope 3 data collection and measurement challenges and approaches
  • Practical steps and strategies for engaging with suppliers and implementing decarbonization initiatives in the supply chain
  • Tools, strategies, and best practices to ensure data integrity and ready your organization for pending reporting regulation