Thread by @TennantReed

Watching #cop26 side event with @CDP @wbcsd and @wef "Transform to Net Zero: Accelerating Non-Party Stakeholder Action to 1.5C"

Host: hard to anticipate how many sectors and players are now committed to net zero, including many thought 'hard to abate', and many Science Based Targets too. But have to be underpinned by near term goals including supply chains.

Host: And address residual emissions - will hear from @Microsoft and negative emissions commitment.

Our rough estimate is maybe 1% of corporate targets include elements around climate justice, and that's an area for action.

Host: implementation isn't as sexy as setting a big target, but target doesn't matter without implementation.
So need:
shorter term targets
Real biz transformation
Investment beyond mitigation in nature based solutions and high quality action

Host: transformtonetzero.org is coordinating actions

What happens at COP matters, but what happens every day of the year at home is what will make the biggest difference. Need focus on 1.5, action, Scope 3 to shift to sustainable and just trajectory.

Antonio Gavo at WEF: How does what we're aiming at for 2050 translate into investment decisions today to get on course? Panel will discuss:
Roberto Marquez, Natura
Mahindra Singh, Dalmia Cement
Michelle Lancaster, Microsoft
Lorena della Giovanna ,Hitachi

AG: what's your biz journey to setting 1.5C target?
Roberto: Sustainability is not new to Natura, it's a collation of businesses founded with strong visions on this front. But re: net zero we set bold goal of 2030 - 20 years ahead of many others - across Scope 1, 2 and 3

RM: can't just set long term goals, need clear frame of actions in year 1, 2, 5.
Start with baseline: packaging, transport, materials. Make metrics and framework for annual action steps.
Unintended consequence is innovation - org becomes more open to solutions, different ways

RM: need to hold people accountable for goals within core business operation, not just off to side. Start with board to get traction.

AG: easier said than done! Top challenges for transformation?
RM: one is packaging. Seeking biodegradable, compostable packaging.

RM: but once we decide that's what we need it inspires innovation and reaching out to supply chain, or even competitors for help. Without major players we won't have critical mass for supply chain investment. Shift of mindset - not who gets there first, but that all get there.

Mahindra Singh: Cement is a "happy to abate sector". Over 8-10 years we came to understand the issues. Philosophy is 'green is profitable *and* sustainable'.
Initiatives on leading energy efficiency; use of renewables. We're one of the lowest carbon footprint global cement biz.

MS: tried to change our own people's mindset, and stakeholders, to long term benefit.
We thought "why not become carbon-negative"?
Cement shift from 'hard to abate' to 'possible to abate'. Many coming together to commit to reductions by 2030 and net zero by 2050.

MS: we identified year-by-year levers.
Transform thermal power to renewable;
Replace fossil fuels by 2035 - MSW, biomass, to fully replace.
Power and heat efficiency
(toughest) Abate CO2 from cement process. Possible to capture; if done properly you can use it in products.

MS: Carbon capture and utilisation is feasible and will be economic in cement.

We have mechanisms in place to get 3rd party measurement and audit of our company-wide emissions against our plans.

Commitment: only low carbon cement by 2025.

MS: Water conservation and harvesting is also an important part of our plans

Michelle Lancaster: Microsoft is a global tech company which gives us big responsibility and opportunity to do good - one of most valuable companies, has big balance sheet, can make solutions scalable and available for others.
2008: set first carbon targets

ML: Got net zero on scope 1, 2 and business aviation. But what more could we do? Use core tech competency to solve problems for others. Led to commitment to be carbon negative across all 3 scopes by 2030 and erase historic emissions by 2050.

ML: We're adopting renewable energy and cutting direct emissions 55%, and only then do we get to outside reductions.
Need near term discipline goals or long term goals are not effective.
Most people don't know what 'net zero' means so developing agreed approach matters.

ML: we need to measure carbon the same way. CO2-e is used as a proxy often, or lifecycle - need to do better.

No way to get to net zero globally without more effective markets to value ecosystem services etc, at strong pace backed by data. Build instruments, develop community.

AG: global carbon pricing would help a lot, but easier said than done.
What are the most challenging areas in Microsoft's experience?
ML: Scope 3 (depending on market /location accounting is 75% of MS emissions). We find data hard and we're a tech co, others struggle more!

ML: quality of data varies widely; "don't trust don't verify" approach to Scope 3 is common and must change.
Markets: we see pathway to CO2 negative targets; but our removal auction got only limited high quality bids. Need to scale up this market.

Lorena della Giovanna: Hitachi is on both sides of the topic. Complex company in many fields - almost all global markets, many manufacturing sites with many products.
H has been developing technology for 100yr+ to solve social challenges.
Climate needs all our capabilities!

LG: 80% of our emissions are use of our products and services post-sale.
Started with 2030 science based target and 2050 goal.
Linked target to executive compensation; management plan reviewed every 2 years.

LG: Wanted global standard but because we're in so many countries there is no one solution.
30,000 suppliers to us globally. Working with them.
Sitting down with customers too.

LG: challenges: to find alignment with so many stakeholders; to find supportive government policies.

AG: Scope 3: partnering with suppliers worldwide is essential to get solutions into countries that are behind, eg in power. Reflections on this?
RM: huge test.
How do we bring citizens along the journey? That a different, unfamiliar product will be better for environment?

RM: invite customers to become part of solutions as citizens.
We partnered with competitors L'Oreal, LVMH, Unilever on scoring systems for sunscreens. Can do same thing in consumer awareness of climate/environmental product performance.

AG: how do we get from putting the choice on individuals to putting the onus on companies or regulators because the standard has been set, given some competitors will not share values?
RM: no one has all the answers. All-stakeholder approach needed.

ML: 3 Es: Engage with those already there - eco-minded consumers are growing.
Educate companies with playbooks for taking first steps
Enforce - some will never go on journey otherwise. We changed our supplier requirements in line with our goals. Need carrots and sticks all over.

ML: enforcement could be preferential purchasing , but also regulatory.
AG: how have you partnered in your value chain?
ML: we listened. Doesn't happen enough in climate space. (Have enjoyed listening at COP.)
Sat down with 200 suppliers and heard from them on what they needed

ML: and where they were at. Out of that we built new supplier guides, low cost loans with low risk to suppliers. Suppliers had a finance access problem.

AG: how is cement bringing along supply chain?
MS: government procurement can play a big role, asking for low carbon cement and concrete.
Supply chain: scope 3 is very little of our sector's total. But ask for disclosure.

MS: Municipal solid waste collection needs work on common approaches and culture change.
Supply chain also important to use of captured carbon, eg fertilisers, textile, petrol companies.
Lots of cooperation needed.
Green finance will help to accelerate transformation.

AG: 50%+ of cement globally is procured by governments, so policy has a big lever.
MS: industrial deep decarbonisation initiatives by India, Sweden are fostering green procurement.

LG: to decarb we can't just look at supply chain, but all stakeholders: customers, academy. Solutions are complex. To mobilise private public investment need the whole ecosystem involved.

LG: If we're developing a sustainable train, need to deal with customers but also steel business; infrastructure; regulators; many more.

Q&A: standards - ISO 1468 on carbon neutrality is in progress. Offsets is being looked at; if offsets play a role in neutrality, need to say "which offsets qualify". What criteria should we take into account?
ML: we used avoidance offsets for years, but switched to removals.

ML: Need longevity, durability (challenging in offset market place- one of our large scale PNW forestry purchases was singed in recent fires). Soil sequestration is even harder than forests for permance. This has led us on engineering path. Data pushes us.

ML: avoidance offsets had data that couldn't tell us what we needed to know. Need more detail, machine learning and AI to make it cheaper to gather/process ground-level data.
Need to include risk of reversals etc.

RM: we can't get to net zero without halting deforestation. Call to action: start using nature-based solutions.

Q: what role for #article6 mechanism play in standards for reductions? How might you use it?

MS: very important for developing countries. Many projects can get supported and once set up with proper verification, helps not just company but wider sectors.

LG: need a bridge between private investment available and government funding available. How do you deploy in the right way to ensure emerging economies can get to net zero society in time? Policies and clear framework. Finance is there, technology is there but not enough yet.

Q: is it possible to reach net zero without carbon offsets?
MS: possible in cement, but CCUS and fossil replacement are needed.
ML: our strategy is primarily reduction-based, but very few can get to absolute zero.

ML: Need to get rid of stigma on offsets and removals and focus on *how* we use, not *if*.
But companies that are relying solely on offsets are not transforming - it won't work.
Need high bar on quality.

AG: scale the solutions we have today, invest for the solutions we need tomorrow.

Q: From COP21 to COP26, huge change. Every company making their own strategy; what about joining together?
RM: we see more companies on path each year. There's no alternative - get on the boat or get left behind.
Challenge: converting to consistent action.

RM: Regulation of the carbon market is so important, baselines and guide to action.
Isolated efforts won't get to scale we need.

ML: many options for cooperation and competition in the right places. Also need to get beyond the Fortune 500. Should compete on who gets furthest.

MS: transferring knowledge is vital. CDP etc help spread best practice.

LG: Every company of all sizes should be part of this effort. Single-business strategy won't help.

Close: Paul Dickinson of CDP: this is the delivery COP and this is the right conversation. CEOs and boards must consider whole value chain. Microsoft's carbon-negative goal is a model. Cement "happy to abate" is great to hear.

PD: The first step is accounting. 13k biz reported CDP last year.
Science based targets can verify 'no blah blah blah'.
Need rapid and deep reductions.
7 companies have come forward with net zero SBTs, 6 before 2050.
Also need Science Based Policy.

PD: we need to turn commitments into action today. Citizens experiencing extraordinary impacts are bringing us to a critical moment where anything is possible. Governments are improving NDCs. Hope to see move from 5 years to 2 or even annual.

PD: "The union makes the force". 2 weeks ago I asked HSBC if they would lend more money to clean business - they will. The money is flowing.