E151/2 Podcast Special - Target 1.5C: Law & Sustainability

Quick word from our sponsor, 51tocarbonzero.com. If you're a CFO or board member staring down CSRD or Scope 3 and thinking, where do we even start? We at Sustainability Solved would point you to 51tocarbonzero.com. They turn complex, fragmented emissions data into something simple and give boards clear, audit-ready visibility on exactly where the reduction opportunities are. It's not another reporting tool that adds work. It's built so the data holds up when your auditor asks the hard questions. If that's a conversation worth having, get in touch with 51tocarbonzero.com, or just drop me a message and I'll point you in the right direction. Right, back to the episode.

This is Target 1.5, a miniseries of podcasts designed to help you designed to help you play your part in limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. If we don't start to avert the climate crisis now, all kinds of things will be at risk: our food, our water, our leisure, and most of all, our safety. But there's still time to fix this, and as we lead up to COP26, we're finding out how businesses in key industries have become more sustainable by changing the way they do business. and we'll be sharing exclusive advice and guidance to help you do the same. I'm your host, Will Richardson. With me is Senior Environmental Management Consultant Alex Cronin, and in this episode, the focus is on law and the legal sector. There are over 10,000 law firms in the UK, so what systems and practices can they use to become more environmentally sustainable? Someone who's a fair way down that track is Alex Rhodes, the Head of Purpose and a partner at Mishcon de Reya. Why, in his view, should law firms take a lead?

Law firms are incredibly powerful organisations in the context of climate change. They are businesses that use the law, and the law, of course, governs how we behave and how we act, the rules that we follow. And so I think law firms have a very important part to play in, particularly in relation to climate change. The most effective steps I think that firms need to take are first of all to commit, to understand what their relationship with climate change, with the environment is, and where they want to draw that line between their business and their responsibilities and the level of accountability they want to have with the challenge. And following from that, I think there's a reasonably clear set of steps. The first is to footprint or to understand one's impacts. And that requires measuring things that firms indeed, like most of their clients, haven't measured before or certainly haven't measured in an impact-led way before. The second is to set targets and then to take actions. For us as a firm, we undertook a detailed carbon footprinting process supported by Green Element. We use their software, Compare Your Footprint, to manage our carbon reduction process. So to monitor on an ongoing basis our emissions from our activities. We're learning while we're going. And we're creating the metrics to allow us to do that ever more accurately. But for us, the four key areas, or four of the key areas, I suppose, are arising from our office space and thinking about our energy and particularly the electricity that comes in, and then how we use our energy and using it most efficiently related to paper and paper use. And for lawyers, of course, that's not just Small amounts of paper, and that's not just paper sitting in the office, it's also the conveyance of paper from one place to another, to courts and back. Travel and international travel and commuting are important components. And then finally, our supply chain. And so looking at our supply chain, looking at how we can work with our suppliers and our other stakeholders to drive change. And for law firms, there's a good community there. I mean, there's a good community of law firms anyway in amongst themselves, but specifically around climate change, there are initiatives that are appearing. The Net Zero Lawyers Alliance, for example, was launched during Climate Action Week for London. And our firm working with some other firms has recently just launched a thing called the Greener Litigation Pledge in which firms commit to think about the way in which they run litigation to reduce emissions. And that's coming out of COVID actually, thinking about the procedures around litigation, remote hearing, the use of remote hearings and remote witness attendance at trials. And interlocutory hearings and the use of paper and digital bundles and paper bundles. I think the final thing that firms can do, and this goes back to the beginning of what I was saying, is to think about how they work with their clients to help their clients reduce their emissions in their businesses as well.

Alex has made some excellent points there and has highlighted why the legal sector shouldn't just implement sustainable practices, but also take on a leadership role within this space. Let's explore this point in more detail. Alex Cronin, how important or powerful are law firms in terms of tackling climate change?

Well, frankly, very powerful. So as a professional services firm, The impact is relatively low from their direct operations, such as their buildings or own transport, compared to some other industries. But similar to finance, banking, consulting, marketing, through the influence of their work, it really eclipses their direct impact. I want to mention a few examples of groups that are really taking the sector forward, who I really respect. So Client Earth are the first one, who's an environmental law charity who whose explicit purpose is to use their legal expertise to uphold and shape laws. Some examples of what they've done recently include filing a shareholder lawsuit against a Polish utility company, which resulted in the suspension of a planned coal plant, or representing 8 Indigenous Australians from the Torres Strait Islands at the UN in making a complaint against the Australian government. It was here that they alleged that failure to act on climate change is violating their fundamental human rights.

ClientEarth are absolutely phenomenal with the work that they're doing, aren't they? I mean, they are such a powerful organization turning our own laws against our governments in preparation for reducing that impact.

Yeah, it's really amazing that they're holding pretty much all levels of government from local to federal to account in terms of their climate action, but also representing underrepresented groups on the biggest stage in the world.

Yeah, I believe that the Polish utility company, they literally bought $10 worth of shares. That was it.

It's amazing what they can do through that.

So who else is in this space?

So the second one I want to mention is the Chance Relay Project. So they're a collective of lawyers working pro bono who produce clauses that align contracts with net zero goals. So really making sure that the focus is on this and the supply chain from the beginning. The next one that I wanted to mention was the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance, and they are a coalition aiming to improve the legal sector's capacity to assist with reaching net zero by 2050. This involves improving internal operations, but also training lawyers to support clients in the transition to a zero-carbon society.

Those are 3 really powerful organizations, aren't they?

Yeah, it just goes to show that the real sphere of influence goes just beyond the internal impacts of a law firm, but there's also ways that people can get involved in their practice.

Is there anything more you wanted to add?

Yeah, so next I wanted to address what Alex Rhodes mentioned about, uh, what legal firms can actually do themselves to address global heating in their operations. This usually follows 3 steps, the first one being starting with the measuring of your carbon footprint. So this is important as it provides a picture of where the impact of your operations and supply chain currently exists. His second piece of advice was to set targets. So setting verified science-based targets, mentioned in episode 1 of this series, demonstrates the highest level of credibility. Targets can also be set based on individual aspirations, but this will not be aligned with the latest climate science. Alex's third and final step was about taking action. So this could be prioritised based on impacts that can be achieved, focusing on the areas of highest emissions from your organisation's footprint, but also the ability to implement the action.

As far as law firms go, Mishcon de Reya have taken more action than most. Let's hear what they've done.

So Mishcon has for a long time taken action on reducing its environmental impact. I mean, for many years we have been Zero to landfill with our waste. We have made sure that our electricity supply comes from renewable sources and taken other actions through the firm all the way through to 2 years ago, providing every member of staff with a water bottle to support us getting rid of drinking cups through the offices. But more recently, what we have done is we have moved to a really focused impacts-led approach, which is looking at measurement. And in relation to the environmental impact of the firm, we have used the B Corp process to understand our environmental impacts and the metrics that we need to measure to identify and act on those. And in relation to climate change and our emissions, we started off by footprinting our carbon emissions across what are known as Scopes 1, 2, and 3, our direct emissions, the emissions that come from our electricity supply or our energy supply, and our indirect emissions. And then we have set targets. So the first part is measuring so you actually understand what your emissions are, what your other impacts are. The second is setting targets so that you can act and drive change towards achieving those. And then in that process, very importantly, we have begun to build in processes of monitoring and reporting against those targets to enable us to achieve our commitment to having a positive environmental impact. The reason we're taking such strong action on our environmental impact, in fact, on our social impact as well, is because it's an imperative. In the context of climate change, we all know that we have to strive to reduce global warming to 1.5 degrees. And there is a very clear pathway for business to follow to do that. And in our view, good business means doing good through business. This, for us, comes down to our purpose as a business, or the why we exist. Last year, we changed our charter, our partnership agreement, to include in the objects of the firm the important object to have a positive impact on the environment and on society through our business. And acting on climate change is a fundamental part of that. I think the most surprising discovery on this journey has been the degree to which people right across the firm have got on board with what we're trying to do from an environmental and social impact point of view. And a recognition that this is not CSR, corporate social responsibility, something other than our core business, nor is it in competition with the profit motive in our business or in how we best serve our clients' interests, but actually that this is a fundamental part of our business and of the success of our business. And that the more we get it right, the stronger our business will be.

It's really encouraging to hear Mishcon are taking these effective and scientifically endorsed steps to tackle climate change. It's particularly good to hear about their successes, which has been achieved through top leadership buy-in at Mishcon de Reya. Alex talks about purpose being a critical part of their business. How have they seen this demonstrated in the legal sector, Alex?

So Alex mentioned that purpose isn't in competition with the profit motive in their business, which realistically will assist in the wider uptake of sustainability as a whole. So in terms of serving clients' interests as well, there's been a huge growth in firms offering ESG and sustainability as a practice area, and this is because the demand from clients to advise the firms in this area have grown. We're also seeing a big demand for this grow because clients are wanting to work and align with really good companies. And B Corp is one essential way that an organization can demonstrate this, because it really focuses on all aspects of sustainability beyond the environment, including human rights, procurement, their supply chain, as well as the work they do with their people internally.

So is it all working for Mishkondareya?

Maybe you should ask me that question in another 6 months and then every 3 months going forward from now on, because that's what we're trying to ask ourselves as we're going through this journey. The steps that one needs to take are fundamentally changes to the way one runs one's business. And I think the major change that we have made is one of looking at the the impacts of our actions and then trying to then assess our progress and the success of the actions that we're taking against those targets. And I'll give you an example. Before we really started on the measurement proper several years ago, there was an inherent unhappiness within the firm with the fact that we still had plastic cups in some areas of our offices, plastic disposable cups. And such was the level of unhappiness that we felt that we had to address it, but we hadn't yet really managed to build enough of a factual base to assess the steps that we should have taken. And so we discussed, for example, well, should we stop with the plastic cups and instead get ceramic cups? And those ceramic cups can then be washed through a dishwasher and then put back on the mantelpiece. And then we started asking the question, well, okay, but how much energy was expended and what was the environmental impact of making the ceramic cup in the first place? And how much of an environmental impact is there in running the washing machine every night to wash all these cups that are being used when they wouldn't otherwise have been used? I.e., is the obvious ill of having disposable plastic cups greater or smaller than the apparently better course of having ceramic cups in the office? And you can only answer those questions by really diving into the weeds. As you go. Now, for us, what we actually ended up doing was we ended up providing all of our staff with reusable water bottles and effectively got rid of the cup/mug office issue altogether. But the fundamental piece is, if you are going to be serious about getting on top of your environmental impacts, You have to understand the implications of the steps that you take.

That's a really good point, actually. You have to understand the implications of the steps you take, particularly when it comes to the environment.

Absolutely. It's not easy to make decisions regarding sustainable choices, and there are so many potential conflicts due to secondary impacts that may not be considered. So using your carbon footprint and emissions provides a way that organisations can make decisions based on figures and numbers, Similar to what they would do using accounting. So does one action have a lower impact related to another, which can easily be quantified and compared? The single-use cups versus ceramic debate is a really relatable example of this and sets it out perfectly simply. If both are used one time, then the single-use cup has a much lower impact. But over a longer period of time, the benefits of the ceramic mug far outweigh the individual impact. While this may add to the requirements that an organization needs to consider and murky the waters slightly, it's really important to note that emissions are not the only metric of an action's impact. So considering other things such as the reuse and recyclability of items and actions is important, as well as considering human rights issues within their supply chain. So working with really good companies who are doing good things both with their products and with their people.

This leads us nicely into a really important area of the legal sector: honest communication. Over the last year, greenwashing is a theme that's gained more and more traction, for all the wrong reasons. We spoke to a comms consultant, John Brown, back in June, and he said that greenwashing is a genuine threat to sustainability because businesses are marketing greenwashed claims that other businesses are copying. The knock-on effect is that the real, effective actions are drowned out by greenwashed claims and make the real action look greenwashed. The result is everyone's confused and then annoyed when they invest in the wrong thing, which creates apathy and disconnect from sustainability.

Greenwashing, of course, is the, the process of conveying a false impression. Or providing misleading information to consumers about how a company is providing its services or products. And it's a term that's been around for a long time, of course. And I think, or I understand anyway, that it was actually coined in 1986 by an American environmentalist who went to stay at a hotel and there was a badge that said, if you don't want us to wash your towels tonight, please put them on the bed to lessen our impact on the environment at the same time as they were building out the resort across the local reef. So the understanding of greenwashing has been around for a long time, of course. I think the focus on it has become far greater recently. And it is a serious risk to businesses. It's, if you like, a double sin. It's not only not acting on the environmental impacts of a business, but it is then seeking to say that you are doing so when you know that you are not. So it goes right to the integrity of the business and is telegraphic to reputation, which is why it's so dangerous. for businesses to dabble in that, whether that is deliberate or whether that is unwitting. So greenwashing is a major risk. Also, it is endemic. And the European Commission recently undertook a piece of work which it published earlier this year in which it found that 42% of all green claims in European companies' marketing materials were either exaggerated, false, or deceptive. So there is a large problem here in the greenwashing space. In terms of how the law is addressing greenwashing, there are several different regimes that are engaged. And these include in the UK, for example, the Advertising Standards Authority. The existing codes provide that the basis of environmental claims must be clear, That absolute claims must be supported with a high degree of substantiation, that claims must relate to the full lifecycle of products and so on. But those codes are currently under review by the ASA and they have an ongoing climate change and the environment project, which is looking at reviewing the codes and the way that the ASA will look at claims made by businesses. The Competition and Markets Authority similarly is looking at this issue. In the European context, the European Commission is looking at this as part of its 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan, which forms part of the suite of regulations that it is rolling out around sustainability at the moment. And I think The last I was going to mention was OECD, and you asked for a concrete example of a case. And a good case here is ClientEarth's complaint about BP's Possibilities Everywhere advertising campaign in 2019. ClientEarth, of course, being a charity that seeks to use the law to drive change to address environmental harms, but particularly climate change. And ClientEarth complained that this advert by BP gave the impression that BP was a renewable energy or predominantly a renewable energy company at the time when it still devotes over 90% of its spending to oil and gas projects. So the law is developing and the law is being used actively to hold companies to account.

Alex was talking there about how the legal space is reacting to greenwashing. How can we as individuals and organisations look out for misleading claims and avoid being a part of the problem?

Yeah, well, it's really interesting because there is such an increase of focus on this space. So what should we look out for? The main thing is claims that can't be substantiated or that would be misleading to people who are seeing it for the first time. Alex mentioned a recent example that the ASA has focused on in terms of cracking down, and they've also announced that in future they're going to be looking to research more into net zero and carbon neutral claims, or things that are similar to 100% recyclability when that actually isn't the case. So in terms of reporting, if you need to go that far, this can be done through the ASA website using the normal complaints process. In terms of consequences for the environment and for organizations themselves, by making unsubstantiated or incorrect claims, essentially it's reversing any positive action that the client may have taken because their reputation will be indefinitely damaged. So yeah, it really highlights that the fact that all of your organization needs to be tied up in terms of your messaging as well as your action on climate change. Because if one area of your organization is really focusing on making improvements to your products or your services, for example, but then you're also making unsubstantiated claims in public, then that can really, really turn back the clock on the actions that you've taken.

And of course, it's really important to ensure that it's not just your organization that's taking real steps to address the climate emergency, but also your supply chain. I mean, think about it. If your supply chain isn't sustainable, then how can you be? This is an area of focus for Mishkondareya.

Look, there are always more things, and we recognize that we're on a journey, and I think we recognize that we're learning. The best approach we believe is to understand as best you can what your impacts are. And we are still improving on that. One of the big challenges is actually understanding what your environmental impacts are. And those are not just your direct environmental impacts in a business. They're also the impacts that come from your supply chain. So for example, half of the emissions, the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of our firm come from our bought goods and services, i.e., from our supply chain. And the majority of those emissions are related to the IT hardware that we use. Now we have a very conscientious procurement department and IT department that has for a long time had built into its procurement processes environmental awareness and environmental thinking. But fundamentally, we can't run our business without computers. And so the reduction on the emissions related to the computers that we use can only be driven by us to a certain degree. It also has to be driven by the businesses that make the computers. And if you look at the actions that are being taken by Microsoft and others to address their climate impact, you can see that this cascade or this working all the way through the supply chain is so important. for each firm to be able to meet its own objectives. So it's a collective effort.

Alex raises some really important points there about the environmental impact of supply chains and IT hardware. What are the most crucial issues a law firm should address in the supply chain?

So it's, it's really interesting because all organisations within the different industries have a different footprint in terms of their supply chain and where the impacts come from. So when you're looking at their entire value chain, so Scopes 1, 2, and 3, if we're focusing in on the legal sector, from our experience, about 70 to 90% of emissions are within that Scope 3 category. So the majority of that have also come from purchased goods and services, with a large chunk of that being things like IT hardware, furniture, as well as any other services that are used. So in order to address this, the real best strategy is by purchasing less and purchasing things with a lower impact.

The carbon footprint of an IT department is something that frequently surprises most office-based organizations. Why is this part of the carbon footprint so big?

It's a tough one because essentially you need that physical hardware in order to work. I would say all of us have at least one piece of hardware, like a laptop, computer, monitor, screen that we use. So essentially, we're still going to be buying this in the future. So what we need to be doing is making sure that, going back to what I said previously, we're purchasing less and purchasing with lower impact. So this can be done by extending the lifespan of current equipment, which is the best option. But it can also be combined with reusing items where possible. So looking really internally about your procurement and reuse policies. But then secondly, there's an opportunity now to investigate refurbished equipment, which is a really good option and doesn't have a huge difference compared to new items.

Okay, okay. And given that there are over 10,000 legal firms in the UK, Presumably all with IT departments. Is there anything you'd recommend to legal firms to reduce their carbon footprints?

Yeah, definitely. So I think Bate Wells, who's a client that we've worked with in the past, is a really good example of them looking into both their direct emissions but also their supply chain. So one of the examples of things they've done is by implementing a supplier code of conduct, which is about engaging with their suppliers to request information on what they are doing to take action in terms of the climate and environment. In terms of the other areas within their supply chain and within their Scope 3, another major one that we've seen for law firms is business travel, especially flights. So we are really hopeful at Green Element that the pandemic has demonstrated that face-to-face meetings are not always required and things can be done virtually to the same effect. But where this fails, other options include switching flights for train journeys or reviewing where events such as partner conferences take place to be in the most accessible location for those involved.

Yeah. So that just about wraps up our focus on the legal sector. If you'd like to know more or make a comment, join our post-podcast discussion at sustainabilitysolved.org. In our next episode, we crack open a can and meet Louisa Zion from Toast Ale and focus on the food and beverage sector.

The real difference with Toast is not just what's in the beer, it's what we're trying to do more broadly, using beer as a message in a bottle or a message in a can to raise awareness of the issues, working with other businesses to do that. but also funding systemic change, and systemic change is what is really needed now.

For that and much more, please join us for the next episode of Target 1.5. And in the meantime, join our online forum at sustainabilitysolve.org.