Read the paper here: milkywire.com/build-the-wo...
I have been working on this for a long time now and am deeply interested in feedback. Does this hold for you? What does it miss? Is it useful?
Robert Höglund
In the paper we also lay out a mapping framework for companies to determine where emissions fall on an agency and economic feasibility map, and which actions align with which emissions.
That means policy advocacy, supplier engagement, financing climate solutions, supporting carbon removal, and other system-changing actions are not side activities but flow from the target itself.
Corporate net zero is not a target in the ordinary sense.
It is a vision with a target component and an obligation to act to make the vision possible, even when those actions don't show up in GHG inventories.
That is the core argument of a new paper I have written with Claire Wigg launching today.
Can a company keep a net zero target when large parts of it are outside its control? We think they can, and should, but only if the target becomes a commitment to act on the system, not just account for emissions.
Robert Höglund
The paper argues that companies should split their net zero targets into two parts:
- what they can deliver under existing conditions, and
- what depends on policy, infrastructure, technology, markets, suppliers, and customers changing around them.
Robert Höglund
Robert Höglund
The first part is the company’s unconditional target.
The second part is conditional on the wider system changing. But that does not make it optional, instead, it creates an obligation to help build the world the target assumes.
Market leading carbon removal, climate, and nature solutions.
NEW ARTICLE: There is a big shift happening in corporate sustainability that raises major new questions.
1️⃣ Reporting is being split into two categories:
- Emissions inventories tied to a company's activities
- Corporate interventions beyond value chain (carbon credits, PPAs, EACs, etc).
Robert Höglund
Robert Höglund
Robert Höglund
Robert Hoglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social is the voice of rationality for carbon dioxide removal. He makes the case for CDR needing a narrative shift away from speed and scale, toward prove and learn. Today the vital need is to trust and understand CDR.
carboncurve.substack.com/p/why-carbon...
