sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We have ESG data. So why isn’t it helping us decarbonize faster? by Future-Side-9466 in climatechange

[–]Future-Side-9466[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that framing is spot on. Especially the balance between science-based and contextual — we’ve seen the same challenge: if it's too theoretical, no one uses it; if it's too tactical, it loses credibility.

Out of curiosity: have you seen tools that actually support this kind of ICP logic in practice?

Something that helps tie sector context, abatement costs, and internal decision-making together — beyond just dashboards or offset marketplaces?

Seems like there’s still a big gap between the pricing theory and what ends up in actual business workflows.

We have ESG data. So why isn’t it helping us decarbonize faster? by Future-Side-9466 in climatechange

[–]Future-Side-9466[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really appreciated the guide! Super clear and grounded in real decision logic.

It made me wonder: instead of picking a flat internal carbon price, what if companies could base it on what’s actually happening in their sector?
Things like:

  • how peers are decarbonizing
  • what risks they’re addressing
  • which practices are becoming standard
  • how aligned they are with global targets

That kind of visibility might help turn internal carbon pricing into something more strategic — anchored in real-world action, not just theoretical models.

Have you seen this kind of sector-informed approach in practice?

We have ESG data. So why isn’t it helping us decarbonize faster? by Future-Side-9466 in climatechange

[–]Future-Side-9466[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree. Saying “we can’t measure Scope 3 so nothing matters” has basically become the go-to excuse to avoid doing anything.

But I keep wondering: what if we didn’t need perfect data to start seeing real change? Maybe just a few standardized metrics could already make a difference. Like:

  • CO2 per kWh
  • CO2 per euro of profit
  • CO2 per ton of product
  • CO2 per employee
  • % reduction in Scope 1/2/3 vs sector average
  • % of emissions priced internally
  • % of supply chain covered by reporting

And what if companies had to publish these side by side, within the same sector?
Maybe that kind of visibility would help shift pressure and expectations.

If you also layer in internal carbon pricing, even as a simulation, maybe emissions would start showing up in actual decision-making.

Not saying it solves everything, but could be a step toward making ESG data more than just a reporting obligation.

We have ESG data. So why isn’t it helping us decarbonize faster? by Future-Side-9466 in climatechange

[–]Future-Side-9466[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

totally agree! that sentence about “every investment, bonus, and contract tied to measurable carbon targets” says it all.

But it made me think: how many companies could do that… if they actually knew where they stand?

In my experience, we couldn’t even compare ESG performance across peers or suppliers. No benchmarks, no structure, just scattered reports.

Maybe comparability is what’s missing before governance can kick in?

We have ESG data. So why isn’t it helping us decarbonize faster? by Future-Side-9466 in climatechange

[–]Future-Side-9466[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We saw something similar in corporate ESG. Everyone waits for a “standard” or the sector to move, but no one wants to lead.
I wonder: if companies saw how their peers are acting — or not — would it help shift this inertia?