Should retailers do more to mitigate climate change?

Footlocker this week unveiled plans to curb its carbon emissions, pledging to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Some would say it is not a very ambitious target, considering it has 28 years to make the reductions after this announcement.

Most of the world’s biggest companies – Apple, Google and Walmart for example - have pledged to the same, but their goals are slightly more ambitious, achieving net zero one or two decades earlier. It highlights the disconnect of expectations of companies “to do more.”

Footlocker said it recently completed LED lighting replacement in 100 of its stores, saving 748,467 kWh/year. Yet the company operates over 2,800 stores, meaning it upgraded less than 4 percent of its retail network. As per McKinsey, there are other means to operate with lower energy, such as more efficient heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) motors; heat pumps, on-site solar-power generation, and battery energy storage.

In a 76-page report Footlocker outlined all if its initiatives and targets, but the question remains: are companies and retailers doing enough?

Even as the repercussions of climate change is evidently impacting the retail sector’s bottom line. The record floods that caused billions of dollars in damage, the droughts and fires in some parts of the world preventing consumers from physical shopping in their regions.

Retailers are huge carbon emitters and climate change will only continue to impact their revenue. Yet despite all the facts, some are pledging face value reductions, instead of striding for real change. In the case of Footlocker (and many other large corporations) they are allowing themselves another 30 years to get to net zero. A lot of climate damage can be avoided in three decades.

The problem, of course, is that transitioning to a low-carbon economy is difficult, costly and requires planning. Building a sustainable business for a retailer that has historically been linked via a complex supply chain to high carbon emissions, chemical exposure and deforestation, makes for a difficult challenge.

Retail Dive, discussing retailer sustainability, acknowledged that consumerism is a part of life, but asks the fundamental question: “How can retailers pursue meaningful mitigation against the carbon emissions and waste they create? At what point should retailers stop prioritizing growing their businesses if it ultimately means more damage to the environment? And what should that type of calculus look like?”

Companies make public pledges but lack integrity

The Glasgow Climate Conference set the bar for the world’s decarbonisation commitments for the year 2050. Data from the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor finds that major companies largely fail the net zero climate pledge test. In a report released in February, many companies were found to have set targets but lacked specific emissions reduction commitments for their net zero target year.

“Misleading advertisements by companies have real impacts on consumers and policymakers. We’re fooled into believing that these companies are taking sufficient action, when the reality is far from it.” said Gilles Dufrasne from Carbon Market Watch. “Without more regulation, this will continue. We need governments and regulatory bodies to step up and put an end to this greenwashing trend.”

"Companies must face the reality of a changing planet. What seemed acceptable a decade ago is no longer enough," said Dufrasne. "Setting vague targets will get us nowhere without real action, and can be worse than doing nothing if it misleads the public. Countries have shown that we need a fresh start when adopting the Paris Agreement, and companies need to reflect this in their own actions."