최근 글로벌 기업들의 ESG 경영 강화와 탄소중립 실현을 위한 요구가 커지면서, 기업 활동 전반에 걸친 Scope 3 온실가스 배출량 산정이 필수적인 과제로 부상하고 있다. Scope 3는 공급망 관리와 기업의 전 과정에서 발생하는 온실가스를 포함하며, 이는 CDP 및 다양한 ESG 공시 요건에서도 점점 더 중요하게 다뤄지고 있다.
이러한 흐름 속에서 국립환경과학원은 국내 산업계가 온실가스 배출량을 보다 체계적으로 산정하고 보고할 수 있도록 지원하기 위해 하나루프, 한국품질재단, 서울대학교 공동으로 가이드라인을 개발했으며, 이를 토대로 구성된 「Scope 3 온실가스 배출량 산정 및 보고 가이드라인(v1.0)」에 대한 다양한 의견을 수렴하기 위해 지난 1월 23일 공청회가 개최됐다. 공청회는 온라인으로 진행되었으며, 약 300개 기업의 관계자와 전문가들이 참석해 높은 관심을 보였다.
The long-anticipated SEC rules on climate disclosure, eagerly awaited by many including myself, have finally been published after almost two years of work.
The following are the definitive requirements for disclosure, according to SEC’s Fact Sheet:
The list implies that adherence to ISSB S2 Climate-related Disclosures under IFRS positions the corporation well to meet the SEC's climate-related disclosure rules.
Disclosure and Financial statement effects audit will start from FYB 2025 for LAFs.
As suggested by numerous recent reports, the final regulation has ultimately excluded the requirements for Scope 3 emissions disclosure.
I feel relieved that the rule has finally been finalized; however, I am somewhat disappointed by the decision to exclude the requirement for disclosing Scope 3 emissions.
I will present two compelling reasons underscoring the importance of Scope 3 emissions disclosure:
Firstly, Scope 3 emissions often constitute a significant portion of a company's overall carbon footprint, exceeding 70% in various sectors. By adopting a comprehensive approach that encompasses Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, companies can uncover broader opportunities for reducing their environmental impact. This holistic perspective enables organizations to implement more effective and extensive emission reduction strategies.
Secondly, substantial climate-related risks are frequently obscured within Scope 3 emissions. In today's interconnected global economy, disruptions in the supply chain can have far-reaching implications for businesses. For instance, the reliance on rare minerals essential for manufacturing advanced technological equipment poses a transitional risk due to regulatory changes. Similarly, agricultural products like coffee beans, cocoa, and cotton are highly susceptible to the physical risks associated with climate change. Moreover, industries reliant on carbon-intensive materials such as steel, cement, and aluminum face significant challenges from policies like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which could markedly affect their supply chains. Recognizing and addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial for sustainable business practices and resilience in the face of climate change.
The requirement for reporting Scope 3 emissions was removed due to the significant challenges companies encounter in measuring these indirect emissions. Ideally, businesses would voluntarily take the initiative to control their emissions, attracting consumers who favor environmentally responsible companies. Yet, in practice, for-profit entities frequently resist investing in initiatives that, while beneficial to society, do not directly generate revenue.
However, the complexity of measuring Scope 3 emissions should not be an excuse for inactivity. Confronting these challenges can actually drive innovation, prompting companies to pioneer new markets and develop solutions that promote environmental sustainability.
Societies will increasingly face the challenges of more frequent droughts, while disruptions in global transit, such as those experienced at the Panama Canal last year, pose significant risks to supply chains. Furthermore, food supplies are vulnerable to the adverse impacts of severe climate conditions. Policy makers must anticipate these challenges and implement robust rules and regulations as a pivotal element of the mitigation strategy. This proactive approach is imperative to safeguard the social fabric and maintaining the stability within the industry.