Carbon Audit 2012/2013 - Home - Ofcom€¦ · Figure: Presentation of carbon reduction successes...

[Type text]

OFCOM Final report Carbon Audit 2012/2013

©Best Foot Forward, 2013

Disclaimer Best Foot Forward has prepared this report for the sole use of the client and for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement between Best Foot Forward and the client under which this report was completed. Best Foot Forward has exercised due and customary care in preparing this report but has not, save as specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the contents of this report. The use of this report, or reliance on its content, by unauthorised third parties without written permission from Best Foot Forward shall be at their own risk, and Best Foot Forward accepts no duty of care to such third parties. Any recommendations, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on facts and circumstances as they existed at the time the report was prepared. Any changes in such facts and circumstances may adversely affect the recommendations, opinions or findings contained in this report.


OFCOM Carbon Audit 2012/2013 Prepared for: Ofcom Riverside House 2a Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA 020 7981 3000

Prepared by: Best Foot Forward Ltd. The Future Centre, 9 Newtec Place, Magdalen Road, Oxford, OX4 1RE

Amanda Chow Email: [email protected]

Website: www.ofcom.org.uk

Tel: 020 7783 4208

[email protected] www.bestfootforward.com 01865 250818 01865 794586

Quality Assurance Analysis: Kevin Lewis 24

th July 2013

Report: Bethany Field 24

th July 2013

Client comments incorporated: 21/08/2013 Report approved by: Signature _______________________

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.bestfootforward.com/


BEST FOOT FORWARD Best Foot Forward (BFF) is an award-winning sustainability consultancy which specialises in carbon and ecological footprinting. The company offers advice on sustainability metrics, software solutions, strategy and communications. It helps organisations to cost-effectively reduce their environmental impact in a world of limited resources. Best Foot Forward has been leading international developments in footprinting methodologies and tools since 1997. The core textbook on ecological footprinting, 'Sharing Nature's Interest', was co-written by the company’s founders and its team advised on the development of PAS2050, as well as several protocols from the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Best Foot Forward has unrivalled experience, having helped hundreds of clients spanning government bodies, multinational corporations, SMEs and the third sector. It has calculated thousands of footprints for products, organisations, regions and events, from carrots to county councils, from wine bottles to Wimbledon. The company’s mission is to help organisations, regions and communities to reduce their footprint. In 2012, it was awarded the Environment Product/Service Award at the Environment and Energy Awards for its Product Portfolio Footprinting service, which helps multinational corporations to tackle their supply chain footprint.


Executive summary This report estimates the GHG emissions of Ofcom’s operations in the financial year 2012/13. A comparison is provided with the results of past audits as well as the initial baseline (2006/07) to determine whether the organisation has met its reduction target of 25% over the period. Key results: In the 2012/13 financial year Ofcom’s greenhouse gas emissions were equivalent to 3,878 tCO2e. This includes annually recurring emissions as well as emissions from one-off purchases occurring in the financial year but which vary between years. The annually recurring emissions account for 3,546 tCO2e (91% of the total emissions) while the one-off emissions account for 332 tCO2e or 9% of the total emissions. Figure: Breakdown of GHG emissions for FY 2012/13

Compared to the baseline (2006/07) emissions in 2012/13 were lowered by 30%. They were reduced from 5,525 tCO2e to 3,878 tCO2e. More importantly annually recurring emissions have been reduced by 31% to 3,546 tCO2e. This means that Ofcom has exceeded its carbon reduction target. Figure: Presentation of carbon reduction successes against the baseline

Business Travel12%

Commuting18%

Utilities43%

Off Site Servers7%

Waste10%

Publications<1%

Stationery1%

Food and drinks1% Refrigerants

<1%

Capital Purchases

5%

Computing Materials

3%Furniture

<1%

One-off8%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

tCO

2e

One-off

Refrigerants

Food and drinks

Stationery

Publications

Waste

Off Site Servers

Utilities

Commuting

Business Travel


Key successes: The greatest contribution to the overall emissions reductions was achieved by reducing the energy consumption at Ofcom’s premises - over the study period the reduction achieved was 38% (1000 tCO2e). Reducing the energy consumption of off-site servers was also important (400 tCO2e) in addition to the emissions of business travel (270 tCO2e). Proportionally the largest reduction in emissions was achieved in publications (96%), stationery (67%), drinks (58%) and business travel (36%). Key challenges: Of all the analysed emissions sources it is clear that commuting and waste were the greatest challenges to reduce and they both increased since the base year. Presentation of carbon reduction successes against the baseline

Key recommendations:

1. Best Foot Forward recommends Ofcom should assess the GHG emissions reduction potential that can be achieved in the next 3 years and evaluate the costs savings of different options. Best Foot Forward can support Ofcom to adopt cost-effective reduction options and thus build a business case for carbon management; especially because future reductions can be much more difficult to achieve.

2. The reduction opportunities should focus on where the biggest wins can be made; although waste and commuting are challenge areas they may not present the biggest wins and there may be further opportunities to reduce utilities for example. This can be decided in further more in-depth work on evaluating reduction opportunities, both in terms of feasibility and cost savings; and also evaluation of behaviour change in the office environment.

3. Evaluation of reduction opportunities can also be used to inform and set future reduction targets (e.g. by 2020) which can be further monitored against a new baseline set using data from the 2012/13 audit.

4. Innovation analysis – researching current best practice within similar organisations to understand where the biggest wins could be; in the context of the hot spots and successes highlighted in this report and further reduction opportunities identified. Assessment of innovations should include analysis of return on investment.

5. Finally, we recommend Ofcom should begin to explore use of other environmental metrics (e.g. water) and incorporate them into a comprehensive environmental strategy.

-1,200

-1,000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

tCO

2e

Annually recurring emissions One-off emissions


Table of contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2

2 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Carbon Footprint ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Scope and boundaries of the study ........................................................................................ 3

2.3 Variability in factors over the period of the Ofcom carbon strategy ........................................ 3

3 Results ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Comparison against base year and interim audit.................................................................... 7

3.3 Carbon reductions against the baseline .................................................................................. 9

3.4 Comparison across individual categories ............................................................................. 10

3.5 Data Quality........................................................................................................................... 23

3.6 Emissions categories ............................................................................................................ 23

3.7 Recommendations and next steps ........................................................................................ 24

4 Data ......................................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Data quality ........................................................................................................................... 25

5 Benchmarking study ................................................................................................. 26

5.1 Utilities benchmark ................................................................................................................ 26

5.2 Waste benchmark ................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix A: Definition of emissions scopes .................................................................... 28

Appendix B: Input Data and Assumptions ....................................................................... 29


Table of figures Figure 1: Variability in transport GHG emission factors .......................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Breakdown of GHG emissions FY 2012/13 ............................................................................. 6

Figure 3 Breakdown of GHG emissions FY 2012/13 by scope .............................................................. 7

Figure 4: Breakdown of GHG emissions across study years ................................................................. 8

Figure 5: Breakdown of GHG emissions per FTE across study years ................................................... 8

Figure 6: % reduction in CO2e per FTE .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 7: Presentation of carbon reduction successes against the baseline .......................................... 9

Figure 8: Breakdown of GHG emission sources across years ............................................................. 10

Figure 9: Breakdown of business travel CO2e emissions over the analysed period ............................ 11

Figure 10: Breakdown of commuting distances for different modes of transport ................................. 12

Figure 11: Breakdown of utilities CO2e emissions for FY2012/13 ........................................................ 13

Figure 12: Breakdown of electricity consumption for each office over the analysed period ................. 14

Figure 13: Electricity consumption per m2 of floor area for the latest financial year ............................ 14

Figure 14: Gas consumption for each office in over the analysed period ............................................. 15

Figure 15: Gas consumption per m2 floor area for FY2012/13 ............................................................ 15

Figure 16: Breakdown of waste data consumption for the latest financial year .................................... 17

Figure 17: GHG emissions from publications ....................................................................................... 19

Figure 18: GHG emissions from stationery over the period .................................................................. 20

Figure 19: Riverside House GHG emissions from stationery over the period ...................................... 20

Figure 20: GHG emissions from drinks for the assessed periods ........................................................ 21

Figure 21: GHG emissions from computing equipment analysed years .............................................. 22

Figure 22: GHG emissions from furniture for over the period ............................................................... 23

Figure 23: Benchmarking of GHG emissions of utilities (in tCO2e) per m2 of office space ................. 26

Figure 24: Benchmark of water use (in litres) per staff member ........................................................... 26

Figure 25: Benchmarking of waste produced per headcount ............................................................... 27

Table of tables

Table 1: Emissions sources .................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Variability in electricity emission factors.................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Ofcom annual GHG emissions for FY2012/13 ......................................................................... 5

Table 4: Ofcom annual GHG emissions for FY2012/13 by scope .......................................................... 6

Table 5: Comparison of Ofcom’s GHG emissions over the assessment period ..................................... 7

Table 6: Detailed results of reductions achieved over the assessment period ....................................... 9

Table 7: Comparison of business travel carbon footprint ..................................................................... 11

Table 8: Comparison of commuting carbon footprint ............................................................................ 12

Table 9: Comparison of commuting carbon footprint (cont.) ................................................................. 12

Table 10: Comparison of utilities carbon footprint................................................................................. 13

Table 11: Comparison of off-site server carbon footprint ...................................................................... 16

Table 12: Comparison of waste carbon footprint .................................................................................. 16

Table 13: Comparison of publications carbon footprint ........................................................................ 18

Table 14: Comparison of stationery carbon footprints .......................................................................... 19

Table 15: Comparison of drinks carbon footprint .................................................................................. 20

Table 16: Carbon footprint of capital purchases in the latest financial year ......................................... 21

Table 17: Comparison of computing equipment carbon footprint ......................................................... 22

Table 18: Furniture carbon footprint ...................................................................................................... 22

Table 19: Data gaps and proxies .......................................................................................................... 25

1 ©Best Foot Forward, 2013


1 Introduction

Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries. Ofcom is dedicated to understanding the impact of its operations on the environment and as such measured a baseline carbon footprint in 2006/07 and set reduction targets to be achieved by March 2013.

Ofcom has commissioned this footprint report to assess the carbon footprint of the organisation for the financial year April 2012 to March 2013 and to compare results with the baseline year in order to determine whether Ofcom has met its 25% reduction commitment. The study shows where the most significant reductions have occurred and identifies the organisation’s hotspots. The results of the exercise can help guide further reduction measures.


2 Methodology

2.1 Carbon Footprint This carbon footprint is the result of an analysis which measures the GHG emissions associated with Ofcom’s organisational activity. GHG emissions occur during the everyday operations of an organisation, business or enterprise; and include energy use, material flows, and transportation to and from the workplace. The emissions from products, also called embodied carbon, refer to the amount of GHG produced in the manufacture and supply of the product to the point of use. Individual or household emissions refer to the GHG generated by the daily lives of people. The shorthand term “carbon footprint” originates from the fact that CO2, released primarily from fossil fuel burning (oil, diesel, petrol, coal, natural gas, etc.), makes up the bulk of most GHG analyses (80% of total EU GHG emissions in 20001) and is the main contributor to global climate change. Increasingly new research is allowing footprint studies to include the impact of other GHG, such as CH4 and N2O, which have higher global warming potentials (GWP) than CO2 and therefore contribute significantly to climate change, even if emitted in small quantities. This study includes the impacts of GHG other than CO2, and so CO2e units are used throughout this report.

2.2 Scope and boundaries of the study This study focuses on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with Ofcom’s operational activities over the financial year 2012/13 for eight Ofcom offices throughout United Kingdom. The organisational boundary therefore covers the organisation’s head office, Riverside House, in London and its regional offices (Baldock, Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Haydock, Project Park2). The key emissions sources analysed in this study are presented in the table below. Table 1: Emissions sources

1. Annual recurring emissions sources 2. One-off emissions sources

Utilities

Off-site servers

Business travel

Commuting

Waste

Publications

Stationery

Drinks

Refrigerant and other gases

Capital purchases

Computing materials

Furniture

The study covers all scope 1 and 2 emissions and a selection of scope 3 emissions as defined by the GHG Protocol. See Appendix for description of scope categories.

2.3 Variability in factors over the period of the Ofcom carbon strategy Emission factors for a number of emissions sources, such as electricity, fuels and modes of transport are published on an annual basis by Defra/DECC for the purposes of reporting greenhouse gas

1 http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/greenhouse_gas_emission

2 A number of offices included in the previous assessments including the baseline exercise have been closed.


emissions. These factors change over time and are out of Ofcom’s direct control, but do have an effect upon the trend in Ofcom’s carbon footprint. For example, the composition of the UK’s mains electricity generation capacity changes over time, as new capacity comes on stream and old power plants are decommissioned. Table 2 shows the electricity emission factors used in the four carbon audits conducted for Ofcom. The reduction in GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption between the base year and 2012/13 was due to both a reduction in the consumption and a reduction in the emissions per kWh for the UK.

Table 2: Variability in electricity emission factors

Electricity

kgCO2e/kWh

2006/07 0.53655

2008/09 0.54418

2010/11 0.52462

2012/13 0.52037

Figure 1 shows the variation in a selection of transport emission factors since the first Ofcom carbon audit in 2006/07. The average car emission factor has not changed significantly as the composition of car size and type on the UK roads has not been changed drastically. The rail travel carbon footprint has been fairly stagnant. The emissions associated with short haul flights decreased significantly between 2006/07 and the 2008/09 audit. This was due to changed methodology and improved occupancy rates amongst budget airlines and a general improvement in the fleet efficiency. Figure 1: Variability in transport GHG emission factors

*Average Car – vehicle km, others – passenger km

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

AverageCar

Rail DomesticFlights

ShortHaul

Flights

LongHaul

Flights

Tube

kgC

O2

e/k

m*

2006/07

2008/09

2010/11

2012/13


3 Results

3.1 Overview In the financial year 2012/13, Ofcom’s greenhouse gas emissions were equivalent to 3,878 tCO2e. The carbon footprint is split into the annual recurring emissions and the emissions from one-off purchases occurring in the financial year studied but vary between years. The annually recurring emissions account for 3,546 tCO2e (91% of the total emissions) while the one-off emissions account for 332 tCO2e or 9% of the total emissions. Table 3 and Figure 2 provide a further breakdown of the emission sources for the FY 2012/13. The majority of the Ofcom carbon footprint (43% of the total) is attributed to utilities, which includes electricity, gas, oil and water consumption. Travel covering commuting and business travel is the second largest source of emissions accounting for 30% of the total. Waste accounts for 10% of the total and off-site servers for 7%. Other emissions sources including purchased goods are responsible for less than 5% of emissions. Table 3: Ofcom annual GHG emissions for FY2012/13

Total GHG emissions Normalised GHG emissions

tCO2e % kgCO2e/FTE

Total 3,878 100% 4,958

Annual Recurring Sub Total 3,546 91% 4,533

Business Travel 480 12% 614

Commuting 691 18% 884

Utilities 1,660 43% 2,122

Off-site servers 265 7% 338

Waste 379 10% 484

Publications 3 0.1% 4

Stationery 31 1% 40

Food and drinks 25 <1% 32

Refrigerants 13 <1% 16

One-off activities Sub Total 332 9% 424

Capital Purchases 200 5% 256

Computing Materials 122 3% 156

Furniture 10 <1% 13

Over the financial year 2012/13 Ofcom’s greenhouse gas emissions generated 3,878 tCO2e. The annually recurring emissions alone accounted for 3,546 tCO2e or 91% of the total emissions,

while one-off purchases occurring in the financial year contribute the remaining 9%.


Figure 2: Breakdown of GHG emissions FY 2012/13

Table 4 and Figure 3 provide a breakdown of absolute emissions by scope according to the scopes defined by the GHG Protocol. Scope 1 includes direct emissions controlled by Ofcom; Scope 2 includes purchased electricity; and Scope 3 includes all other supply chain emissions that are not direct emissions but relate to purchases and services acquired.

Table 4: Ofcom annual GHG emissions for FY2012/13 by scope

tCO2e %

Total 3,878 100%

Total Scope 1 447 12%

Gas consumption 201 5%

Oil consumption 23 1%

Owned transport 211 5%

Process emissions 0 0%

Fugitive emissions 12.6 0%

Total Scope 2 1,426 37%

Purchased electricity 1,426 37%

Total Scope 3 2,004 52%

Business Travel 269 7%

Commuting 691 18%

Off site server electricity 265 7%

Waste 379 10%

Capital Purchases 200 5%

Computing equipment 122 3%

Furniture 10 0%

Drinks 25 1%

Stationery 31 1%

Publications 3 0%

Water 10 0%

Business Travel12%

Commuting18%

Utilities43%

Off Site Servers7%

Waste10%

Publications<1%

Stationery1%

Food and drinks1% Refrigerants

<1%

Capital Purchases

5%

Computing Materials

3%Furniture

<1%

One-off8%


Figure 3 Breakdown of GHG emissions FY 2012/13 by scope

3.2 Comparison against base year and interim audit Compared to the baseline (2006/07) emissions in 2012/13 were lowered by 30%. They were reduced from 5,525 tCO2e to 3,878 tCO2e. More importantly annually recurring emissions have been reduced by 31% to 3,546 tCO2e. This means that Ofcom has exceeded its carbon reduction target. Table 5 shows Ofcom’s annual greenhouse gas emissions for all years when the audits were performed. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of the greenhouse gas emissions for the four study years. The chart highlights the gradual reduction in total organisational carbon footprint. Table 5: Comparison of Ofcom’s GHG emissions over the assessment period

Carbon Footprint

FY 2006/07 (baseline) FY 2008/09 FY 2010/11 FY 2012/13

Compared to the baseline

tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e %

Total 5,525 4,716 4,368 3,878 -30%

Annually recurring 5,163 4,524 4,149 3,546 -31%

Business Travel 752 711 508 480 -36%

Commuting 655 792 739 691 6%

Utilities 2,668 2,084 2,044 1,660 -38%

Off-site Servers 671 653 557 265 -61%

Waste 201 162 216 379 88%

Publications 63 32 3 3 -96%

Stationery 94 57 47 31 -67%

Drinks 59 32 35 25 -58%

Refrigerants 0.2 0.2 - 12.6 6391%

Other Gases <0.1 <0.1 - -

One-off activities 362 193 218 332 -8%

Capital Purchases 240 23 159 200 -16%

Computing Materials 86 158 58 122 41%

Furniture 36 12 1 10 -73%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

FY: 2012/13

t C

O2

e Scope 3

Scope 2

Scope 1

From 2006/07 to 2012/13 GHG emissions were reduced by 30% from 5,525 tCO2e to 3,878 tCO2e. Annually recurring emissions have been reduced by 31% to 3,546 tCO2e. This indicates

that Ofcom has exceeded its carbon reduction target.


Figure 4: Breakdown of GHG emissions across study years

Figure 5 presents GHG emissions per FTE which also indicate emissions reduction over the period. The reductions achieved since the baseline are presented in Figure 6 and stand at 28%. Figure 5: Breakdown of GHG emissions per FTE across study years

Figure 6: % reduction in CO2e per FTE

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

tCO

2e

One-off

Refrigerants

Food and drinks

Stationery

Publications

Waste

Off Site Servers

Utilities

Commuting

Business Travel

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

tCO

2e

/FTE

One-off

Refrigerants & other gases

Food and drinks

Stationery

Publications

Waste

Off Site Servers

Utilities

Commuting

Business Travel

100

80 77 72

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

%

Carbon footprint per FTE

31% reduction in

recurring emissions


3.3 Carbon reductions against the baseline Figure 7 and Table 6 present the total carbon emissions reductions that were achieved over the assessment period. Emissions were reduced across a majority of emissions sources which demonstrates a significant organisational effort at reducing environmental impact. Figure 7: Presentation of carbon reduction successes against the baseline

The greatest contribution to the overall emissions reductions was achieved by reducing the energy consumption at Ofcom’s premises - over the study period the reduction achieved was 38% (1000 tCO2e). Reducing the energy consumption of off-site servers was also important (400 tCO2e) in addition to the emissions of business travel (270 tCO2e). Proportionally the largest reduction in emissions was achieved in publications (96%), stationery (67%), drinks (58%) and business travel (36%). Of all the analysed emissions sources it is clear that refrigerant, commuting and waste were the greatest challenges to reduce and they increased since the base year. Table 6: Detailed results of reductions achieved over the assessment period

Reduction (%) compared to the

baseline

tCO2e %

Total 1647 -30

Annually recurring emissions 1618 -31

Business Travel 272 -36

Commuting -36 6

Utilities 1009 -38

Off-site servers 407 -61

Waste -177 88

Publications 60 -96

Stationery 63 -67

Drinks 34 -58

-1,200

-1,000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

tCO

2e

Annually recurring emissions One-off emissions

Over the assessed period emissions reductions were achieved across all annually recurring emissions sources except commuting and waste. The greatest reductions were achieved in

utilities, off-site servers and business travel.


Refrigerants -12 6,391

One-off emissions 30 -8

Capital Purchases 39 -16

Computing Materials -36 41

Furniture 26 -73

Figure 8 shows the breakdown of the greenhouse gas emissions for the four study years. The majority of reductions were achieved by reducing the energy consumption (utilities). Figure 8: Breakdown of GHG emission sources across years

It is important to note that the commuting data for the base year and the financial year 2008/09 were taken from surveys conducted by Transport for London (TFL) which did not give specific journey distances; rather it was based on journey time. It has been assumed that commuting patterns are unlikely to have changed significantly since the 2008/09 audit therefore the 2008/09 data has been used and scaled for the staff numbers in 2012/13. In the following chapters more detailed results are provided for individual categories.

3.4 Comparison across individual categories

3.4.1 Business Travel Emissions reductions were achieved across all business travel categories bar car travel, which increased by 4%. The majority of overall reduction emissions of this component were due to a 39% reduction in fleet fuel emissions and a reduction in flight emissions. For example over the period a 31% and 54% reduction in combined domestic - short haul flight3 and long haul flight emissions was achieved, respectively. Table 7 and Figure 9 provide more detail on the business travel footprint. 3 Domestic and short haul flights were combined as it was not possible to separate these in the base year assessment.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

tCO

2e

2006/07

2008/09

2010/11

2012/13

Business travel was responsible for 480 tCO2e or 12% of overall carbon footprint in the financial year 2012/13. Compared to 2006/07 emissions were reduced by 36%.


The emissions from the fleet fuel and flight emissions were achieved through the following measures:

Purchase of a new greener car fleet - Spectrum Engineering and Enforcement.

Upgrading video conferencing equipment to connect Riverside House with national and regional offices with an aim to reduce business travel.

Enforcement of policies to ensure that business travel is only undertaken where necessary and is carried out in a co-ordinated manner. Ofcom’s expenses policy states that colleagues must consider cost and carbon footprint by evaluating the need to travel and also the potential of using other less expensive and lower carbon travel alternatives such as e-mail, audio or video conferencing. Air travel around the UK is not permitted if train is an available option and is a more appropriate method of travel.

Table 7: Comparison of business travel carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

Input tCO2e Input tCO2e Input tCO2e Input tCO2e % diff

Car 338,546 70 319,042 65 536,612 110 372,924 73 4%

Rail 414,345 25 322,958 20 249,850 14 221,190 13 -48%

Taxi 78,422 16 107,565 24 27,694 6 24,665 5 -68%

Domestic & Short Haul Flights 1,190,665 179 1,354,978 147 835,130 92 1,146,528 123 -31%

Long Haul Flights 1,079,052 119 1,594,068 197 440,255 53 462,327 55 -54%

Fleet Fuel 130,983 344 96,964 259 87,320 233 78,923 211 -39%

Total 3,232,012 752 3,795,576 711 2,176,861 508 2,306,558 480 -36%

Figure 9: Breakdown of business travel CO2e emissions over the analysed period

3.4.2 Commuting Over the period there has been a slight increase in the emissions from all modes of transport (see Table 8). The exception is train travel - by far the largest source of emissions - which increased significantly by 45% while car travel experienced a 60% emissions reduction over the period. A note worth considering is tube travel which has experienced a 15% increase in the distance travelled but the emissions have increased by 58%. This is attributed to the increase in the London Underground emission factor which has increased from 0.053kgCO2e in 2006/07 to 0.072kgCO2e in 2012/13.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Car Rail Taxi Domestic & ShortHaul Flights

Long Haul Flights Fleet Fuel

tCO

2e 2006/07

2008/09

2010/11

2012/13

Commuting accounted for 691 tCO2e (18% of the overall carbon footprint) in the financial year 2012/13. This represents an increase in carbon footprint of 6% compared to the baseline.


Although overall emissions have increased due to increases in distances travelled; there have been successes through an increase in cycling and walking to work and a reduction in travel by car. This has been achieved through:

Provision of extensive cycling facilities for colleagues to promote sustainable commuting – secure cycle racks, changing rooms, lockers, shower facilities and cycle maintenance equipment.

Working closely with Better Bankside, a local organisation which has conducted a number of bespoke bike repair workshops for colleagues.

On-going communications to colleagues to promote walking and cycling to work. Table 8: Comparison of commuting carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

Input tCO2e Input tCO2e Input tCO2e Input tCO2e

Car (veh-km) 1,196,516 248 529,559 108 511,406 105 483,072 94

Motorbike (veh-km) 153,946 16 401,100 48 387,350 46

365,890 44

Train (Pass-km) 5,163,257 311 8,194,261 501 7,913,359 447 7,474,935 435

Tube (Pass-km) 1,107,880 58 1,400,900 110 1,352,877 100 1,277,923 92

Bus (Pass-km) 234,626 21 236,237 25 228,139 42 215,499 27

Walk (km) 371,462 - 558,529 - 475,837 - 509,499 0

Cycle (km) 221,230 - 492,728 - 539,383 - 449,474 0

Total 655 792 739 691

Table 9: Comparison of commuting carbon footprint (cont.)

Change (%)

GHG emissions Distance travelled

Car (veh-km) -62% -60%

Motorbike (veh-km) 172% 138%

Train (Pass-km) 40% 45%

Tube (Pass-km) 58% 15%

Bus (Pass-km) 27% -8%

Walk (km)

37%

Cycle (km)

103%

Total -6

Figure 10: Breakdown of commuting distances for different modes of transport

As stated previously, it is important to note that the commuting data were taken from surveys conducted by TFL which did not give specific journey distances; rather it was based on journey time. It has been assumed that commuting patterns are unlikely to have changed significantly since the

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

Car (veh-km) Motorbike (veh-km)

Train (Pass-km) Tube (Pass-km) Bus (Pass-km) Walk (km) Cycle (km)

km

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13


2008/09 when the survey was updated for the last time and therefore this data has been used and scaled for the staff numbers in 2012/13. For future performance measurement it is recommended that a dedicated commuting survey is conducted as it can enable much more precise measurement of reductions.

3.4.3 Utilities The utilities comprise electricity, gas, oil and water consumption. Table 10 shows the contribution of each emissions source to the total. Reductions have been achieved across all categories, but the greatest contribution to overall reduction is down to reduced emissions from electricity which were reduced by 40% over the period. Reductions in emissions from utilities have been achieved through the following initiatives:

Monitoring of Riverside House energy data to inform optimal settings e.g. monitoring and adjusting temperature set points in summer and winter.

A number of low cost measures to optimize and reduce energy consumption within Riverside House including: solar reflective film being fitted onto the windows of the building and installing motion sensors to control electric lighting, introducing daylight dimming on perimeter lighting , installing e-cubes into refrigerators, new doors within the Reception area at Riverside House to conserve heat, replacing the cooling system in the computer room at Riverside House with evaporative cooling, installing a heat retaining lining onto ceiling tiles, optimising the fans, motors and variable speed drives of our Air Handling Units.

Installation of two voltage optimisers at Riverside House. Housekeeping rules provided to regional offices to reduce energy consumption.

Figure 11: Breakdown of utilities CO2e emissions for FY2012/13

Table 10: Comparison of utilities carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13


Water (m3) 12,256 11 10,741 10 10,601 11 9,454 10

Electricity (kWh) 4,452,692 2,389 3,388,264 1,844 3,367,857 1,767 2,740,553 1,426

Gas (kWh) 1,136,692 234 923,936 189 1,185,315 242 976,229 201

Oil (litres) 12,000 34 13,508 41 7,953 24 7,500 23

Total 2,668 2,084 2,044 1,659

Water1%

Electricity86%

Gas12%

Oil1%

The utilities were the biggest source of emissions in the financial year 2012/13 contributing 42% of the total (1,659 tCO2e). Over the period, emissions have been reduced by 38%.


Table 10: Comparison of utilities carbon footprint (cont.)

% Change

Water (m3) -10%

Electricity (kWh) -40%

Gas (kWh) -14%

Oil (litres) -33%

Total -38%

Figure 12 highlights the electricity consumption. Riverside House (Ofcom’s headqurters) has the most significant electricity consumption compared to other offices. Figure 12: Breakdown of electricity consumption for each office over the analysed period

Figure 13: Electricity consumption per m2 of floor area for the latest financial year

Figure 14 shows the gas consumption for each of the offices for each study year and Figure 15 shows the gas consumption per m2 for the current study year.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

kWh

Ele

ctri

city

2006/07

2008/09

2010/11

2012/13

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

kWh

/m2


Figure 14: Gas consumption for each office in over the analysed period

Figure 15: Gas consumption per m2 floor area for FY2012/13

The data for electricity, gas and oil consumption was complete for all offices and no extrapolation was required.

3.4.4 Off-site servers The reduction in emissions from the servers is due to a rationalisation exercise which reduced the number of servers by 57% and also replaced older servers with newer and more energy efficient servers. Energy consumption of off-site servers is presented in the Table 11.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

kWh

Gas

2006/07

2008/09

2010/11

2012/13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Belfast Birmingham Haydock Riverside House

kWh

/m2

In the financial year 2012/13 the carbon emissions from off-site servers were 265 tCO2e. A reduction of 61% has been achieved over the analysed period.


Table 11: Comparison of off-site server carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13


% Change

London City 400,858 215 282,405 154 373,519 196

Toltech 535,762 287 723,926 394 384,617 202

Sungard 259,296 139 138,610 75 302,893 159

Telstra 9,986 5 9,986 5 0 0

Ultima 45,311 24 45,311 25 0 0

Woking 247,728 129

Hatton Cross 261,062 136

Total 1,251,212 671 1,200,238 653 1,061,030 557 508,790 265 -61%

3.4.5 Waste

Over the period waste has increased significantly. For example increase in the quantity of waste generated at Riverside House increased from 47.5 tonnes to 164 tonnes. Waste is traditionally difficult to collect and over the years Ofcom has made a significant progress to maximise data accuracy by developing detailed waste survey system for use at each of its sites. An improved data collection process can be to an extent explain an increase in reported emissions. In response to the waste impact, Ofcom has introduced a ‘No waste to landfill’ policy in Riverside House; and enforces recycling of paper, cardboard, cans, plastics, glass, batteries, toners and CDs. All disposal of IT equipment complies with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE). Therefore although waste has increased; the reduction in landfill should have an impact on GHG emissions future measurements. Table 12 presents the comparison of the waste footprint between offices and over the entire reporting period; and Figure 16 shows the breakdown of waste consumption data for each of the offices into the general waste and recycled waste components. Materials recycled (excluding toner) at Riverside House in both the base year and the FY 2012/13 shows that the recycling rate for paper has more than tripled over the period at Riverside House. Table 12: Comparison of waste carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

Input Data

(kg) tCO2e

Input Data (kg)

tCO2e Input

Data (kg) tCO2e

Input Data (kg)

tCO2e %

Change

Riverside House Office 47,545 75 63,400 80 118,308 177 164,071 292

-289%

Riverside House Catering 15,162 36 6,610 28 1,082 2

Baldock 9,308 54 3,879 11 3,033 8 5,203 12 78%

Belfast 1,661 4 1,743 6 1,550 4 1,200 4 3%

Birmingham 2,215 5 2,057 6 2,046 6 10,010 28 -469%

Bristol 923 2 958 3

Cardiff 577 2 2,330 5 1,714 3 1,868 2 -22%

Caterham 2,954 7 2,948 9

Cheshunt 1,108 2 - -

Glasgow 2,031 4 1,894 4 1,735 4 1,248 4 -1%

Haydock 2,400 5 2,654 8 2,848 8 10,060 30 -498%

Leeds 738 2 451 1

Waste emissions stood at 486 tCO2e in the financial year 2012/13. This represents a 88% increase over the baseline. In 2012/13 the majority waste arose at Riverside House Office (84% of the total).


Nottingham 1,108 2 - -

Peterborough 369 1 - -

Stonehaven 185 0.4 - -

Project Park

2,008 4.40 2008 6.50 -289%

Total 88,283 201 88,924 162 134,326 216 195,667 486 88%

Figure 16: Breakdown of waste data consumption for the latest financial year

3.4.6 Publications The reduction in the carbon footprint of publications is due to a policy change which has seen a

dramatic increase in the number of publications distributed electronically. Although as a percentage

of the total Ofcom carbon footprint publications is negligible, this is a very impressive reduction and

the effort that went into achieving it should be applauded. Table 13 and

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

RiversideHouse Office

Baldock Belfast Birmingham Cardiff Glasgow Haydock Project Park

kg o

f w

aste

Recycled kg General kg

In the financial year 2012/13 Ofcom’s carbon emissions from publications stood at 3 tCO2e. This represents a 96% reduction compared to the base year.


Figure 17present a comparison of the publications carbon footprint across the reporting years. Table 13: Comparison of publications carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 %

Input Data (kg) tCO2e



Input Data (kg) tCO2e Change

130gsm Paper 38,377 61 19,216 31 2,149 3.3 1783.6 2.7 -96%

300gsm Paper 1,000 2 983 2 72 0.1 63.75 0.1 -94%

Total 39,377 63 20,198 32 2,221 3 1,847 3 -96%


Figure 17: GHG emissions from publications

3.4.7 Stationery The GHG emissions and consumption data is presented in the table and chart below. Table 14: Comparison of stationery carbon footprints

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

Input (kg) tCO2e

Input (kg) tCO2e

Input (kg) tCO2e

input (kg) £ tCO2e

Baldock 2,642 5 146 0 460 1 1143.2 41.06 2.9

Belfast 10 0 356 1 22 0 2061.59 1.2

Birmingham 221 0 94 0 79 0 80.3 66.98 0.2

Bristol 119 0 - - - -

Cardiff 206 0 158 0 105 0 54.3 0.6

Caterham 60 0 81 0 98 0

Cheshunt 143 0 - - - -

Glasgow 28 0 288 1 288 0 879.81 0.6

Haydock 251 0 272 1 83 1 181.8 218.37 0.7

Leeds 11 0 - - - -

Nottingham 143 0 - - - -

Peterborough 48 0 - - - -

Riverside House 30,086 87 31,992 55 30,383 44 9825.7 691.69 24.2

Stonehaven 24 0 - - - -

Total 33,993 94 33,388 57 31,517 47 11,452 4,468 31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Base-Year 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

tCO

2e

The stationery purchases account for 30 tCO2e or 1% of the total carbon footprint in 2012/13. In the financial year 2006/07 Ofcom’s carbon emissions from stationery were 94 tCO2e and over the period they were reduced by 67%.


Figure 18: GHG emissions from stationery over the period

Riverside House is in a class of its own and for this reason stationery emissions have been presented in a separate chart. However, the emissions have been reduced significantly year on year; as presented in Figure 19. Figure 19: Riverside House GHG emissions from stationery over the period

3.4.8 Drinks The main driver was the reduction of the quantity of drinks purchased, especially milk which is much more carbon intensive compared to soft drinks. Table 15: Comparison of drinks carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 change

input tCO2e input tCO2e input tCO2e input tCO2e %

Soft Drinks (litres) 12,912 16 6,460 8 9,842 12 11,470 14 -11%

Milk (litres) 47,376 43 26,584 24 25,729 23 11,967 11 -75%

Total 60,288 59 33,044 32 35,571 35 23,438 25 -58%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6tC

O2

e

Base Year

FY 2008/09

FY 2010/11

FY 2012/13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Riverside House

tCO

2e

Base Year

FY 2008/09

FY 2010/11

FY 2012/13

Carbon emissions from purchased drinks stood at 25 tCO2e in the financial year 2012/13. Compared to the base year emissions were reduced by 58%.


Figure 20: GHG emissions from drinks for the assessed periods

3.4.9 Capital Purchases The emissions from capital purchases cannot be compared directly over time as they do not occur periodically, but depend on the replacement and investment cycles. For comparison these emissions stood at 240 tCO2e in the base year and at 23 tCO2e and 159 tCO2e in 2008/09 and 2010/11, respectively. Table 16 shows the list of capital equipment purchased in 2012/13. The type of materials and its corresponding weights for the majority of equipment were not known, I/O factors have been used to align GHG emissions with expenditure. Table 16: Carbon footprint of capital purchases in the latest financial year

Name Value (£) tCO2e

Refitting/Buildings Work 114,594 63

Calorifier 182,660 126

Cars 14,972 12

As mentioned above capital purchases can vary considerably on an annual basis depending on the requirements of the different offices and are therefore not considered in great detail. They are also presented separately from the annually recurring emissions in order to distinguish between items that can be directly compared and those that cannot.

3.4.10 Computing Equipment . Computing equipment is classed as one-off purchases as they can vary considerably from year to year depending on requirements and renewal schedules and for this reason they cannot be meaningfully compared across years. Some measures to reduce impact include:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13

tCO

2e

Soft Drinks

Milk

In the financial year 2012/13 Ofcom’s carbon emissions from capital purchases were 200 tCO2e.

The greenhouse gas emissions attributed to the computing equipment purchased by Ofcom in the financial year 2012/13 accounted for 122 tCO2e or 3% of the total carbon footprint.


Purchase of new desktops and laptops in 2012/13 to replace older, less energy efficient pieces of equipment.

A printer rationalisation exercise reduced Ofcom’s fleet of printers and photocopiers. Secure printing was also introduced so print outs cannot be left uncollected on printers.

Significant improvements to remote working capability in order to enable colleagues to work remotely more efficiently.

PCs set to go into sleep mode after 20 minutes of inactivity. Table 17: Comparison of computing equipment carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 change

Input (kg) tCO2e input tCO2e input tCO2e input tCO2e %

Desktop Computers 2,850 65 3,847 88 - - 4406 106 62%

Laptop Computers - - 208 17 7 0.5 122 8 -

Printers 1,000 12 76 1 30 0.3 98 1 -90%

Monitors - - 105 42 282 19 69 5 -

Servers 300 7 111 3 1,558 37 42 1 -85%

Mobile Phones 43 3 40 8 7 2 3 1 -80%

Deskphones 44 0.1

Total 86 158 58 122 -41%

Figure 21: GHG emissions from computing equipment analysed years

3.4.11 Furniture

As capital and computing equipment furniture is classed as ‘one-off item’ and for this reason direct comparison between years is not meaningful, but for illustrative purposes is presented below.

Table 18: Furniture carbon footprint

2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 change

Input (kg) tCO2e input tCO2e input tCO2e input £

tCO2e %

Furniture 7,987 36 2,592 12 810 1 779 8,130 10 -73

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

DesktopComputers

Laptop Computers Printers Monitors Servers Mobile Phones Deskphones

tCO

2e Baseline

FY 2008/09

FY 2010/11

FY 2012/13

In the financial year 2012/13 Ofcom’s carbon emissions from furniture were 10 tCO2e.


Figure 22: GHG emissions from furniture for over the period

3.5 Data Quality Data quality is of utmost importance for reliable monitoring. Without good quality measurement, action planning is likely not to be targeted, setting of targets not credible and realistic while the progress will be difficult to determine. Most of the data collected was of high quality; however, there were some data gaps in the study which are discussed in more detail in Section 4 on Data.

3.6 Emissions categories The following section focuses on the main emissions categories that contribute to over 80% of the total annually recurring carbon footprint. 3.6.1 Energy Utilities account for 42% of the total carbon footprint and electricity accounts for 86% of the utilities carbon footprint. As the primary contributor to the Ofcom carbon footprint energy efficiency measures have been high on the agenda for Ofcom for several years. In the future Ofcom should investigate additional measures that could help cut energy consumption and it should incorporate energy efficiency considerations into purchasing policy. Additionally, Ofcom may wish to ensure that all future decisions regarding estates and refurbishment occur with consideration to opportunities for gains in energy efficiency. 3.6.2 Transport Between the base year and 2012/13 Ofcom has achieved a 36% reduction in business travel, a reduction primarily due to fewer flights and lower fleet fuel consumption. The business travel has also seen an increase in car emissions which could potentially be addressed through encouraging alternatives such as train travel. Commuting is estimated to have increased by 13% between the base year and 2012/13 although as discussed, there is relatively low confidence in this finding, due to the limitations of the underlying data. The first step would be to undertake a commuting survey. Although outside Ofcom’s direct influence, employees can be further encouraged to lower their commuting environmental impact by using different travel modes including cycling.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Baseline FY 2008/09 FY 2010/11 FY 2012/13

tCO

2e


3.7 Recommendations and next steps

1. Best Foot Forward recommends Ofcom should assess the GHG emissions reduction potential that can be achieved in the next 3 years and evaluate the costs savings of different options. Best Foot Forward can support Ofcom to adopt cost-effective reduction options and thus build a business case for carbon management; especially because future reductions can be much more difficult to achieve.

2. The reduction opportunities should focus on where the biggest wins can be made; although waste and commuting are challenge areas they may not present the biggest wins and there may be further opportunities to reduce utilities for example. This can be decided in further more in-depth work on evaluating reduction opportunities, both in terms of feasibility and cost savings; and also evaluation of behaviour change in the office environment. Auditing on certain areas such as energy efficiency and waste could highlight further improvement opportunities.

3. Evaluation of reduction opportunities can also be used to inform and set future reduction

targets (e.g. by 2020) which can be further monitored against a new baseline set using data from the 2012/13 audit.

4. Innovation analysis – researching current best practice within similar organisations to understand where the biggest wins could be; in the context of the hot spots and successes highlighted in this report and further reduction opportunities identified. Assessment of innovations should include analysis of return on investment; e.g. through MAC curves which help identify cost-effective opportunities.

5. Finally, we recommend Ofcom should begin to explore use of other environmental metrics

(e.g. water) and incorporate them into a comprehensive environmental strategy. Metrics should be chosen depending on the material impacts to the business. A materiality assessment can be performed as part of the pre-work or may already be performed through Ofcom’s environmental management system.


4 Data Data was collated by Ofcom in alignment with three previous carbon audits in order to maintain consistency between the studies. Where data gaps existed suitable proxies and estimates were used to ensure the completeness of the study.

4.1 Data quality The overall data quality is robust enough to enable comparison between years and to ensure the validation of the target is robust. The table below indicates the data quality. Table 19: Data gaps and proxies

Emissions source Data quality

Annual recurring emissions sources:

Utilities Good; predominantly primary data from utility meters

Off-site servers Good; primary data provided from providers

Business Travel Flights- good: based on the distances between airports Rail- poor based on the financial spend Fleet vehicles –good; based on the actual fuel consumption Car- poor; based on financial spend UK taxi - poor; based on financial spend Overseas travel - poor; based on financial spend

Commuting Poor – based on the estimated from TFL survey

Waste Good – based on waste audit

Publications Good – based on the number of pages and the density of paper

Stationery Poor – lots of data gaps, a combination of financial and physical data, and a number of estimates to derive the weight of the products

Drinks Good – based on actual consumption

Refrigerants Good – based on actual measurement

Other gases No data was provided

One-off emissions sources:

Capital purchases Poor – based on financial spend and estimated weights

Computing materials

Good – based on physical weight of purchases

Furniture Poor – a combination of physical and financial data was used.


5 Benchmarking study A benchmarking exercise has been completed in order to compare the Ofcom office footprint (current audit for 2012/13) with similar organisations from the BFF database. The benchmarks compare emissions associated with energy and water use as well as waste.

5.1 Utilities benchmark Figure 23 presents a comparison of Ofcom with other office-based organisations specifically on energy use relative to floor space; which provides more insight than absolute carbon emissions. The results indicate that Ofcom has a lower energy use than many of the comparable organisations used in the benchmark and is comparable to the best practice identified. Figure 23: Benchmarking of GHG emissions of utilities (in tCO2e) per m2 of office space

Water consumption per staff member is comparable to typical water consumption and could be improved further to be in line with best practices. Figure 24: Benchmark of water use (in litres) per staff member

5.2 Waste benchmark Figure 25 presents the waste produced per FTE for Ofcom (current year) and similar office-based organisations. The benchmark indicates that Ofcom has a relatively high waste output; however the

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Ofcom BFF'07/08 Office 1 Office 2 Office 3 Office 4 Office 5 BestPractice

Typical

tCO

2e

heating electricity

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Ofcom BFF'07/08 Office 1 Office 2 Office 3 Office 4 Office 5 BestPractice

Typical

litre

s


proportion of the waste recycled is good but more work could be done to a) increase recycling and b) reduce waste. A waste audit is recommended to understand what type of waste is found in the bins and how this can be reduced/recycled. Figure 25: Benchmarking of waste produced per headcount

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Current BFF'07/08 Office 1 Office 2 Office 3 Office 4 Office 5

Waste Produced (kg)

RecycledWaste (kg)

Non-RecycledWaste (kg)


Appendix A: Definition of emissions scopes The most widely accepted approach is to identify and categorise emissions-releasing activities into three groups also known as scopes. The GHG protocol defines the following three scopes:

Scope 1 (Direct emissions) Activities owned or controlled by the organisation that release emissions straight into the atmosphere. Examples include emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles; emissions from chemical production in owned or controlled process equipment.

Scope 2 (Energy indirect) Emissions released into the atmosphere associated with consumption of purchased electricity, heat, steam and cooling. These are a consequence of organisation’s activities but which occur at sources not owned or controlled by the organisation.

Scope 3 (Other indirect) Emissions that are a consequence of actions, which occur at sources which are not owned or controlled by an organisation and which are not classified as scope 2 emissions. Examples of scope 3 emissions are presented in the table below.

Table: Scope 3 emissions

Upstream Downstream

1. Purchased goods and services 2. Capital goods 3. Fuel- and energy-related activities (not included in scope 1 or scope 2) 4. Upstream transportation and distribution 5. Waste generated in operations 6. Business travel 7. Employee commuting 8. Upstream leased assets

9. Downstream transportation and distribution 10. Processing of sold products 11. Use of sold products 12. End-of-life treatment of sold products 13. Downstream leased assets 14. Franchises 15. Investments


Appendix B: Input Data and Assumptions The table below shows the input data used for the study, some of which came directly from Ofcom and others derived from data supplied. Energy

Office Elec Gas Oil

kWh kWh litres

Riverside House 2,277,015 822,112 0

Project Park 26,022 0 0

Belfast 25,356 27,397 0

Glasgow 18,871 0 0

Cardiff 19,380 0 0

Birmingham 28,145 68,940 0

Haydock 13,590 57,780 0

Baldock 332,174 0 7,500

TOTAL 2,740,553 976,229 7,500

Water

Office m3

Riverside House 8572

Project Park 32

Belfast 125

Glasgow 150

Cardiff 133

Birmingham 44

Haydock 59

Baldock 747

TOTAL 9863

Off-site servers

2012/13 kWh

Hatton Cross 261,062

Woking 247,728

Total 508,790

Business travel

Name Value Units

Domestic flights 55,430 pkm

Short haul flights 1,091,098 pkm

Long haul flights 462,327 pkm

Rail 221,190 km

Bus - km

Tube - km

Fleet vehicles 78,923 litres

Car 369,874 km

Motorbike - km

Taxi 17,414 km

Overseas Car 3,051 km

Overseas Taxi 7,252 km


Commuting Value Unit

Car 483,072 veh-km

Motorbike 330,019 veh-km

Scooter 35,871

Train 7,474,935 Pass-km

Tube 1,277,923 Pass-km

Bus 215,499 Pass-km

Walk 509,499 Km

Cycle 449,474 Km

Purchases

Name Value Units

Furniture 3,688 £

Furniture 328 £

Furniture 320 £

Furniture 133 £

Furniture 1,874 £

Furniture 1,787 £

Furniture 461 kg

Furniture 306 kg

Furniture 12 kg

IT Equipment 122 kg

IT Equipment 4,406 kg

IT Equipment 98 kg

IT Equipment 69 kg

IT Equipment 42 kg

IT Equipment 1 kg

IT Equipment 2 kg

IT Equipment 44 kg

Stationery

Name Category Value Units

Riverside House Battery 6 kg

Riverside House Chemicals 129 kg

Riverside House Electronic 57 kg

Riverside House Metal 647 kg

Riverside House Paper 6,391 kg

Riverside House Plastic 2,584 kg

Riverside House Toner 3 kg

Riverside House Wood 7 kg

Riverside House Lead 1 kg

Riverside House Polypropylene 1 kg

Cardiff Electronic 2 kg

Cardiff Metal 4 kg

Cardiff Paper 6 kg

Cardiff Plastic 30 kg

Cardiff Battery 0 kg

Cardiff Lights 12 kg

Birmingham Paper 63 kg

Birmingham Plastic 9 kg

Birmingham Recycled paper 9 kg

Haydock Chemicals 40 kg

Haydock Metal 55 kg


Haydock Paper 70 kg

Haydock Plastic 16 kg

Haydock Wood 0 kg

Baldock Chemicals 383 kg

Baldock Electronic 1 kg

Baldock Metal 29 kg

Baldock Paper 255 kg

Baldock Plastic 472 kg

Baldock Toner 3 kg

Baldock Wood 0 kg

Project Park Plastic 5 kg

Project Park Recycled Paper 1 kg

Project Park Paper 156 kg

Project Park Metal 2 kg

Project Park Wood 0 kg

Publications Paper 1,847 kg

Baldock Other 41 £

Belfast Other 2,062 £

Birmingham Paper 67 £

Glasgow Glass 33 £

Glasgow Other 761 £

Glasgow Paper 86 £

Haydock Electrical 22 £

Haydock Paper 140 £

Haydock Plastic 57 £

Riverside House Plastic 509 £

Riverside House Electrical 17 £

Riverside House Other 377 £

Riverside House Paper 297 £

Drinks

Name Value Units

Milk 11,967.38 litres

Soft drinks 11,470.14 litres

Waste

Name Emission source Value Units

Riverside House Waste Recycled Paper 72,530 kg

Riverside House Waste Recycled Card 13,350 kg

Riverside House Waste Recycled Glass 3,010 kg

Riverside House Waste Recycled Toners 850 kg

Riverside House Waste Recycled Cans 375 kg

Riverside House Waste Recycled Plastic 415 kg

Riverside House Waste Incinerated General Waste 57,850 kg

Riverside House Waste Composted Food 13,330 kg

Riverside House Waste Recycled General Waste 60 kg

Riverside House Waste Recycled Batteries 6 kg

Riverside House Waste ICT equipment 2,295 kg

Baldock Waste Landfilled General Waste 2,600 kg

Baldock Waste Recycled General Waste 2,600 kg


Baldock Waste Recycled Toners 3 kg

Birmingham Waste Landfilled General Waste 8,372 kg

Birmingham Waste Recycled Paper 1,638 kg

Haydock Waste Landfilled General Waste 7,371 kg

Haydock Waste Landfilled Paper 2,184 kg

Haydock Waste Recycled Paper 455 kg

Haydock Waste Recycled Cans 3 kg

Haydock Waste Landfilled Plastics 8 kg

Haydock Waste Recycled Toners 39 kg

Glasgow Waste Landfilled General Waste 1,248 kg

Cardiff Waste Landfilled General Waste 360 kg

Cardiff Waste Recycled Paper 1,500 kg

Cardiff Waste Recycled Cans 0 kg

Cardiff Waste Recycled Plastic 2 kg

Cardiff Waste Recycled Toners 5 kg

Project Park Landfilled General Waste 2,008 kg

Belfast Landfilled General Waste 1,200 kg

Capital items

Name Value Units

Refitting/Buildings Work 114,594 £

Calorifier 182,660 £

Cars 14,972 £

Publications

kg

130gsm Paper 1783.6

300gsm Paper 63.75

Staff Numbers and Floor Areas

Floor space Headcount FTE

m2 number number

Baldock 577 33 33

Belfast 303 6 6

Birmingham 408 7 7

Cardiff 323 4 4

Glasgow 363 6 6

Merseyside 482 8 8

Project Park (London) 251 5 5

London 10,673 718 699

Home worker

15 15

Total

803 782

Carbon Audit 2012/2013 - Home - Ofcom€¦ · Figure: Presentation of carbon reduction successes...

Documents

Transcript of Carbon Audit 2012/2013 - Home - Ofcom€¦ · Figure: Presentation of carbon reduction successes...