For starters, let's stop calling it "low-carbon supply chains" and start referring to it as "low energy-cost supply chains." By Will Sarni

Recently there have been a number of stories on opportunities to reduce carbon emissions in supply chains and how companies are moving slowly to take action. New research by McKinsey, based upon a survey of over 2,000 global executives, indicates that most companies don't factor emissions into purchasing decisions.

I believe there is a lack of clarity regarding the real issues here.

First, let's stop calling it "low-carbon supply chains" and start referring to it as "low energy-cost supply chains" - that should get the c-suite's attention. Despite fluctuations in the price of a barrel of oil, transportation costs are going up. Global supply chains built upon cheap oil decades ago need to be re-examined and several companies such as P&G are doing just that.

Secondly, determining a businesses carbon footprint does not stop at the fence line. Upstream energy use, material use, and carbon emissions are part of the equation now. While some senior executives may not yet have absorbed this, the trend is still clear: A carbon footprint does include your upstream impacts - it's no longer optional.

So why are companies so slow to change? Organizational change is typically a slow process. Recognizing that cheap oil is a thing of the past and that a carbon footprint is a real metric that will be used to gauge the operating efficiency (in addition to the regulatory exposure) of a business will not come easily to many companies. However, forward-thinking performers such as P&G will likely become the winners in a carbon-constrained (not to mention high-cost-of-oil) world.

__________

Will Sarni is CEO of sustainability consulting firm DOMANI. He is also SLM's expert-in-residence on climate strategy and the host of Climate Management Weekly.