Natalia Jakubowska, trans.iNFO: Is sustainability feasible in logistics?
Achim Juechter, Head of Sustainable Logistics Offering at Forto: Yes, absolutely. A lot has changed in the last 10 to 15 years, especially in the environmental sector, but sustainability should also be considered in a broader context. Fifteen years ago, there were no solutions to many issues, whether that be from a technical or operational standpoint.
Now, the situation is different. Essentially, three criteria must be met: the solution must be available, financially viable, and sustainable. Of course, sustainability isn’t a static concept but one that has evolved over time. Today, there are technical solutions for many problems that are more sustainable than the previous status quo, such as fossil-based transport. Much focus is now on how sustainable solutions can be financially viable.
A decade ago, the willingness of customers to pay more for green transport was low. However, many customers have now adopted sustainability strategies, and the willingness to pay more for green solutions has also increased.
You mentioned the financial aspect. How much climate protection is economically viable?
This varies by company, depending on its ambition and the context in which it operates, as companies primarily aim to stay competitive. Generally, the willingness to invest has risen recently due to legal mandates.
More solutions are now feasible, particularly in road transport, where there are already zero-emission trucks or biofuels. However, options like electric trucks or fuel cell trucks are only considered affordable by very progressive customers.
Can companies operate entirely CO2-free? Is that realistic or a utopian concept?
It depends on the criteria you set. For absolute CO2 neutrality, emissions reduction would need to happen exactly where the transport occurs. The mass balance principle is also acceptable.
However, insisting that emissions be physically offset at the point of transport could be challenging. Moreover, it’s not operationally feasible or wise to implement full sustainability everywhere, for instance, outside of Central Europe, like in Africa.
Take green electricity as a simple example: the push for electricity from renewable sources has gained momentum recently because there’s no requirement for the molecule produced by a North Sea wind turbine to be used in a specific socket. What matters is that total emissions are offset, even if it doesn’t occur at the precise location of transport.
I’d like to delve deeper. Do politicians understand this approach?
Absolutely. This method is already applied in other sectors. Various standards, like the Science-Based Targets, address this issue. Ultimately, mass balancing is a matter of trust, resolvable through proven verification systems.
Our company, Forto, has every service step audited by external auditors. While this method is effective, scaling it is challenging. Hence, there’s discussion about establishing registries to make this process scalable for the future.
Why is this process challenging to scale?
Reviewing every step individually by external auditors is time-consuming and resource-intensive. It’s a significant challenge for many market companies and processes. At Forto, this auditing takes several weeks. If replicated across thousands of companies, the effort would be immense.
Is Forto exploring other innovative CO2 reduction strategies?
Yes, in two main areas: our company operations and the transport services we provide for our clients. Our own CO2 footprint is relatively small, whereas transport emissions for our clients are predominant. We’re seeing progress in various sectors, notably in using biofuels, and in developing technologies like e-fuels and power-to-liquid fuels.
However, developing these technologies sounds complex. Indeed, there are hurdles such as limited production capacities and high manufacturing costs, particularly for e-fuels. This necessitates suitable strategies, like manufacturing in sun-rich countries and transporting the products to Europe.
What common errors do companies make on the path to sustainability?
Two frequent mistakes stand out: First, waiting for a perfect solution rather than employing existing, albeit imperfect, solutions to advance sustainability. Secondly, trust, especially verified trust, in financial resource allocation is critical.
It must be transparent that the customer’s money is genuinely funding sustainable actions. The industry must maintain a trustworthy image, as a few companies not adhering to quality standards can tarnish the industry’s reputation. Generally, the industry is reputable, but it only takes a few cases to undermine this perception.
Does the industry have a greenwashing problem?
Not broadly. It’s crucial to understand that greenwashing isn’t just about claims but about the alignment of those claims with actions. In the past, bold claims about green solutions have led to accusations of greenwashing. At Forto, we strive to avoid this.
The industry is increasingly seeking to establish regulatory transparency by openly communicating its activities, benefits, and drawbacks. It’s vital not to proclaim a solution as flawless but to candidly discuss its pros and cons.
Regarding legislation, is it heading in the right direction, or could improvements be made?
Legislation requires consistency, especially for long-term investments in green initiatives. Companies need clarity on legislative developments to plan long-term investments. Political instability has deterred the industry from investing. Thus, politics should offer more stability in regulatory conditions and set clear objectives to foster trust.
Lastly, what recommendations would you give to politicians for the long-term perspective?
Achieving our sustainability targets is crucial. Politicians should consider their openness to technology. Each technology has its place and should be supported if it represents a future solution.
However, it’s essential to avoid endorsing outdated technologies like combustion engines and instead embrace and promote forward-thinking solutions.