‘sustainability’ as an issue and communicating it. Beyond this, though, the real reputation challenge is increasingly likely to be the extent to which law firms – of all types and sizes – are, or are perceived to be, facilitating pollution through the services they provide to their clients. Advised Emissions Law Students for Climate Accountability has turned the spotlight on this uncomfortable dilemma. US-based LSCA published its first UK report earlier this month, with contributions from legal students at universities including Bath and Bristol. Among the findings were that London firms facilitated £1.48 trillion in fossil fuel projects between 2018 and 2022. Firms named by the report’s authors include many who, ostensibly, have been in the vanguard of those making significant operational changes and committing to robust targets with respect to net zero – including some of the first to have their carbon reduction targets validated by the SBTi. Here, then, is the key dilemma. Most firms will have limited Scope 1 and 2 emissions in practice, particularly as more people work from home and business travel becomes less frequent. Even Scope 3 emissions are likely to be marginal. Getting to grips with, and being transparent on, these areas is now ‘table stakes’. The proof in the sustainability pudding, for many stakeholders, will therefore increasingly be Scope 4 or ‘advised emissions’. That is, just what kinds of activities are facilitated by a firm’s services and how far are they compatible with the global mission to achieve the Paris Agreement and not breach 1.5 degrees of global warming? The fact that this mission is on a knife edge was hammered home by the World Meteorological Organization just a few days after LSCA published its report, alarmingly 58 LAWYER MONTHLY JULY 2023 forecasting that the 1.5 degree threshold would most likely be breached within the next five years. Climate as a Commercial Imperative This is not an ‘abstract’ for futureoriented issue. It is having commercial impact today. As evidenced by the forthright work undertaken by LSCA, today’s generation of legal talent will vote with their feet and choose to work with firms who are seen to be taking climate change seriously. Likewise, sophisticated buyers of services, including legal services, want to know how far a potential partner aligns with their values and mission and, tangibly, how far they will help or hinder their own net zero journey. I was fortunate enough to attend the Economist’s recent conference on sustainability and one anecdotal point that stuck with me was that procurement of goods and services has historically been driven by two factors: price and capability. Now, it is price, capability and contribution to sustainability goals – in equal measure. The ability to effectively communicate answers to these questions is now fundamental for firms. The Law Society’s recent guidance on climate change addresses this issue head on – highlighting the factors that such communications must consider, not least the UK’s Green Claims Code. The guidance, more generally, has stirred significant debate, but its advice in relation to advised or ‘Scope 4’ emissions is helpful – and it rightly notes the ‘increased attention’ such emissions are receiving. This is exactly the point evidenced by the LCSA. It is easy to tar a firm with the brush of hypocrisy (or, dare we say it, greenwashing) if they have claimed For most law firms, if not all, having a position on climate change is now a hygiene factor.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz