The past year has been quite a rollercoaster in terms of responsibility work. At the beginning of the year, companies hired responsibility experts and worked hard on double materiality analysis and emissions calculations. Then OMNIBUS I came along and changed the game.
At first, everyone was confused, but when it became clear that the EU would be withdrawing its sustainability reporting requirements, companies began making decisions. Broadly speaking, the decisions made by companies can be divided into three categories:
- Pioneers and trendsetters are focusing on the opportunities presented by the green transition, now that mandatory reporting no longer takes up all their resources
- Persistent hard workers will continue their responsibility work in the usual manner
- Those who are stuck in their ways will throw in the towel and be happy that they don’t have to do anything now
It seems that responsibility and climate work are shifting from a regulation-driven model to a strategy-driven model. In practice, this means that companies for which responsibility is strategically important are doing more than regulations require. However companies whose strategies do not reflect responsibility are left waiting.
Responsibility is not just about complying with laws
Company websites and responsibility programs often mention that the company complies with legislation. This should be the basic starting point for all business activities and is not yet a matter of responsibility. Responsibility only begins when more than what is required by laws and regulations is done.
Greenhouse gas emissions are restricted, for example, by Climate Act 424/2022, Emissions Trading Act 1270/2023, and EU regulations on carbon dioxide standards for vehicles. Despite all this legislation, companies can still release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And as long as they continue to do so, global warming will continue. That is why we must do more than the law requires.
Responsibility is based on strategy, not communication
Just because the word “Responsibility” appears in the top menu of a company’s website does not prove anything. It is easy to advertise the small carbon footprint of a product or service. Unfortunately, such claims are often not backed up by concrete calculations or verified data, but are based on assumptions.
EU consumer protection legislation coming into force next year will prohibit unfounded environmental claims. However, the Green Claims Directive, which delves deeper into communication rules, is still awaiting approval. Responsibility communication without action is already seen as greenwashing.
If climate responsibility is genuinely important to a company, it should be a part of its strategy. Therefore it should also be reflected in the management’s agenda, business planning, investments, and employee compensation.
Even if legislation does not require accountability, customers can demand it
The CSRD sustainability reporting directive will directly affect a reduced number of companies in the future. However its indirect impact will be far-reaching. Large companies will be required to report on the sustainability of their supply chains and scope 3 emissions. The most reliable data is primary data obtained from the company’s supply chain. Therefore, companies are requesting emissions reports and carbon footprint calculations for products and services from companies in their supply chains.
Responsibility and climate considerations are emphasized in the procurement decisions of pioneering companies and public sector operators. Carbon footprint data may also be part of the criteria in competitive bidding. In that case, the time available for making the calculations during the bidding phase is extremely limited.
Even if regulations do not yet require emissions calculations, it is wise to prepare for customer demands in advance.
Are you more responsible than your competitors?
In our experience, most companies feel that they are more responsible than other companies – in the same way that we see ourselves as better drivers than average.
This idea may be based on choosing a favorable point of comparison. Just a few years ago, Finland argued that we should not invest too much in climate action because China continues to pollute. Now China is changing course and achieving its emission reduction targets ahead of schedule. At the same time, China’s growing investments in clean energy are fueling the country’s economic growth.
Voluntary initiatives such as CDP and Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) offer companies an excellent opportunity to benchmark their own operations against other Finnish and international companies in their industry. For example, if other companies in the industry have already set a net zero target and your company is considering whether or not to calculate scope 3 emissions, you are inevitably falling behind others.
Inspiration for your own responsibility work can also be found in the Global 100 list of the world’s most responsible companies, published annually by Corporate Knights. In 2025, the top three were French company Schneider Electric, Australian company Sims Ltd, and Danish company Vestas. Among Finnish companies, Kesko Oyj ranks 36th and Neste Oyj ranks 40th.
Responsibility fuels growth
It is quite rare to find emissions reduction and economic growth in the same sentence. However, several articles have been published on the link between responsibility and growth. In 2023, McKinsey analyzed more than 2,000 companies and concluded that companies investing in responsibility generate 2-7 percent higher in total returns for shareholders compared to other companies. Their valuations are also significantly higher than those of their peers.
The responsibility of companies in terms of climate responsibility could be evaluated based on whether the company has set climate targets and what kind of emission reduction measures it is implementing. Setting aside companies completely indifferent to climate issues, corporate climate responsibility could be assessed on the following scale:
- High negative impact: Companies whose emissions are increasing and who justify this increase with the growth of their business
- Negative impact: Companies that reduce their own emissions by less than 100% (scope 1-2 emissions)
- Neutral: Companies whose goal is to achieve the net-zero target (for scope 1-3 emissions on a fast schedule)
- Positive impact: Companies with a positive carbon footprint, i.e., companies that help other companies reduce their emissions with their own solutions (more than its own operations generate)
- High positive impact: A company whose solutions can reduce the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere (by removing carbon dioxide previously emitted into the atmosphere)
This scale will probably provoke objections as we are used to emphasizing the reduction of emissions by companies as a positive thing in our communications. Now that exceeding the 1.5-degree threshold is starting to look likely, it is time to set the zero point at the point where the increase in emissions into the atmosphere can be stopped.
In terms of responsibility, it is time to focus on achieving net zero targets in our own operations and increasing the impact of climate work. This can be done by enabling other actors to reduce their emissions and remove carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.
By focusing on positive climate impacts, we can simultaneously turn our attention to economic growth and strengthening competitiveness.
For nine years, OpenCO2net has been helping companies determine their carbon footprints and positive carbon handprints. We also help our customers implement climate transition plans and roadmaps as well as set science-based climate targets (SBT). The OpenCO2net platform provides tools and up-to-date emission factors to support companies’ climate work. Since our company was founded, we have wanted to combine emission reduction and economic growth in the same package.
