^{_{AIR TRAVEL}}
CUTTING TO THE CHASE

Businesses are under increasing pressure to reduce their travel-related carbon emissions. Above all, that means tackling air travel – particularly long-haul flights – which account for 80-90 per cent of emissions on the average business trip, according to BCD Travel.

Flying is the carbon problem that won’t go away. The European Commission says aviation is responsible for 3.8 per cent of direct global emissions. But scientists often choose to multiply air emissions volume by, typically, a factor of 1.9 because of the additional harm caused by releasing those pollutants at altitude.

Moreover, aviation is growing as a proportion of man-made emissions because, unlike other emitters, there are few solutions. The aviation industry is looking at alternative fuel sources, less kerosene-hungry aircraft and operational improvements like more efficient flight paths, but even so the European Commission quotes an estimate from the International Civil Aviation Organisation that rising global demand could treble aircraft emissions by the year 2050 against 2015 levels.

Yet there are ways for business travellers to reduce their air emissions – if they develop a plan. Indeed, the first advice travel sustainability professionals give is to create a rounded strategy instead of firing off scattergun improvements. In particular, says Andrew Perolls, CEO of the consultancy Greengage, buyers should create a hierarchy of solutions because some are much more effective, and deserve more attention, than others.

What follows here is a three-tier hierarchy, in order of carbon combat effectiveness: Fly less, fly smarter, and offset; preceded by the basics of setting up a coherent reduction strategy.

THE BASICS

“You have to make sure the foundations of your building are strong enough” before developing an emissions reduction programme, says Charlotte Manthe, head of customer success for the travel emissions reporting specialist Thrust Carbon.

Get your reporting right: Emissions reduction follows the rule that nothing can be managed if it cannot be measured. Beware that not all data providers in this sector are created equally. “Carefully review the emissions methodology you are using is made up of the data points that are most beneficial,” says Manthe. “The way you report needs to align with what you want your travellers to choose and do.”

For example, travellers can only be steered towards lower-emissions flights (see below) if the data is sufficiently granular to distinguish between different aircraft types. Likewise, carbon caps (also below) are impossible without detailed data provision.

Get buy-in: Since many of the initiatives you will introduce are based on behavioural change, you will need senior backing to push those changes through.

Get the booking technology right: Your booking tool is a key weapon in the war on emissions. Ideally, it will display carbon as well as financial costs of different booking options. Contextual messaging is helpful, for example: “Your flight generates the same carbon as is emitted by heating a three-bedroom house for an entire year.” Colour-coding or other visual cues could also work.

Perhaps most important of all is offering non-air alternatives. Ideally, the booking tool will display rail options where available, plus a link to virtual meetings technology so travel can be avoided completely.

Unfortunately, booking tools are not as advanced in sustainability support as many travel managers would like. Again, standards vary signficantly, so do shop around.

FLY LESS

“At the top of the hierarchy of emissions-reduction measures, you would ideally say 'just do not travel by air',” says Perolls.

Manthe agrees. “The quickest way to reduce emissions is not to travel,” she says. “It’s also the most controversial thing to say in the corporate travel industry where lots of people’s bills are paid by travel.”

Introduce pre-trip authorisation: Don’t let employees book a flight without first seeking clearance from a manager. Going through this process will discourage trips of dubious merit. Managers will need to be coached in what is considered an acceptable reason for travel.

Add sustainable thinking to your travel policy: There are some obvious rules to introduce, for example disallowing air where a viable rail option is available.

But guidance on when flying is or is not reasonable in preference to virtual alternatives is also critical. “The immediate target is internal travel: tell employees they can only meet their team four times a year instead of 12, for example,” says Manthe. “It does not compromise on relationships with customers, and sends a message that you are expecting a behavioural change.”

Consider carbon caps: Also known as a carbon budget, a carbon cap allocates a specified amount of travel-related emissions per employee or department which should not be exceeded within a specified period.

Travellers need clear rules on the consequences if they do go over the limit. Manthe points out that companies often impose travel bans if financial budgets are exhausted. “Why should this be any different?” she asks. “If you are trying to control your [carbon] spend, then stop if you reach the cap at a certain point of the year.”

Another option is to set carbon budgets per trip, although this works best if alternatives (rail, virtual conferencing) can be displayed that fall within the trip budget.

Consider an internal carbon tax: Also known as a carbon price or fee, booked flights are surcharged financially at a specified rate per tonne of carbon emitted. This idea has its critics, who consider it insufficient to change behaviour. For example, a “tax” of $100 per tonne in the US would only generate a surcharge of $30 on a Chicago-New York round trip.

A carbon tax could even be counter-productive. Lush Cosmetics abandoned its tax after finding employees felt better about flying because the money raised was funding good causes.

Incentivise low-carbon choices: Climate action group Possible advocates “paid journey days”. Since non-air transport alternatives take longer, allow travellers who choose slower transport modes time off in lieu. Another incentive is to pay for rail or bus passes and discount cards, though beware potential personal tax liabilities.

FLY SMARTER

If flying is unavoidable, there are still ways to make limited emissions reductions.

Adjust policy: Once again, rethinking policy can help, although there may be financial trade-offs. One example is requiring travellers to fly directly. Since take-off and landing are particularly emissions-heavy, one flight is better environmentally than two and the route is usually shorter. However, direct tickets are often more expensive.

Many travel professionals (though not all) also believe flying economy is greener because it takes up less space on an aircraft.

Pick the right aircraft: Modern aircraft are more fuel-efficient, so there is arguably (since the environmental impact of building a new plane must also be taken into account) good reason to favour them. Here is an example of how it makes a difference:

Example emissions

London Heathrow-New York JFK one-way, economy class, flying on 8 September 2023

_{Source: Thrust Carbon}

Buyers will need to think through the consequences for their sourcing strategy if urging travellers to pick the lowest-carbon option. For example the fare could be higher, or it may be on a non-preferred airline, diverting spend from a negotiated agreement.