Apple recently signed a statement with a number of companies to oppose the revision of the Scope 2 Guidelines of the Greenhouse Gas Accounting System (GHGP). Established in 1998, GHGP is widely regarded as one of the core standards for global companies to manage, record and disclose greenhouse gas emissions.
Reports pointed out that Apple’s co-signatories also include Luxshare Precision, BYD, BOE, General Motors, eBay and many other companies. The focus of the controversy is that the proposed new regulations will require companies to match hourly electricity consumption with clean energy from deliverable grid areas on an hourly basis to improve the accuracy of emissions data disclosure, avoid systematic overestimation or underestimation of emissions related to power purchase and consumption, and reduce accounting uncertainty as much as possible.
According to the proponents of the proposal, this "time-by-time matching" mechanism will create incentives for new technologies required to achieve comprehensive decarbonization of the power grid, promote proactive companies to accelerate energy transformation, and thus promote the decarbonization of a wider range of power systems.
However, Apple and dozens of companies believe that if this new reporting system is made mandatory, the results may be contrary to the original intention of the policy. The joint statement stated that the mandatory implementation of the Scope 2 amendment will discourage companies from participating in the voluntary clean energy market and weaken the role of this market, which is an important pillar for promoting decarbonization in almost all economic sectors.
The companies said they were not opposed to an update to the GHGP itself, but only if the reforms did not hinder critical investments in power decarbonisation. The co-signatories warned that if the relevant changes are implemented in a mandatory manner, it may fundamentally threaten the participation of enterprises in the voluntary market, thereby affecting the overall emission reduction process.
The joint statement also said that the proposed scope 2 amendments may push up the cost of electricity for individuals and businesses, and lead to a less efficient allocation of resources by the private sector in emissions reduction actions, ultimately slowing down decarbonization at the entire system level. As a result, these companies argue for a more flexible approach, arguing that stricter emissions disclosure rules should remain optional rather than being enforced across the board.
The report also mentioned that Apple has long been promoting environmental protection measures in a high-profile manner, often emphasizing the proportion of recycled materials in products and more environmentally friendly product packaging. Therefore, Apple’s public opposition to the relevant scope II revision is also considered to be quite rare.
This stance may mean that Apple believes that following its existing environmental protection path may be more effective than the way new regulations are set; it does not rule out that Apple judges that the implementation costs of new regulations are higher than the actual environmental benefits. In other words, Apple is worried that the new requirements are too costly at the implementation level and may not bring commensurate environmental results.