Lithuania's state-controlled energy group Ignitis has proposed postponing the country's first offshore wind farm, a 700 MW project in the Baltic Sea expected to cost about EUR 3 billion. In a statement issued on 21 October, Ignitis Group and its subsidiary Ignitis Renewables said they would ask the energy and finance ministries to adjust the implementation schedule, while keeping the option to restart the project later. The proposal follows a review by the National Audit Office, which found that market changes since 2023 have raised the project's cost by 27% and cut its projected returns by 40%. The audit office recommended that a decision on whether to continue be taken by the end of the year. The Seimas Audit Committee has since asked the government to coordinate the process and asked the Energy Ministry to lead an assessment of the project's prospects. Ignitis has set out three options in its cost-benefit analysis. The first is to freeze the project. The second is to look for partners in neighbouring countries and for European Union funding. The third is to go ahead as planned while raising the final electricity tariff paid by consumers. Ministries are expected to make a final decision by the end of 2026. The company says preparatory work continues. A construction permit is expected soon, and Ignitis Renewables is continuing the work needed to secure a construction permit in 2027. Ignitis Group chief executive Darius Maikstenas stressed the need for stable renewable generation and for choosing the path that creates the most value. Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevicius said Lithuania would not rush its offshore wind decisions or pursue economically unjustified state projects. The episode shows how the economics of offshore wind have shifted across Europe in recent years, with higher costs for materials, financing and construction weighing on projects that were planned when conditions were more favourable. For Lithuania, the stakes are practical as well as financial. The country has been working to reduce its reliance on imported electricity and to build domestic clean generation, and a large offshore farm was meant to be a cornerstone of that effort. A delay does not cancel that goal, but it does postpone the generation capacity and the emissions benefits that come with it. The decision is also a test of public governance. An independent audit has put numbers on the risk, a parliamentary committee has asked for coordination, and the state-owned developer itself is recommending caution. How the ministries weigh consumer tariffs against climate and energy security objectives will signal how the country balances public money, household bills and its clean energy ambitions. Ignitis has made clear that a freeze would be reversible, which leaves room for a revised project, a regional partnership or EU co-funding to bring the farm back on firmer financial footing. Why it matters Delaying 700 MW of offshore wind pushes back clean generation that would help displace fossil power and cut emissions. Pausing is not the same as abandoning, but every year of delay adds to the gap between climate targets and delivered capacity. The challenge is to restructure the project so it can be built affordably rather than lose its climate benefit altogether.

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) now applies only to very large companies. Under the Omnibus I simplification, EU companies must employ more than 1,000 people on average and have net annual turnover above €450 million. Those in scope publish a sustainability statement in their annual report, prepared under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). UK companies are not covered directly, but some are caught through EU subsidiaries or EU turnover. Much of what ranks on Google still describes the older, broader rules, so check any guide for its date. This one reflects the position in October 2026. Key takeaways The CSRD scope is now above 1,000 employees and above €450 million net annual turnover. Many companies that expected to report are out of scope. Non-EU groups are caught when they generate more than €450 million net turnover in the EU. Being in the UK does not exempt you on its own. In-scope companies report under the ESRS, built on double materiality: the company’s impact on people and the environment, and sustainability risks to the company. Sector-specific reporting is voluntary, and the reports are meant to be more quantitative. UK reporting is a separate regime: the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards are available for voluntary use, and private companies are not yet required to report against them. What the CSRD is The CSRD is EU Directive 2022/2464. It replaced the earlier non-financial reporting rules with a more detailed regime. As the European Commission explains, the rules require large and listed companies to publish regular reports on the social and environmental risks they face, and on how their activities affect people and the environment. Three features set it apart from voluntary ESG reporting: A fixed standard. Reports follow the ESRS rather than a framework the company picks. Placement in the management report. The sustainability statement sits beside the financial information. It is not a separate glossy brochure. Assurance. The information is subject to independent assurance, with the level of rigour increasing over time. If you want the longer background, our guide to CSRD reporting: who must report, what to include and how to start covers it in more depth. Who must comply: the current thresholds The original directive reached far more companies, including those with more than 250 employees. Omnibus I narrowed this sharply. The Council’s final sign-off in February 2026 raised the thresholds, and the European Parliament’s legislative tracker confirms the same test. Type of company Test under the simplified CSRD EU company More than 1,000 employees on average and net annual turnover above €450 million Non-EU company Net turnover above €450 million generated within the EU Note the word “and” for EU companies. A business with 3,000 staff but €300 million of turnover is outside the scope. So is a €600 million business with 800 employees. Timing and the wave-one exemption Companies that were already reporting from the 2024 financial year (wave one) are treated separately. Under the Council’s final text, wave-one companies that fall below the new thresholds can benefit from an exemption for the 2025 and 2026 financial years. For companies newly in scope, one UK-based explainer puts the first reporting year at the 2027 financial year. Confirm your own date against the Directive text or with your auditor, because transposition details differ by member state. Why small companies still get asked for data The narrower scope reduces the pressure on suppliers. Smaller companies are now shielded from reporting beyond voluntary standards, which should ease the flow of detailed data requests that many expected. Still, large customers, banks and investors may ask for similar information on their own terms. A supplier with tidy emissions and workforce data will answer those requests faster, whatever the law says. What in-scope companies must report The ESRS Reports for in-scope entities must be prepared in line with the ESRS. The standards cover environment, social and governance topics, plus cross-cutting requirements that apply to every company. Topics include climate change, pollution, water, biodiversity, circular economy, your own workforce, workers in the value chain, affected communities, consumers and business conduct. Omnibus I changed two things in practice: Reports are intended to be more quantitative, with less narrative description. Sector-specific standards are now voluntary rather than mandatory. The policy aim, according to the Parliament’s legislative tracker, is to ease reporting fatigue and keep reports useful for decisions. For the background to the standards themselves, see our piece on the path towards ESRS adoption. Double materiality The ESRS do not ask you to report everything. You report what is material, and “material” is judged in two directions: Impact materiality: how your operations and value chain affect people and the environment. Financial materiality: how sustainability issues create risks or opportunities for your finances. A topic is reportable if it passes either test. Training practitioners consistently warn that teams underestimate the effort a double materiality assessment takes, and it remains the step that decides everything downstream, even under the simplified rules. Our practical guide to double materiality assessment walks through the method, and this overview of the concept is a gentler starting point. Format and assurance The statement must be human-readable and machine-readable. That means digital tagging, so your data needs to be structured from the start rather than copied out of a document at the last minute. Assurance means an independent party will test your figures, so each number needs an owner, a source and a calculation you can reproduce. Does the CSRD apply to UK companies? There is no UK version of the CSRD. UK sustainability reporting runs on a separate track. According to the government’s consultation response on the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards, UK SRS S1 and S2 are based on ISSB standards and are available for voluntary use. Private companies are not yet required to report against them, as the government plans to consult on a modernised corporate reporting framework. The CSRD can still reach a UK business in a few ways: You own an EU subsidiary that is itself above the thresholds, or an EU sub-group that is. Your securities are listed on an EU regulated market and you meet the same size test. Your EU turnover is above €450 million. For non-EU companies, this is the test that matters. A UK parent whose EU activity is modest will generally find itself outside the CSRD. Run the numbers on EU net turnover before you assume either way, and ask your legal adviser to confirm the position for each EU entity. A practical way to prepare Whether you are in scope or preparing voluntarily, the order of work is roughly the same. Confirm scope. Check employees and turnover at entity and group level, and EU turnover if you are headquartered outside the EU. Map your value chain and stakeholders. Decide who is affected by you, and who you depend on. Run the double materiality assessment. Document the method, thresholds and sign-off. Auditors will ask for the evidence. Find your data gaps. Compare what the material ESRS datapoints require with what you can actually evidence today. Assign owners. Finance, HR, operations and procurement each hold part of the data. Build the controls. Treat sustainability data like financial data, with review steps and an audit trail. Run a dry-run report before the first real one, ideally with your assurance provider involved. Even a company outside the scope can use steps 1 to 4. They show where the real risks and efficiencies sit. Treat it as more than compliance Experts advise against seeing the CSRD purely as a box-ticking exercise. Organisations that fold sustainability data into their financial controlling systems satisfy assurance requirements and gain insight into resource efficiency and risk. That same discipline shapes how investors read you. Sustainability-minded companies increasingly present themselves to funders through investor-facing profiles such as this one, and credible, well-controlled data supports that story. Common mistakes Using out-of-date guidance. Many pages still cite the 250-employee test or the old timetable. Leaving materiality to the sustainability team alone. Finance and operations need to be in the room, since the financial-materiality half is about money. Starting data collection before scoping the topics. You gather far too much and still miss what matters. Ignoring value-chain data. Some ESRS topics reach beyond your own operations. Underestimating assurance. Weak documentation shows up only when an auditor asks for it. Training for your team The CSRD touches finance, legal, HR and operations, so one person cannot carry it. At Exereco we run ESG training courses alongside our reporting software, advisory support and news coverage of Europe and Africa. If your team needs a grounding in responsibility and reporting practice, start with our Corporate Social Responsibilities course, or get in touch through our homepage to discuss advisory support or reporting software. If you are comparing training options, look for these features, whoever delivers the course: Hands-on double materiality work, not only slides. Coverage of the ESRS as revised, not the original 2023 text. Practical exercises on data collection and assurance readiness. Content updated for Omnibus I. Our earlier explainer on the EU’s FAQs on CSRD compliance is also useful for interpretation questions. FAQ What is the CSRD? The CSRD is an EU directive requiring large companies to publish audited sustainability information in their annual reports. It covers environmental, social and governance topics, reported under the ESRS. The Commission’s overview describes the aim as giving a clearer picture of risks and impacts. What are the CSRD thresholds now? For EU companies, the thresholds are more than 1,000 employees on average and net annual turnover above €450 million. Non-EU companies are caught if they generate more than €450 million net turnover in the EU. Both figures come from the Council’s February 2026 decision. Is ESG reporting mandatory in the UK? Not under the CSRD, and the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards are currently voluntary. Private companies are not yet required to report against them. Listed companies and large firms may have other disclosure duties, so ask your legal or audit adviser about your own position. Do I still need a double materiality assessment if I am out of scope? Not as a legal duty under the CSRD. It is still the most useful way to see which sustainability issues affect your business and which of your impacts matter. Many companies run one voluntarily to answer customer, lender and investor questions. Is sector-specific reporting still required? No. Under the updated rules, sector-specific standards are voluntary. In-scope companies focus on the core ESRS disclosures that their materiality assessment identifies. Recommended CSRD Reporting: Who Must Report, What to Include and How to Start Streamlining Corporate Sustainability Reporting: EU’s New FAQs to Simplify Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) Compliance EBA Cuts ESG Reporting Burden for Large Banks While Extending Disclosure to Smaller Institutions for the First Time The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) - The Path Towards Adoption

The environmental association ZERO has called on the Algarve to expand the waste treatment facilities it already has rather than turn to incineration, according to The Portugal News. Its proposals were put to the Environment Minister and centre on upgrading the region's two mechanical and biological treatment plants, known as MBT plants, so that less rubbish ends up in landfill. ZERO wants Algar, the company responsible for waste management in the Algarve, to upgrade and expand those plants. The association prefers this route to building new facilities for mixed waste that cannot be separated at source, and it notes that finding sites for new installations could cause political difficulties. It also sees an immediate priority in separating household waste from business waste. Environmental engineer Rui Berkemeier said businesses producing more than 1,100 litres of municipal-type waste per day, including hotels and other economic activities, should have their own waste management arrangements. He believes the Algarve is not fully enforcing that requirement, which adds pressure on landfill sites. Food scraps and other biodegradable waste are the second concern. MBT can process this material before disposal, which helps limit odours, methane emissions and wastewater that is harder to treat. ZERO considers Algar's Urban Waste Action Plan, known as PAPERSU, inadequate because the proposed arrangements would leave around 70,000 tonnes of waste untreated. Berkemeier said organic waste should not continue to go to landfill untreated. The debate has a concrete trigger. An Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Algarve Regional Coordination and Development Commission gave a conditional favourable decision for Cell D, a new section of the Sotavento Sanitary Landfill in Loulé. Cell D is expected to hold about 875,000 tonnes of waste, with annual deposits of 150,000 tonnes and an estimated operational life of five to eight years. During public consultation, ZERO and the environmental association Almargem raised concerns about untreated organic waste entering landfills and about shortcomings in collection and sorting systems. According to the assessment, depositing waste with an unstable organic fraction breaches the legal framework for landfill disposal, and ZERO says this supports banning the deposit of mixed waste containing biodegradable material without prior treatment. ZERO also criticises the Environment Minister for publicly backing incineration without mentioning MBT as an alternative. Berkemeier said the minister told the meeting that all solutions remained under consideration. The association wants the study planned by the Portuguese Environment Agency, APA, to examine the treatment systems already operating in the Algarve, as well as alternatives that have worked elsewhere in Portugal, including the Alentejo. In its view, reinforcing existing infrastructure and improving organic waste handling should be properly assessed before any decision on new facilities or incineration. The question ZERO is putting to the authorities is a practical one: whether the largest gain lies in making existing plants work harder, and keeping organic waste out of landfill, before committing to new capacity or a different technology altogether. Why it matters Landfilled food waste is a quiet source of methane, and the Algarve case shows that the cheapest climate gain is often the least glamorous one. Treating organic waste before it reaches Cell D would cut emissions, odours and leachate with infrastructure that already exists. For regions weighing incineration, ZERO's argument is a reminder to assess what current plants can do first.

Renewable energy supplied 18.8 per cent of Malta's energy consumption in 2025, according to the latest provisional Eurostat data, a figure that brings the country close to one-fifth of its total. Coverage by Maltese newspapers, including The Malta Independent and Lovin Malta, reported the announcement on Wednesday, when the government said the result reflected significant progress towards cleaner energy. The share is up 1.6 percentage points from 17.2 per cent in 2024. Over a longer horizon the change is larger. In 2012, renewables accounted for less than 3 per cent of Malta's consumption, so the share has risen more than sixfold in 13 years, according to the government. Environment and Energy Minister Miriam Dalli welcomed the figures and credited the households and businesses that are investing in cleaner energy technologies. She said the transition must deliver tangible benefits for people, including more affordable renewable energy, lower energy costs for families and businesses, and stronger energy security. The data also place Malta ahead of several other European Union member states. Belgium recorded 14.9 per cent, Slovakia 16.3 per cent and Ireland 17.2 per cent. The government noted that Malta achieved this despite geographical constraints and its small size, which make it harder to expand renewable infrastructure than in larger countries with more space. The government attributed the increase to targeted financial incentives, support schemes and investments that have encouraged households, businesses and industries to adopt renewable technologies. That framing matters, because it ties the progress to policy design rather than to a single project or a favourable year. The figure is another step towards Malta's national target of a 25 per cent renewable share by 2030. Reaching it means adding a further 6.2 percentage points over the next five years, which is a slower required pace than the 1.6 points gained in the latest year, but one that still depends on finding room for new capacity on a densely populated island. The numbers are provisional and may be revised when Eurostat finalises its data, so the exact share could shift. For now they show a country that began the last decade near the bottom of European renewable rankings and has built a steady record of improvement, with the harder part of the climb, deployment constrained by space and grid capacity, still ahead. Why it matters A share that went from under 3 per cent to 18.8 per cent in 13 years shows that policy incentives can move an energy system even where land is scarce. The next 6.2 points will be harder, because the easy rooftops are used first. For other small and island economies, Malta is a case study in what support schemes can achieve and where they run out.

Prolonged drought has exposed house foundations, abandoned roads and the remains of a river crossing at the Orlík reservoir in Czechia, Expats.cz reports. The features had spent decades mostly underwater. Visitors can now explore the remains of Podolsko, a settlement lost when the Vltava valley became part of a major water project, beneath the concrete arch of Podolský Bridge. The foundations mark where families lived beside the river. In September, Czech Radio revisited former resident Pavel Smrt, who identified his childhood home's kitchen, cellars and garage entrance, and recalled residents dismantling their homes as the water rose. The settlement's historic chain bridge was taken down before the flooding and rebuilt over the Lužnice River, where it survives as the Stádlec Bridge. Remnants of its original crossing are now visible at Orlík. In early September, Czech media reported that Orlík had hit a historic low, about 15 metres below its usual level. The drop revealed remnants of several former communities, as well as weirs, industrial structures and wartime fortifications. Other exposed sites include a settlement below Zvíkov Castle, the foundations of a former hotel near Červená nad Vltavou, and the remains of a hydroelectric plant that once supplied the Protivín brewery. An earlier iDNES.cz account estimated that about 1,600 people had to move and that 500 to 600 buildings stood in the flooded area. Many homes were demolished before the valley filled, which is why visitors find foundations rather than intact streets. Behind the curiosity sits a water-management problem. Orlík helps sustain downstream Vltava flows in dry periods by releasing stored water when natural inflows fall short. By early September, falling levels had led to the use of reserves from the Slapy reservoir to support those flows. On 7 October, Central Bohemian authorities declared a water-shortage situation affecting the Vltava and Elbe in the relevant part of the region. They also approved measures allowing the minimum release at Vrané to drop from 35 to as low as 20 cubic metres per second, if needed. The Agriculture Ministry said the goal was to slow further declines at Slapy and possibly Orlík until rainfall improves. Existing permitted water uses were not restricted at the time of the announcement. The result is a rare view into the valley's lost communities, and a measure of how much stored water has already been used to keep the river flowing. Why it matters The reappearing village is a vivid image, but the number that matters is the 15 metres. A reservoir that has to be drawn down to keep a river alive is a buffer being spent, and buffers do not refill on demand. Czechia's case shows why drought planning needs to treat storage as a finite climate-adaptation asset.

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a list of your emission sources and the emissions each one produces, calculated using standardised methods. Countries compile them too, such as the UK’s national inventory, but this guide is about the organisation-level version: the one a company, council or charity builds to understand its footprint, meet reporting duties and decide where to cut first. Below you will find the steps, the scopes, the data you need, the UK rules that make an inventory mandatory for some businesses, and how to check the result before anyone outside sees it. Key takeaways An organisational inventory quantifies emissions and removals within boundaries you define, for a set period, using a recognised method. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is the usual foundation. Start with boundaries and a base year. Most errors in later years trace back to a vague boundary set at the start. In the UK, large companies must disclose energy use and emissions under SECR. Even a business below the lowest energy threshold has a statement to make. Default emission factors get you started, but they are averages. Replace them with your own data where you can, and document every choice. Verification is easier when your inventory is traceable: every number should lead back to an invoice, meter reading or supplier record. What a greenhouse gas inventory actually covers An inventory has three ingredients: a boundary (what is in), activity data (litres of diesel, kWh of electricity, kilometres flown) and emission factors that convert that activity into tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). Most inventories cover the seven gases under the Kyoto framework: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. Each is converted to CO2e using its global warming potential, so a tonne of methane and a tonne of CO2 can be added into one figure. The purpose is practical. An inventory shows where your emissions sit, which gives you a baseline for targets, evidence for customers and lenders who ask for it, and the data for regulatory disclosure. National inventories versus organisational ones Search results for this topic are dominated by national reports: the UK’s inventory, the EU’s annual submission and the US EPA’s report. Governments produce these under the UN climate framework, and they follow national and IPCC methods. Your organisation’s inventory is separate. It follows corporate standards, covers only your activities and value chain, and is not submitted to those national processes. Do not mix up the two, and do not use national totals to size your own footprint. The GHG Protocol standard and why it matters The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard sets out requirements and guidance for companies and other organisations preparing a corporate-level inventory. It is the most widely used accounting framework in the world. If you want the background on how it developed, our piece on the evolution of the GHG Protocol standards is a good companion. One point trips up first-timers. The standard is a method, not a reporting portal. The Protocol is designed to sit alongside existing programmes, whether voluntary ones such as CDP or mandatory ones such as SECR. Following it does not mean you have submitted anything to anyone. You apply the method, then report the output where it is required. The five accounting principles KPMG’s 2024 handbook on GHG reporting lists the five principles that underpin the standard: relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency and accuracy. They borrow from financial accounting, and they work as a checklist when you review your own draft: Principle Question to ask your draft Relevance Does the boundary reflect how the business really operates? Completeness Are all sources inside the boundary counted, and exclusions explained? Consistency Can this year be compared with last year’s, using the same method? Transparency Could an outsider follow your assumptions and sources? Accuracy Is the data as precise as you can reasonably make it? Building the inventory step by step The US EPA describes four broad stages: set boundaries and a base year, collect activity data and quantify emissions, formalise procedures in a management plan, then set reduction targets and report progress. Here is how that looks in practice. 1. Set the organisational boundary Decide how you consolidate emissions from entities you own or partly own. The Protocol allows an equity share approach or a control approach (financial or operational). Pick one, write down why, and keep it. A group with joint ventures will get very different totals depending on this choice. 2. Set the operational boundary and scopes Classify emissions by source, then sort them into scopes: Scope 1: direct emissions from sources you own or control, such as gas boilers, company vehicles and refrigerant leaks. Scope 2: indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat or cooling. Scope 3: all other indirect emissions in your value chain, from purchased goods and business travel to waste and the use of what you sell. Most organisations begin with scopes 1 and 2, which are easier to measure and where you have direct control. Scope 3 is often the largest share but the hardest to measure. Add it in stages, starting with the categories that are likely to matter most: purchased goods, travel and commuting, or waste. 3. Choose a base year Pick a recent year with reliable data. Later years are compared against it, and you will need a policy for recalculating the base year if you acquire a business, sell one or discover a significant error. 4. Collect activity data This is where most of the work lies. Typical sources: Gas, electricity and heat bills or half-hourly meter data. Fuel card records and mileage claims for vehicles. Refrigerant top-up logs from maintenance contractors. Travel booking records for flights, rail and hotels. Waste and water contractor statements. Assign one person to own each data stream. Record where each number came from, so you can retrace it a year later. 5. Apply emission factors Multiply activity data by the right factor. For UK operations, the usual source is the government’s annual conversion factor set. The 2025 methodology paper describes factors for fuels, electricity, vehicles and business travel, water, waste and refrigerants, and notes that methane and nitrous oxide factors are now aligned with AR5 global warming potentials. Use the release that matches your reporting year, and check for a newer one before you finalise. A simple worked example: if a site used 100,000 kWh of grid electricity, you multiply by the published location-based factor for that year. The result is your Scope 2 figure in kg or tonnes CO2e. Do the same for each source and sum them. 6. Calculate, review and document Total each scope separately, and never net one against another. Record the gases covered, the factor set and version, any exclusions and why, and the estimation methods you used where data was missing. This documentation is what a verifier will ask for first. Default factors and their limits Default factors are a sensible starting point, especially for a first inventory. They are national or global averages, though, and may not match your fuel mix or process. The GHG Protocol’s calculation tools are Excel spreadsheets with step-by-step guidance covering particular sectors and processes, and they are worth a look if your operations are industrial. Where you have supplier-specific or site-specific data, use it, note the source, and keep it consistent year on year. UK reporting rules: when an inventory is a legal duty For some UK businesses, a GHG inventory is not optional. Under Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR), quoted companies and large unquoted companies or LLPs that meet at least two of three criteria must report energy use and emissions in the annual Directors’ Report. The criteria quoted in that guidance are more than 250 employees, turnover above £36 million, or balance sheet assets above £18 million. Thresholds under company law can be revised, so check the current figures with your finance team or auditor before relying on these. Three practical points: Minimum content. Large unquoted companies report annual UK energy use and associated emissions for gas, purchased electricity and transport fuel, plus an intensity ratio and an efficiency narrative. Quoted companies report a wider range. The de minimis trap. An entity using less than 40 MWh of energy a year is exempt from the full disclosure, but the same guidance says it must still state that its consumption is below the threshold. Exempt does not mean silent. Filing. A digital SECR taxonomy lets businesses report energy and carbon data when they file digital accounts with Companies House. The government’s own evaluation of the SECR framework describes its purpose as encouraging companies to collect and report energy, carbon and efficiency information so they can improve. A good inventory built to the GHG Protocol will normally give you everything SECR needs and more. If you also operate in the EU, the rules differ. Our explainer on the EU’s new FAQs on CSRD compliance is a useful starting point, and our article on GRI climate disclosures covers another common framework. A simple inventory template structure You do not need specialist software to begin. A spreadsheet with the following tabs will carry a small or mid-sized organisation through its first year: Boundary and methodology: consolidation approach, scopes included, base year, gases, exclusions with reasons. Activity data: one row per source and period, with units, source document and data owner. Emission factors: factor name, value, unit, publisher, version and year. Calculations: activity multiplied by factor, by source, by gas where relevant. Summary: totals by scope, intensity ratios (for example tCO2e per £ million turnover, per employee or per square metre) and year-on-year change. Change log: boundary changes, recalculations, data corrections. Lock the factor tab once a year’s figures are final, so nobody quietly changes a value later. When data volumes grow, multiple sites or scope 3 categories make spreadsheets fragile, and that is the point to consider dedicated reporting software. Checking and verifying your inventory Verification means an independent party reviews your inventory against a standard and tests whether it is reliable. Not every organisation needs it. SECR does not require independent assurance of the figures, but lenders, customers or your own board may ask for it, and voluntary programmes may favour it. Whether or not you pay for assurance, prepare the same way: Trace a sample of figures from the summary back to invoices or meter reads. Check units: kWh versus MWh and litres versus cubic metres are classic slips. Confirm the right factor year was applied to the right activity year. Make sure no source is double counted, such as transport fuel in both Scope 1 and Scope 3. Explain every exclusion in writing. Compare with last year and explain movements of more than a few per cent. A verifier will test your documentation as much as your arithmetic. If the audit trail is clear, the process is quicker and cheaper. Common mistakes to avoid Shifting boundaries. Changing what is in scope each year makes trends meaningless. Recalculate the base year when you must, and say so. Relying only on defaults. Averages hide real differences between sites and suppliers. Improve the data where the emissions are largest. Mixing methods. Report location-based and market-based electricity emissions separately, and be explicit about which you are quoting. Ignoring Scope 3 completely. You may start without it, but screen it and say what you plan to add. Treating the inventory as a one-off. A single year tells you where you stand. Repeating it tells you whether actions work. From inventory to action Once the baseline is set, rank sources by size and by how much control you have. Heating, fleet and electricity usually give the fastest cuts. Set targets against the base year, assign owners and report progress annually using the same method. Some organisations link pay to these goals, which we looked at in what happens when bonuses are tied to emissions reduction. Build the skills in-house with Exereco If your team is taking on its first inventory, we run training that covers the method from boundaries to calculation. See our emissions and greenhouse gas accounting course and the GHG emissions course overview. For wider support, including ESG reporting software, advisory and training for organisations in Europe and Africa, visit Exereco. FAQ What is a greenhouse gas inventory? It is a quantified list of an entity’s emission sources and the emissions from each, calculated with standardised methods. The entity can be a country, a city or an organisation. Organisations use it to manage climate risk, find reductions and meet reporting requirements. How do you calculate a GHG inventory? Define your boundaries and base year, gather activity data such as fuel and electricity use, then multiply each by an emission factor to get tCO2e. Sum the results by scope and document your method and sources. Most organisations follow the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. Is SECR reporting mandatory in the UK? Yes, for quoted companies and for large unquoted companies and LLPs that meet at least two of the three size criteria set out in government guidance. Smaller businesses are outside the full requirement, though an entity below the 40 MWh de minimis level must still state that in its Directors’ Report. Check current thresholds with your adviser or auditor. Does a GHG inventory need to be verified? Not by default. SECR does not require independent assurance, but customers, lenders or voluntary programmes may ask for it. Preparing a clear audit trail from the start makes any later verification faster. Recommended Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Accounting Charting a Sustainable Path: The Evolution of GHG Protocol Standards GHG Emissions Carbon Footprint Reduction

The world agreed in 2022 to halt and reverse the loss of nature by 2030. Four years on, the United Nations says the effort is behind schedule, and governments are heading into a pivotal conference in Yerevan, Armenia, hoping to reset it. COP17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity runs from 19 to 30 October 2026 and will carry out the first global review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The framework sets 23 targets for 2030, from protecting land and sea to restoring damaged ecosystems, cutting harmful subsidies and mobilising money for nature. According to the Convention's Secretariat, the first report on progress, called the State of Biodiversity Action, was considered at two preparatory meetings held in Nairobi in July and August: the scientific advisory body, SBSTTA-28, and the implementation body, SBI-7. It shows both effort and a gap. A record 130 Parties, over 70 percent, submitted national reports, and 172 Parties, almost 90 percent, submitted national targets. Yet participation is not the same as delivery. The report finds that conservation targets show promising efforts, while the targets that make action possible are lagging. These include mobilising resources, repurposing harmful subsidies and ensuring inclusive governance. Astrid Schomaker, the Convention's Executive Secretary, said that fewer than half of the aligned national targets assessed by Parties are currently on track. Other coverage of the draft report reported that only one of the 23 targets, on limiting climate impacts on biodiversity, was judged on track, and even then not quickly enough. Money is the sharpest fault line. The framework calls for at least 200 billion US dollars a year to be mobilised for biodiversity by 2030, and negotiators at Yerevan will be working to close an annual funding shortfall that the Earth Negotiations Bulletin puts at 700 billion dollars when harmful incentives are included. Delegates are also expected to settle a permanent arrangement for the financial mechanism and to review the Cali Fund, which is meant to channel contributions from companies that use genetic sequence data from nature. The Secretariat noted that discussions on the Cali Fund were intense. There was progress in Nairobi too. Parties reached broad consensus on recommendations for sustainable wildlife management, marine and coastal conservation and synthetic biology, and they advanced the first update since 2004 of the programme of work on protected areas. Those recommendations now feed into COP17. For readers of sustainability reporting, the lesson is that nature is increasingly a question of economics and governance, not only conservation. The State of Biodiversity Action report points to the largest gaps in biodiversity finance, harmful subsidies, business impacts and dependencies on nature, and sustainable consumption. These are areas where companies, banks and regulators have a direct role, and where reporting standards on nature-related risks are becoming part of mainstream disclosure. Schomaker has described the task awaiting negotiators in Yerevan as one that will take all the stamina and determination Parties can summon. Whether the conference produces a genuine reset will depend on commitments that can be tracked: new money, subsidy reform with dates attached, and national plans that match the scale of the targets. With the 2030 deadline now closer than the 2022 agreement, the room for gradual progress is shrinking. Why it matters The nature goals were never going to be met by good intentions alone. Halfway to 2030, the gap is in money, subsidies and governance, the unglamorous machinery that decides whether protection is real. COP17 matters because it is the first time governments must look at their own results in public and say what changes next.

Internal carbon pricing means your organisation puts its own money value on each tonne of greenhouse gas it emits, then uses that number in everyday decisions. You can use it as a hypothetical figure in investment appraisals (a shadow price) or as a real charge on business units (an internal carbon fee). Either way, the aim is the same: make emissions visible in the language finance teams already speak. This guide covers how the two approaches differ, how to pick a price per tonne, how to roll one out without a revolt in the finance team, and what UK reporting rules now say about it. Key takeaways A shadow price changes how projects are scored on paper. An internal fee moves real money between budgets. Most organisations start with the first and graduate to the second. The price should be anchored to something defensible: a regulatory price, the social cost of carbon or your own abatement costs. Revisit it every year. Start with the best emissions data you have. The pricing exercise itself will improve the data. Under UK SRS S2, based on the ISSB standard, the way you apply a carbon price in decisions and the price per tonne are both disclosure items. If fee revenue vanishes into general funds, staff treat the fee as a tax. Ring-fence it for decarbonisation projects. What internal carbon pricing actually is An internal carbon price is a value an organisation sets voluntarily to account for the economic cost of its own emissions. Nobody forces you to adopt one, which is why it is called internal. Ramboll’s beginner’s guide describes it as a tool that lets a business assign a monetary value to its own carbon emissions, and notes that mechanisms vary widely between businesses and sectors. The point is not carbon accounting. You already count tonnes. The point is decision-making. According to the Policy Levers Library, a price translates abstract climate targets into financial metrics, so that emissions become an explicit factor in capital expenditure budgeting rather than an afterthought. Think of a simple case. Two boiler replacements cost almost the same upfront. One gas boiler will emit far more over fifteen years. Without a carbon price, the spreadsheet shows two similar options. With a price of, say, £100 per tonne, the difference in lifetime emissions becomes a line in the cost comparison, and the choice looks different. Shadow price or internal carbon fee? The two conventional methods are carbon charges and shadow prices. Both set an explicit price per tonne. They differ in what happens next. Shadow price Internal carbon fee What it is A hypothetical cost added to project appraisals A real charge levied on business units for their emissions Does cash move? No Yes Typical use Capital investment decisions, scenario analysis, stress-testing Changing day-to-day operating behaviour, funding decarbonisation Data needed Project-level emissions estimates Reliable emissions data attributed to each business unit Main risk Ignored if it never changes a decision Resentment if seen as a tax Where it fits Early stage Mature stage The Carbon Trust explains that a shadow price stress-tests projects against future carbon-constrained markets without moving cash, and reports it is used by over 60% of CDP reporting companies. Internal fees, by contrast, charge business units for their emissions, and the proceeds are typically reinvested into company-wide decarbonisation projects. A hybrid is common Many organisations run both. A shadow price governs big, long-lived investments such as plant, buildings and fleets. A smaller fee applies to operating emissions such as business travel or energy use. The two can use the same figure or different ones, but you should be able to explain why. Which should you start with? The same Carbon Trust analysis points to a common evolution: begin with a shadow price for long-term capex stress-testing, to avoid stranded assets, and move to a fee only once emissions data collection is robust across all scopes. Starting with a fee too early tends to create internal resistance, because it is hard to attribute emissions accurately to individual business units. If your data is patchy, that is your answer. Start with a shadow price. How to choose a price per tonne There is no single correct number. A firm may base its price on several reference points, including the social cost of carbon, the price of voluntary carbon instruments, the cost of mitigation or a regulatory price. Option 1: a regulatory price This is the easiest to defend to a finance director. In the UK, the UK ETS Authority determined a carbon price of £49.41 per tonne for the scheme year beginning 1 January 2026, a figure used for civil penalties. It reflects what the market has recently paid, so it shows what regulated emitters face today. It does not tell you where prices may be in 2035, which is what a capital appraisal needs. Option 2: a climate-aligned price For a price based on global climate goals, the World Bank’s paper on the shadow price of carbon cites the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. It recommended USD 40 to 80 per tonne of CO2e in 2020, rising to USD 50 to 100 by 2030, in 2017 US dollar equivalents, to stay consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Organisations often adjust such figures for local regulatory risk or regional markets such as the EU ETS. If you operate across Europe and Africa, you will likely face very different carbon policy environments. A single global figure can still work as a corporate floor, with a higher price applied where regulation is tighter. Option 3: your own abatement cost Some organisations set the price at the marginal cost of the reductions they actually need to make to hit a target. If your next tranche of cuts costs around a given amount per tonne, a price at that level helps those projects win funding. This links the price directly to your own net-zero plan. Getting the level right The level matters more than the method. As the Microsoft sustainability blog describes it, too low a price fails to change behaviour or trigger innovation, while too high a price can cause unreasonable hardship for departments. Treat the price as a living figure: calibrate it annually and expect to raise it over time. Setting it up step by step Name the decision you want to change. Capex approvals? Supplier selection? Travel? A price with no decision attached is decoration. Set the boundary. Align the price with your greenhouse gas inventory. The GHG Protocol’s December 2025 progress update on its Corporate Standard revision is the reference for the accounting principles (relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency and accuracy) your inventory should follow. If departments report one figure for compliance and another for pricing, leadership will stop trusting either. Pick the method. Shadow price, fee or hybrid, using the table above. Choose the number. Document the reference point and the reasoning, so you can explain it to auditors and your board. Decide where the money goes (fees only). Ring-fence it. More on that below. Pilot in one or two units. A finance-led pilot on a single investment round teaches you more than a company-wide launch. Review annually. Update the price, test whether it changed any decision and publish the results internally. Do not wait for perfect data A frequent mistake is waiting until emissions data is 100% accurate. The Policy Levers Library argues the opposite: start with the best available data and let the pricing process improve it, because business units suddenly have a financial reason to track and report their emissions properly. A practical way to begin is with Scope 1 and 2, where data is usually good, then extend to Scope 3 as supplier data improves. Scope 3 is often where the largest share sits, as one industrial manufacturer’s first disclosure showed in our coverage of Worthington Enterprises’ first Scope 3 report. Making a fee work: where the money goes Fee schemes succeed or fail on what happens to the revenue. The Policy Levers Library finds that if fees disappear into general corporate revenue, departments see the mechanism as a tax, which kills the buy-in needed for real behaviour change. The remedy is a dedicated climate budget or investment fund, with transparent reporting on how it is spent, for example on energy efficiency projects. This also gives business units something to bid for. A site manager who pays a fee on heating emissions has every reason to propose insulation or a heat pump when there is a pot that funds it. Microsoft’s carbon fee programme is a well-known example of a fee designed to accelerate decarbonisation internally and generate funding for reduction and removal efforts. It began in 2012 with a focus on Scope 1, Scope 2 and some business travel emissions. It is a very large company, so treat it as an illustration of the mechanism rather than a template for your own price. What UK reporting now expects If you are a UK business, internal carbon pricing is moving from good practice towards something you may have to explain. IFRS S2, the ISSB climate standard, includes internal carbon prices among its climate-related metrics. The UK’s adopted version, UK SRS S2, keeps the requirement. An entity must disclose: an explanation of whether and how it applies a carbon price in decision-making, for example in investment decisions, transfer pricing and scenario analysis; and the price per metric tonne of greenhouse gas emissions that it uses to assess the costs of those emissions. Whether and when these standards apply to you depends on your size, listing status and any future UK government requirements, so check the current position with your auditor or legal adviser before relying on this summary. What is already clear is the direction of travel: if you use a carbon price, you will be expected to say what it is and how it shapes decisions. If you do not, you should be ready to explain why not. This is another reason to keep the price documented and consistent. A figure that your finance team uses in appraisals but your sustainability team publishes differently is the ‘data silo’ problem in its most visible form. Common pitfalls A price that never bites. If every project would have been approved anyway, the price is cosmetic. Run past decisions through the price to see whether any would have changed. Mismatched boundaries. Pricing Scope 1 and 2 while the inventory you report covers Scope 3 leaves leadership with two versions of the truth. One-off setting. A price fixed in 2022 and never moved will not reflect a tightening carbon market. Build an annual review into your budget cycle. Confusing it with offsetting. An internal price is a management tool. Buying credits is a separate decision, and the two should not be conflated in your reporting. If you want to understand the market side, our course on carbon trading covers the basics, and our news piece on a corporate carbon credit investment service shows how large buyers are approaching credits. Poor behavioural design. Fees with no way to respond (a unit cannot change its energy supply, for instance) just move cost around. Pair the fee with the means to cut emissions. Where this fits in a wider ESG strategy A carbon price works best when it is one part of a joined-up plan: inventory, targets, capital allocation, reporting and training. Our piece on an integrated ESG strategy sets out how these parts connect, and our overview of performance contracts and leasing shows one way to fund efficiency projects that a carbon price makes attractive. For teams that need the numbers underneath, the course on emissions and greenhouse gas accounting covers how to build the inventory a carbon price depends on, and the carbon footprint reduction course looks at what to do with the results. How Exereco can help We bring ESG news, advisory support, reporting software, training and a community of practitioners together, with a focus on Europe and Africa. If you are weighing a shadow price or an internal fee and want to align it with your emissions reporting, our climate action page is the place to start, and you can reach the wider team through Exereco. FAQ What is the difference between a shadow carbon price and an internal carbon fee? A shadow price is a hypothetical cost added to investment analysis, so no money changes hands. An internal fee is a real charge on business units for their emissions, with proceeds usually reinvested in decarbonisation. Many organisations start with a shadow price and add a fee later. How much should an internal carbon price be? There is no universal figure. You can anchor it to a regulatory price such as the UK ETS value of £49.41 per tonne for 2026, to climate-aligned ranges such as the High-Level Commission’s USD 50 to 100 per tonne by 2030, or to your own abatement costs. Whatever you choose, document the reasoning and review it annually. Do we need perfect emissions data before we start? No. Practitioners advise starting with the best data you have and improving it as you go, since a price gives business units a reason to measure properly. A shadow price on capital projects is a sensible first step while data matures. Is internal carbon pricing mandatory in the UK? Putting a price on carbon internally is voluntary. However, UK SRS S2 includes disclosure items on whether and how you use a carbon price in decisions and what the price per tonne is. Whether the standard applies to your organisation depends on its scope and on government decisions, so confirm this with your adviser. Who should own the carbon price inside a company? Finance and sustainability should share it. Finance embeds it in appraisal and budgeting, while sustainability owns the emissions data and the link to targets. Having a senior sponsor, often the finance director, helps the price carry weight in real decisions. Recommended Introduction to Carbon Trading Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Accounting Carbon Footprint Reduction

Malta's innovation community has put green commuting on the table ahead of the national budget. According to BusinessNow, policymakers, entrepreneurs, researchers, investors and European innovation representatives called for a green mobility wallet, a scheme in which citizens could earn rewards for environmentally responsible commuting choices, potentially linked to tax incentives. It was one of five proposals made for Malta's Budget 2027, which the prime minister has said will be presented on 26 October. The proposals came out of the Sustainable Mobility Mixer, a demo day and matchmaking event held at the Salini Resort. It was organised by the Malta hub of EIT Urban Mobility's Regional Innovation Scheme, represented by Deep Tech Foundry, together with the Malta Innovation Forum, and co-hosted by the Ministry for Sustainable Mobility, Xjenza Malta and the EIT Community Hub Malta. The event programme lists a ministerial address on Malta's sustainable mobility agenda, live pitches from six startups and a panel on innovation. The green mobility wallet is the idea most directly aimed at everyday behaviour. Rather than relying only on fines and fees to discourage car use, it would reward people who walk, cycle, share rides or use public transport. The report gives no figures on how rewards would be calculated, what they would be worth or how the tax link would work, so the concept is best read as a direction for discussion rather than a costed policy. The other four priorities show how the group sees the wider system. The first is for government to act as a customer of innovation, procuring new solutions rather than only funding research. The second is investment readiness, with startups building stronger entrepreneurial skills and engaging international venture capital, and more momentum for Malta's venture capital fund. The third is a one-stop shop for innovation funding, replacing a fragmented landscape with a more coordinated one. The fourth is integrated sustainable mobility infrastructure, including connected pedestrian and cycling routes and realistic alternatives to depending on a private car. Together the five priorities link two usually separate conversations. One is about how Malta backs and buys innovation. The other is about how people actually travel on one of Europe's most densely populated islands. A reward scheme is only as good as the options it rewards, so the call for connected walking and cycling infrastructure and reliable alternatives to the car is as important as the wallet itself. The event also showcased projects including metaCCAZE, HandsOn Systems, NEVAC, Bruntor, Greenroads and Recycllux, showing the range of local mobility and circular economy ventures that could benefit from public procurement. There are open questions. The report does not name a government response, and Budget 2027 will show whether any of the five proposals are taken up. Earlier this month the prime minister said that energy and fuel subsidies would stay at their current level, which suggests the budget will focus on support for households rather than new behavioural levers. Still, the idea is worth watching. Incentives that make the sustainable option the easy and rewarding one often succeed where restrictions struggle, and Malta's innovators have given policymakers a concrete concept to test. Why it matters Commuting is one of the daily choices that adds up to a country's emissions, and it is shaped as much by incentives as by intentions. A mobility wallet turns a green choice into a visible reward. Its test will be whether the alternatives it rewards, from safe cycling routes to dependable buses, are actually there.

For a company whose business is keeping energy infrastructure safe, ROSEN Group has spent much of its history looking at other people's assets. Its inspection tools travel through pipelines, its analysts interpret what those tools find, and its engineers help operators decide what to repair and what to leave alone. With the publication of its Sustainability Report 2025, the company has turned the same disciplined gaze on itself, and the result is one of the more instructive pieces of climate accounting a privately run technology group has put in front of the public this year. The headline is a single number that should make anyone who works in services or technology pause. Of the 94,281 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent that ROSEN reports for 2025 on a market-based basis, 85,840 tonnes sit in Scope 3, the indirect emissions that occur in the value chain. By our own arithmetic from the report's table, that is roughly 91 percent of the total. This is ROSEN's second sustainability report, but the first to cover the entire group. The 2024 edition was limited to two entities, ROSEN Technology and Research Center in Lingen, Germany, and ROSEN Europe in Oldenzaal, the Netherlands. The 2025 report widens the lens to all 36 entities, organised across North and South America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. It describes a group present in 23 countries and operating in more than 110, with over 4,000 employees. The report was prepared voluntarily with reference to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, and it is careful to say that it is not yet fully compliant with them. That candour runs through the document and is one of the reasons it repays close reading. A footprint that is mostly somebody else's The data in the climate chapter is compact enough to take in at a glance. Gross Scope 1 emissions, the direct emissions from fuel burned in ROSEN's own vehicles and facilities, come to 2,919 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Gross Scope 2 emissions, from purchased electricity and heat, are 5,989 tonnes on a location-based basis and 5,521 tonnes on a market-based basis. Add the two together on the market-based method and ROSEN's own operational footprint is about 8,440 tonnes. Scope 3, at 85,840 tonnes, is more than ten times larger. The report gives total emissions as 94,748 tonnes location-based and 94,281 tonnes market-based. Anyone who has followed corporate climate reporting will recognise the shape. Asset-light businesses, from software firms to consultancies to inspection specialists, routinely discover that the emissions they control directly are a small fraction of the emissions their activities set in motion. What makes ROSEN's disclosure useful is that it names the hotspots. The report states that the group's footprint is dominated by Scope 3, with purchased goods and services and upstream transportation and distribution together accounting for 68 percent of the Group's greenhouse gas footprint. For a company that manufactures sophisticated inline inspection tools, ships them around the world and buys in components, materials and services to do so, that makes intuitive sense. The footprint lives in the supply chain and in the freight network that carries equipment to the field. The report is also honest about how the number was built. Scope 3 emissions are, in its words, largely calculated using a spend-based approach, which means that purchasing records are converted into emissions using average factors rather than measuring what each supplier actually emitted. ROSEN cites recognised references for those factors, including DEFRA 2024, the International Energy Agency's 2024 data, the US EPA's 2022 factors and the NAICS-6 industry classification. Value chain data comes from indirect sources such as sector benchmarks and third-party databases, with EcoVadis IQ Plus named as an example, and the company acknowledges that the use of proxies carries limitations. The inventory includes selected Scope 3 categories, chosen through a significance assessment based on the magnitude and financial cost of expected emissions, rather than all fifteen categories of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. None of that is a criticism. Spend-based accounting is how most companies begin, because it can be done with data already sitting in the finance system. But it has a well-known consequence: the figure moves when prices move, and it cannot reward a supplier for being cleaner than average. ROSEN says it intends to shift progressively toward activity-based and weight-based calculations as data quality improves, and to strengthen supplier engagement and direct data collection across the value chain. That is the right direction, and it is also the reason the 2025 number should be read as a baseline rather than a verdict. What the energy data says about the other nine percent If Scope 3 is the elephant, the energy table in the report describes the part of the room ROSEN fully controls. Total energy consumption in own operations was 28,185 megawatt-hours in 2025. Fossil sources and nuclear account for 25,617 megawatt-hours, or 90.9 percent, leaving renewable sources at 2,568 megawatt-hours, or 9.1 percent. Within the fossil share, purchased electricity, heat, steam and cooling from fossil sources is the single largest line at 15,868 megawatt-hours, followed by petroleum-product fuel at 4,976 megawatt-hours and natural gas at 4,774 megawatt-hours. Renewable energy comes mainly from purchased electricity at 2,132 megawatt-hours, plus 436 megawatt-hours of renewable fuel and 297 megawatt-hours of on-site renewable production. The report is explicit about what this means for decarbonisation: within Scopes 1 and 2, the main emissions hotspot is electricity purchased from non-renewable sources. That is a comfortable problem to have, relatively speaking, because electricity can be decarbonised by contract and by investment. The report also notes that the Lingen site accounted for 68 percent of the Group's Scope 2 emissions in 2024, which concentrates the opportunity in one place. A new rooftop photovoltaic system of 2 megawatts is being installed there, with final commissioning planned for early 2026. It is expected to replace around 16 percent of the site's externally sourced electricity, with close to all of the renewable power generated used on site, and to reduce emissions by more than 750 tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year. ROSEN adds that earlier solar installations already operate in Calgary, Canada, Perth, Australia and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Set against a Scope 3 footprint of 85,840 tonnes, a saving of 750 tonnes is small, and the report does not pretend otherwise. What it does show is the sequencing logic that most companies follow: fix what you control first, build the muscle for measurement, and then take on the supply chain. The Lingen site also achieved ISO 50001 energy management certification in 2025, audited by Bureau Veritas, and the research centre's head of health, safety and environment is quoted in the report as saying the milestone "reflects true teamwork and shows what becomes possible when many small efforts come together." Levers that move the Scope 3 needle The more interesting question is what, concretely, can shrink the 91 percent. Working with an external advisor, ROSEN built an emissions baseline for 2024 and a decarbonisation model that projects emissions from 2024 to 2050 under defined growth assumptions, including a business-as-usual pathway. The levers identified through interviews with business experts are modest in number and refreshingly concrete: shifting equipment transport from air freight to sea and rail, standardising and optimising the resource efficiency of inspection tools and production processes, procuring green electricity from utilities, and accelerating the electrification of cars and light commercial vehicles. The freight lever is the one with the clearest evidence of early traction. In 2025 ROSEN revised its guideline for inspection tool allocation and utilisation, enabling smarter planning, quarterly performance reviews and incentives for choosing sea freight over air. The report says the company doubled its sea shipments and avoided 500 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, while saving money and improving operational efficiency. It adds, tellingly, that "this is just the starting point." Because upstream transportation and distribution sit inside the 68 percent hotspot, behavioural and planning changes of this kind are exactly where a spend-based inventory can show progress. Other efforts are less far along, and the report says so. The company is expanding the use of IECEx-certified rechargeable batteries in pipeline inspection, increasing their adoption across Europe toward a 50 percent share of inline inspection runs, which improves safety, enables more compact next-generation tools and reduces waste and cost. It has progressed the local sourcing of polyurethane in North America, and is assessing whether similar approaches could apply to other products to cut transport-related emissions and costs. But on low-emission inline inspection services and more sustainable polyurethane options, the report states plainly that ROSEN has not yet achieved any results because of supply chain constraints. That kind of sentence is rare in corporate sustainability reporting, and it is a useful reminder that the hardest Scope 3 levers depend on suppliers and markets that no single buyer controls. The pathway, and the targets still in review The report places ROSEN's ambitions against a science-based yardstick. Applying a 1.5 degree pathway that reflects the Science Based Targets initiative's level of ambition, the analysis benchmarks a 42 percent reduction in Scopes 1 and 2 and a 25 percent reduction in Scope 3 by 2030, and an absolute reduction of roughly 90 percent across all scopes by 2050. The published targets table lists two goals: reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 42 percent by 2030 from a 2025 baseline, and achieving net-zero emissions across Scopes 1, 2 and 3 by 2050. On the metrics, the report records total emissions of 94,099 tonnes of CO2 equivalent and 22.9 tonnes per employee, and puts progress toward the net-zero target at 32 percent. Readers should note two things about those numbers. First, the 94,099-tonne figure in the targets table is slightly different from the 94,281-tonne market-based total in the emissions inventory a few pages later, and the report does not explain the gap in the pages we reviewed; the difference is small, at under 0.2 percent, and is probably a matter of calculation basis, but it is a reminder that a first-year inventory is still settling. Second, the report is unusually frank about the status of the targets. It says they are under review based on the outcomes of the GHG accounting, climate risk assessment and decarbonisation planning, that they remain subject to C-level approval, and that quantitative milestones and implementation decisions are being finalised. It also states that ROSEN's targets have not been validated by the Science Based Targets initiative, that there are currently no active plans to submit them, and that the intended 2025 submission has been postponed. Is that a weakness? In one sense, yes: an unvalidated target is a weaker signal to customers and investors than a validated one. But there is a defensible logic to doing the measurement before the pledge. A company that announces a 25 percent Scope 3 cut before it has a reliable Scope 3 baseline risks committing to a number it cannot track. ROSEN's choice to publish the benchmark trajectory as a reference, while holding formal approval until the inventory has matured, is a more conservative path than some peers take, and the report invites readers to judge the progress on its own terms. Climate risk: what the scenarios say about Lingen and Houston The climate chapter is not only about emissions. In 2025 ROSEN carried out an assessment aligned with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. The physical risk work screened all company-owned operational sites qualitatively and quantified the financial exposure of 64 sites for which financial data were available, drawing on year-end 2024 figures for gross property, plant and equipment, net inventory value and revenue. It used SSP5-8.5, a high-emissions scenario from the framework used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, across the current period and the 2030, 2040 and 2050 horizons. The finding: storms and wind, cyclones and flooding pose the greatest threats to operations, mainly through business interruption, and the sites in Lingen and Houston show the highest overall exposure. The transition risk work compared a business-as-usual pathway with an SBTi-aligned pathway to 2050 using carbon and energy price assumptions drawn from sources including the IPCC, the International Energy Agency and the Network for Greening the Financial System. The conclusion is that a science-based trajectory reduces exposure to future carbon-cost impacts compared with business as usual. The report lists increased operating costs from carbon and energy pricing, higher supply chain costs, energy price volatility, regulatory and legal risk, and reputational risk among the relevant transition risks. It also sees opportunities where customer needs shift toward lower-carbon operations, resilience and new energy carriers, mentioning technological and market opportunities related to hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The honest caveat is that this work has not yet reached the machinery of the business. ROSEN identified four climate risks and assessed 100 percent of its business units, but states that integration is not yet completed and the analysis was not yet considered in business decisions or strategic planning. The next steps it names are to bring the key risks into the enterprise risk management system and the corporate risk registry, to consider climate and other sustainability indicators in capital allocation decisions, and to expand the treatment of supply chain impacts. The company also notes that it has not yet adopted dedicated policies on climate mitigation, adaptation, energy efficiency or renewable energy, relying instead on its integrated management system policy, its ESG policy framework and its statement of priorities, goals and targets. The handprint question There is a second side to ROSEN's climate story that the 2025 report treats cautiously. The company's customers operate pipelines and energy networks, and ROSEN's technology helps them find defects before they become leaks, extend the life of existing assets and prepare infrastructure for new media such as hydrogen. The chief executive, Andreas Opfermann, frames the philosophy in the report's opening message: "We believe that technological progress drives sustainability." The climate chapter lists reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the value chain due to ROSEN's services as a climate-related opportunity. What the report does not do is put a figure on that benefit. In explaining why pollution was dropped from its list of material topics, the company observes that although its solutions help customers prevent pipeline leaks and related pollution, the specific downstream effects are difficult to quantify and cannot be reliably attributed or measured at present. It also records that certain positive impacts were reclassified as potential because the outcomes depend on customer adoption and are neither systematically monitored nor quantifiable. That restraint deserves credit. Avoided-emissions claims are among the most contested numbers in corporate climate disclosure, and a company that declines to inflate them while it builds its own baseline is making a sensible choice. But it does leave a gap between the narrative of enabling the transition and the quantified footprint of 94,281 tonnes, and closing that gap with defensible data is likely to be one of the more interesting challenges for the next report. What to watch in the next report Three things stand out for anyone tracking ROSEN's progress. The first is the Scope 3 methodology: the move from spend-based to activity-based data will change the number, possibly materially, and the company's willingness to explain the shift will be a test of the transparency it has shown so far. The second is the status of the targets. With the 2030 Scope 1 and 2 goal taken from a 2025 baseline of roughly 8,400 tonnes on our reading of the market-based figures, a 42 percent cut implies getting to somewhere near 4,900 tonnes within five years, a figure that the Lingen solar array and a green electricity contract could go a long way toward delivering. The third is governance: the report notes that a group-wide Risk and Audit Committee was established in 2025 and that the ESG Committee supports the Shareholder Committee, but it will take at least a full reporting cycle to see whether climate risk genuinely enters capital allocation. The broader lesson reaches well beyond a single pipeline-integrity specialist. Private companies are under growing pressure from customers, lenders and regulation to disclose value-chain emissions, often before they have the systems to do so. ROSEN's report shows both the value and the discomfort of that exercise. It shows the value because the first count immediately identified where the problem lives: in purchased goods, services and the freight that moves tools around the world. And it shows the discomfort because a number that large, built on spend-based proxies, sits awkwardly beside a mission built around making infrastructure safer and cleaner. The companies that will earn trust are those that, like ROSEN, publish the uncomfortable baseline first, say clearly what they have not yet achieved, and then show up the following year with a better number. Why it matters If a 4,000-person technology group finds that nine-tenths of its footprint sits in its supply chain, smaller private firms should assume the same shape applies to them. Measuring Scope 3 imperfectly, and saying so, beats waiting for perfect data, because lenders, customers and regulators are already asking.

The Convenience Shop stands as a beacon of change in Malta's convenience sector, embarking on a transformative journey towards environmental sustainability and community enrichment. With a dynamic strategy blending tree-planting events, clean-up drives, and engaging community activities, the shop is redefining its role beyond mere convenience provision. Partnering with environmental NGO Coast is Clear and local councils, The Convenience Shop has initiated a series of tree-planting events across various localities in Malta. These events not only aim to beautify public spaces but also foster a greener environment within the communities it serves. Following the success of previous tree-planting endeavours in Ħaż-Żebbuġ and Santa Luċija, The Convenience Shop is expanding its green footprint to additional localities in the coming weeks. These ongoing efforts underscore the company's unwavering commitment to creating a more sustainable and vibrant Malta for generations to come. In a recent community engagement event, The Convenience Shop organised a special tree-planting activity at Kennedy Grove in Qawra. This event served as a platform to bring together company staff and local residents, fostering meaningful community participation and collaboration in environmental conservation efforts. Moreover, The Convenience Shop's dedication to environmental stewardship extends beyond tree planting. Last year, the company organised community clean-up drives in collaboration with local NGOs and organisations. These initiatives not only helped in maintaining cleanliness in naturally sensitive areas but also raised awareness about the importance of waste management and environmental conservation. In addition to tree-planting events and clean-up drives, The Convenience Shop actively supports various local NGOs and organisations catering to social, medical, and animal welfare causes. This holistic approach to corporate social responsibility reflects the company's commitment to making a positive impact on society and the environment. The Convenience Shop is set to continue its environmental and CSR initiatives by planting trees in San Ġwann, Tas-Sliema, Fgura, and other locations, further enhancing the natural landscape and promoting environmental stewardship among residents. Through tangible actions like tree-planting events, clean-up drives, and partnerships with environmental organisations, The Convenience Shop is setting a commendable example for businesses in Malta and beyond. Join us in our journey towards a greener, more sustainable future by supporting The Convenience Shop and its community-driven initiatives. For more information about The Convenience Shop and its commitment to environmental sustainability and community engagement, visit www.theconvenienceshop.com. Together, let's make a difference for our planet and our communities.

In September, EVIA AERO signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the US aircraft developer Tidal Flight for the Polaris Amphibian. One of the first routes on our list connects Valletta and Gozo — and we would fly it on electricity alone. A new mission profile The agreement covers up to 20 aircraft for Europe: ten firm positions plus ten options. It makes EVIA AERO an early European launch customer for the type, and our ambition is to be among the very first operators to fly it once it enters service. The document is non-binding and subject to EASA validation and a definitive purchase agreement. We are deliberately open about that, because the interesting part is not the signature. It is what the aircraft makes possible. Why we do not bet on one technology EVIA AERO follows an end-to-end concept for clean regional flight. We develop renewable generation and storage at partner airports, and we match the right clean aircraft to the right mission rather than waiting for one technology to solve everything. Battery-electric commuters cover short point-to-point legs. Hybrid-electric regional aircraft cover the distances that batteries cannot yet reach. The Polaris adds a profile none of them can serve: flying where there is no runway at all. Europe’s coastlines, harbours and lakes are full of places that were never given an airport and never needed one. An amphibian turns them into points on a network. City centres and holiday destinations are usually built around water — which means the aircraft arrives where people actually want to be, not thirty minutes outside it. What the Polaris is The Polaris is a hybrid-electric amphibian. Two electric units of at least 250 kW each are fed by a 150 kW generator and a battery; the combustion side runs on Jet A-1 or sustainable aviation fuel. Tidal Flight is configuring the cabin for up to 13 passengers, single-pilot capable, with a cruise speed of 296 km/h and a range of 1,389 km carrying around a tonne. Up to roughly 110 kilometres, it flies on battery alone. These are manufacturer figures; the aircraft is in development, with powertrain and subsystem testing under way. Two numbers matter more than the rest for an island. The Polaris needs about 750 metres of water — not a runway. And it needs around 350 kW of charging power, which is a harbour installation, not an airport programme. Short legs on battery alone, longer sectors on hybrid-electric power. Rendering: Tidal Flight. Valletta – Gozo, as we have modelled it The air distance between the Grand Harbour and Mġarr is roughly 25 kilometres. That is a block time of under twenty minutes, flown fully electric, against a crossing that today means driving to Ċirkewwa, queuing for a ferry and driving on at the other end. On our planning assumptions, six to eight round trips a day are realistic once charging between rotations is accounted for. With a 13-seat cabin, that is roughly 80 to 100 seats in each direction every day — enough for commuters, for patients travelling to hospital in Malta, for business travellers who currently lose half a day, and for visitors in season. The electricity can come from photovoltaics and storage at the terminal itself, which is exactly the business our energy arm develops elsewhere in Europe. What has to happen first We would rather name the obstacles than talk around them. There are three. Certification. Tidal Flight is working towards US type certification at the end of 2030, with European validation expected in the middle of 2031 and first deliveries in December 2031. No aircraft of this type is certified today. Everything below depends on that schedule holding. Permission to operate on the water. A scheduled service into the Grand Harbour and Mġarr needs more than an airworthy aircraft. It needs designated take-off and landing areas on the water, approvals from the Maltese authorities and the ports, procedures agreed with air traffic services, and a sensible coexistence with ferry and cruise traffic. On our side it means a water-flying section in the operations manual, pilots with seaplane ratings, and a maintenance programme that takes salt water seriously. Infrastructure. A harbour terminal is a modest piece of building compared with an airport, but it still has to exist: a landing stage, passenger handling, a charger of around 350 kW and the local generation behind it. Together with our partner Fabspace we can build that on the water — on pontoons in a harbour — rather than acquiring land. Why we think it is worth it Island connections are where the case for clean aviation is easiest to make and hardest to deliver. The distances are short enough for electricity. The alternatives are slow. And the infrastructure that conventional aviation would demand is exactly what small islands cannot justify. That is the gap the Polaris fits. We would be glad to discuss it with partners in Malta — port operators, the authorities, and anyone thinking about what a connection between the islands should look like at the end of this decade. About EVIA AERO EVIA AERO is a Bremen-based aviation company building a sustainable regional air-mobility ecosystem. Its activities span electric and hybrid-electric aircraft operations, airport infrastructure partnerships, green-energy systems and pilot training. EVIA AERO works with airports and partners across Europe to prepare for zero- and low-emission flight. www.evia-aero.com Images: Polaris Amphibian in EVIA AERO livery, renderings by Tidal Flight, supplied for this article and used with Tidal Flight’s approval. Press contact: press@evia-aero.com