Together for Sustainability (TfS): "The name is the message"

The German Rubber Manufacturers’ Association (wdk) has been committed to responsible procurement practices for raw materials and services in the rubber industry for many years. To advance the implementation of this goal, the wdk is now cooperating with Together for Sustainability (TfS), an international non-profit initiative that raises CSR standards across chemical companies and their suppliers. The wdk recommends the TfS PCF Guideline as standard for calculating scope 3 carbon footprint.

In an interview with TfS, Boris Engelhardt, wdk Secretary General, talks about details of the new cooperation.

Can you briefly introduce wdk, the German Rubber Manufacturers Association, and your role in the organisation?

Boris Engelhardt: The Wirtschaftsverband der deutschen Kautschukindustrie (wdk), founded in 1894, today is the economic, technical and political representation of the rubber industry and its suppliers within the German market, representing its 200 member companies also on a global scale. Its main aim is to secure and to raise the competitiveness of its member companies: manufacturers of rubber goods, having production facilities within the EU or Great Britain, and their suppliers. wdk is based in Frankfurt, Germany, and has a branch office in Berlin. I do have the pleasure to be serving this network and its aims and objectives since 2011 as secretary general.

Industries need to decarbonise. Can you elaborate on the decarbonisation journey of the rubber industry?

Engelhardt: Historically, the origin of all rubber products used to be natural rubber. Natural rubber is an agroforestry product with a "carbon handprint" – a positive contribution to the world climate. First through tapping wild grown trees, later through plantations, rubber trees capture carbon dioxide before the rubber is being shipped and processed. Natural rubber today is the only biobased raw material, enlisted as critical (existential) through the EU. Critical raw materials are essential for our modern European society. Next to natural rubber, synthetic rubber is processed in our industry on an industrial scale since the early 20th century.

In many products of our daily life rubber products are included – mostly in relatively small fractions, compared to the final product. And they are almost without alternative. Replacing them would translate into a much higher carbon footprint (CO2 balance) of the replacement.

Nevertheless: Calculating and reducing the carbon footprint of production and products today is a big issue for our industry. And almost every rubber manufacturing company within our network is dealing with the calculation, assessment and acquisition of its carbon footprint, the acquisition of the carbon footprint of raw materials and auxiliary supplies in the upstream value chain being one or even THE major obstacles. Our industry is committed to re-thinking its products, beginning with the development of each component.

The development teams do not only aim to replace raw materials with more climate friendly alternatives. They also take the use phase of the final rubber product into account. This part of the life cycle often has a significant impact on the energy demand of the respective application. For example tyres which contribute to the fuel-efficiency of cars. Other products of our industry such as components for wind turbines are indispensable enablers of the transition to a climate neutral society.

In the chemical industry, scope 3 emissions are a major contributor to the company's carbon footprint. What role can the TfS PCF Guideline play for the rubber industry?

Engelhardt: When we – as a federation – started our "exchange of experience on carbon footprints" several years ago, we soon realised that achieving reliable and comparable data is the one crucial element for introducing the carbon footprint as a competitive element in the economy. We have been conducting a dialogue with manufacturers as well as suppliers to our industry for four years now.

Taking into account the necessity to improve the availability of data, we have ourselves started an "Elastomer CO2 Meta-Database" project for the rubber industry. Our plan: to collect carbon footprint data for all imaginable raw materials, used in processing and by that defining standards for the scope 3 outline. And we had in mind to open this "Meta-Database" to all rubber processors so we would have a level playing field in calculating the PCF among our industry. You could say: "Wishful thinking". And indeed. Our lessons learnt: Due to lack of data in the upstream supply chain, but also due to a competitive element of carbon footprints evolving in the last two years, we didn't receive the necessary input. We were not even able to start any database at all. Now the TfS Guideline from my point of view leads to what we tried to establish beforehand. It will constitute a comparability – as each participant uses the same calculation method. It establishes a standard for this calculation. And through its strong membership TfS might even be able to create acceptance among big clients – especially the car manufacturers – regarding the basis / input data of our own carbon footprint calculations. In brief: The TfS Guideline should ideally become THE standard for calculating the product carbon footprint for all our suppliers. 

Where does the TfS PCF Guideline not meet the needs of the rubber industry and why?

Engelhardt: We are in an early stage regarding the application of this guideline. To my knowledge there are no deficits or shortcomings, identified so far. We also welcome that the TfS PCF Guideline is official certified as in alignment with the generic #ISO14067 and #GHG Product Protocol Standard by TÜV Rheinland Group as an independent certification body.

To what extent can TfS and wdk collaborate? Do you have any suggestions / recommendations?

Engelhardt: Contrary to our experiences while reaching out to CO2-data platforms in our pursuit to create a specialised data-base for rubber and elastomers, TfS was immediately willing and able to respond to our contact and needs. And in sharing its knowledge in a hands-on manner. That is the cooperation we need. And that we have already established. Next to that it might prove helpful to provide a TfS contact ("hotline") for processing companies, regarding questions on the application of the TfS PCF guideline, the interpretation of its results and possible interfaces with the PCF calculation in the upstream supply chain.

Given the above: To what extent would you recommend the TfS PCF Guideline to your ecosystem?

Engelhardt: To full extent. We do need a reliable standard to secure a comparable and level playing field as a foundation for our own scope 3 PCF calculations.