Ten of the Largest UK Broadband and Connectivity Providers Agree Climate Goals
The Digital Connectivity Forum (DCF), which is an industry think-tank for the Government, has today announced that ten of the largest UK broadband and connectivity players (Openreach, Sky etc.) have agreed to sign letters encouraging their suppliers to adopt voluntary minimum standards as part of their effort to reach climate goals.
The announcement follows last year’s publication of DCF’s latest State of the Industry Report (here), which among other things found that 11 out of 12 major telecoms companies they surveyed had set some form of Net Zero target and 75% were using validated science-based targets.
Extending the same approach to suppliers is usually seen as critical to advancing these goals, albeit often one that can be hard to achieve. The report found that ‘Purchased Goods and Services‘ represented the largest source of Scope 3 emissions.
Advertisement
As a result of the above, a number of members of the DCF’s Climate and Sustainability Working Group have now signed a joint letter to their suppliers that urges the adoption of voluntary minimum standards to reduce emissions in a simple and pragmatic way. The identified minimum targets are included below, and the letter encourages suppliers to engage with their own supply chain to reduce carbon emissions and pursue circular principles.
The Minimum Targets
➤ Publicly disclose, on an annual basis, Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions data, with third-party verification for Scopes 1 & 2.
➤ Publicly disclose a science-based carbon reduction target.
➤ Establish goals to improve the energy efficiency, reduce the embodied emissions, and increase circularity of the products provided, for example through higher reuse and refurbishment rates and reduced waste.
➤ Where feasible, to implement Life Cycle Assessments or Product Carbon Footprints in accordance with ISO, or other, standards for relevant goods they supply.
The Digital Connectivity Forum and its members hope that this marks a first step in the increase of critical supply chain engagement to reduce emissions across the sector.
Alex Mather, Head of the DCF, said:
“The DCF is delighted to launch this initiative as part of our ongoing work to reduce the climate impact of the digital connectivity sector. By encouraging suppliers to adopt these practical and achievable standards, we are fostering collaboration across the supply chain to deliver meaningful climate action while supporting the UK’s world-leading connectivity goals.”
The signatories of the letters include: Virgin Media and O2, TalkTalk, PXC, BT Group, AllPointsFibre, Vodafone, Sky (Sky Broadband), Openreach, Ericsson and CityFibre. But the named providers are of course free to act as they wish in their individual dealings with suppliers, and some may encourage their suppliers to use more stringent standards than those set out in the letter. Suppliers are also free to determine how they will meet these standards.
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Gov Sets Out More Details of New UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
CO2 is a product of human breathing. When will people wake up to the Netzero scam? Are energy bills 5x bigger not enough? Will 20x do it?
Can you show us where you’ve had you peer-reviewed science published in a reputable journal Gary? Your science that overturns the consensus of every expert in the field? If not, button it and get back in your box.
In other news the insurer Allianz announced today that the risks of climate change are so great that they risk destroying capitalism.
conveniently ignoring the burning of fossil fuels and other sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases because it doesn’t fit what you believe.
Where is YOUR peer reviewed science saying that unless bills in the UK become 50x bigger then the weather becomes bad? There is a risk to capitalism yes but it does not come from the sun, it comes from communism
The nordstream pipeline getting blown up by the US singlehandedly caused more emissions than the entire human history combined yet somehow you think energy production is an issue
@Gary “nordstream pipeline getting blown up by the US singlehandedly caused more emissions than the entire human history”.
No point arguing with someone who makes up total nonsense.
I note you don’t quite a source. Too embarrassed to say it’s The Beano?
You are right, CO2 is a product of humans breathing and also other animals, but it is also a product of the way we live, cars, planes, producing energy., which no doubt produce more CO2 than breathing.
Gary that is just utter nonsense, you have no proof at all you’re just angry. Human breath is easily provable to not cause the rise in co2 levels seen or a change in climate. Likewise communism and capitalism have nothing to do with physics and chemistry.
Gary, your Nordstream comment is just hilarious. Think about what you’ve posted for a moment.
It is the event that has caused more emissions, in greenhouse gas terms it is the equivalent of 40million tons of CO2. The only other events that come close are Chernobyl due to radiation and Deepwater Horizon. Nonsense is dismissing any criticism out of shear arrogance. You live in a cult
I didn’t even bring up capitalism, it was the other poster who said the weather can bring down capitalism which is the most dumb thing in this whole comment section
Don’t feed the trolls.
This would seem to be a technical/business website, with discussions on those subjects. If you are going to introduce contentious issues like ‘climate change’, then expect people to discuss whether the subject is genuine, or whether it is just being used to herd the population towards electric cars, 15 minute cities etc. If you are not prepared to publish critical comments (and both of mine have been ditched) then stick to fibre optics and mobile phones.
There are plenty of other places you can have that discussion if you feel the need to demonstrate your own unwillingness to understand and accept proven scientific data. Your own skepticism for genuine issues while lapping up flimsy conspiracy theorist nonsense is not something the rest of us are obliged to accommodate.