The climate shadow brings some much-needed common sense to the sustainability conversation. But wait, what actually is a climate shadow?

The conversation around climate and environmental work, including its vocabulary, is constantly evolving, as are the ways we assess responsibility. A well-established term in common use today is the carbon footprint, calculated by organisations and individuals alike.

In recent years a new concept has entered the international discussion: “climate shadow.” What is a climate shadow?

It is a fascinating approach worth getting to know, despite any possible fatigue with yet another new term. Since the topic has barely been discussed in Finnish, we need to start by defining the concept itself and what it means.

What is a climate shadow?

A climate shadow describes, as the name suggests, the “shadow” of climate and environmental impact that a person or organisation casts around them. The term could potentially replace the current carbon footprint way of thinking.

The word was first used by journalist Emma Pattee in an article published in 2021, the content of which remains highly relevant today. When carbon footprint thinking guides people’s environmental actions, the risk is that focus shifts to easily measurable but ultimately minor individual acts, such as turning off lights or recycling. The energy spent on all of this should instead be directed toward broader and more meaningful work, such as lobbying local politicians or raising awareness of environmentally harmful practices in the workplace.

Pattee aimed her article primarily at consumers, and the discussion around climate shadow has so far largely focused on consumer choices and other individual actions. However, the climate shadow concept could perhaps be applied equally well in the sustainability work of companies and other organisations.

In our view, the carbon footprint was a genuinely useful tool, thanks to which countless people and organisations have been able to take meaningful climate action. We ourselves have calculated our carbon footprint since 2019. However, the carbon footprint is by nature quantitative and calculable, which is both its strength and its weakness. Measuring emissions is vital, but on its own it is not enough.

How could the climate shadow be applied in organisations?

Since the climate shadow is not yet an established or official concept, there is also no official way to calculate or assess it. Not yet, at least!
In her article, however, Pattee divides the climate shadow concept into three areas: consumption, choices and attention. These three can also be applied to companies and other organisations. We tried to explore what that might look like.

1. Consumption

This section naturally includes an organisation’s own consumption (including, for example, its carbon footprint). Beyond that, it would also be relevant to assess what kind of consumption behaviour the organisation appears to advocate through its communications.
This section could also cover things that carbon footprint calculations do not account for, such as GHG Protocol Scope 3 emissions and what tends to get left out of them. The idea, simply put, is to apply common sense to the organisation’s operations and examine what kinds of climate and environmental impacts it causes outside of current reporting. Impacts that fall outside reporting are often either difficult to measure, too large to offset, or sitting in a “grey area” between two different actors. A genuinely responsible organisation would at minimum report on these transparently.
At Hawkhill, for example, the environmental impact of food is a significant area within this category, and one we develop our approach to every year. We are also continually looking for new ways to reduce its environmental impact. Our 2023 sustainability report describes, for instance, how we managed to significantly reduce food waste. Logically, this of course reduces food-related emissions, even if we cannot (at least not yet) verify that with calculations.

2. Choices

This section would naturally include the company’s or organisation’s own values written out openly, along with information on how broadly and in what ways sustainability guides choices both at a strategic level and in day-to-day operations.
Beyond that, the sustainability work and climate impact of all suppliers, subcontractors, partners, and investment and donation recipients should be assessed as thoroughly as possible. Assessing stakeholders is not enough if it only means requesting climate reports or emissions calculation results. Ideally, the genuine values, choices and climate shadow of every organisation would be made visible.

3. Attention

This section looks at how much time and resource an organisation invests in its own sustainability projects and in public discussion around climate and environmental action. Today it goes without saying that every company wants to say something about sustainability, but does the communication sound like a repetition of generic phrases or purely promotional talk, or does it convey a genuine commitment to positive action and its advancement? Is the organisation creating practical, working solutions and achieving concrete results?
Understood this way, the climate shadow describes not only an organisation’s own actions but also the “ripple effects” it creates in its surroundings through the way it operates. These can be positive or negative.
Our best example of work in this area is Hawkhill’s Annu Huotari and her long-term participation in sustainability discussions within the industry. At the end of 2023, Annu was selected as Visit Finland’s first sustainability ambassador.

Why should we care about the climate shadow?

Climate work cannot wait, and the world needs bolder action. The climate shadow could help organisations find that boldness and inspire collaboration.
Once you have understood what the climate shadow is and how it can be applied, action and goals are naturally the next step. The climate shadow also calls for actions whose impact cannot be measured but which common sense tells us matter.
A company selling low-emission products, for example, might wake up to the realisation that even though its products are ecological, its advertising and communications promote irresponsible consumer culture. Meanwhile, a company in a traditional industry that invests in employee development and training may be creating positive ripple effects far beyond its own immediate sphere of operation.
This kind of holistic thinking is, of course, more demanding in many ways than simply assessing your own patch through calculations and measurements. And the summary above is by no means a ready-to-use guide for assessing your climate shadow, but rather an opening for conversation.
How could the climate shadow be applied smartly, building on existing practices? The assessment and reporting workload is already considerable, and there is no point in making it heavier on purpose. We would rather call for a spirit of doing and a culture of collaboration. This is worth thinking through sector by sector. For example, the Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action for Tourism, which we have also signed, already incorporates climate shadow thinking by its very nature.