What would happen if a company publicly committed to carbon neutrality - only to be shocked by the results of its carbon footprint assessment? REI found out the hard way when, after pledging to go carbon neutral 2020, it discovered that its eco-travel business – not its retail operation – is the company’s biggest carbon-emissions culprit.

It’s one thing to have a significant portion of your carbon footprint in an aspect of your business that you influence, as opposed to control. A quick scan of REI’s most recent sustainability report shows that its retail activities are steadily moving toward a lower carbon footprint. If you actually control a significant portion of the carbon footprint (in this case, the number of tourist flights to far-flung locations), well, you’ve got a bit more of a public-relations challenge.

With eco-tourism booming, it’s unlikely REI will cut its travel business loose. The company’s current strategy is to posit that its eco-travel unit does more good than harm – and then, for good measure, to offset the emissions from all those air miles by purchasing renewable energy certificates.

This is a good start, but let’s go back to that “does more harm than good” claim for a moment. Wouldn’t REI’s position be that much stronger if it actually tried to prove that statement? Employing a true whole-systems approach to evaluating the impacts (and benefits) of its eco-travel operations may provide REI with the means to demonstrate – quantitatively - that the business does in fact more harm than good. If the carbon footprint of the eco-travel unit is outweighed by its other environmental and social benefits, perhaps the carbon emissions are just the inevitable downside to a net-positive endeavor.

A final quick word of advice, though: Best to do the research first - and make the big announcements later.

__________

Will Sarni is CEO of sustainability consulting firm DOMANI. He is also SLM's expert-in-residence on climate strategy and the host of Climate Management Weekly.