A select group of people are responsible for most of these travel emissions: In 2018, only 11% of people around the world took a flight at all, and just 4% (at most) flew abroad, according to a study helmed by Stefan G ssling, a sustainable tourism researcher and a professor at Sweden s Linnaeus University School of Business and Economics. One percent of the world s population a group that G ssling calls super frequent flyers accounts for 50% of global aviation emissions.
advertisement
People who travel for work tend to have larger carbon footprints and not just because they fly more frequently. Studies have found that space-hogging business-class seats are responsible for up to five times as many CO2 emissions as those in economy. It s not just the number of flights people have been taking, it s also the class they re flying that s important for determining emissions, G ssling says. So if business travel goes down, it would definitely have a significant impact for two reasons: fewer people flying in the premium classes, and also the number of flights coming down.
But despite the evidence that business travel accounts for a disproportionate amount of airline emissions, there s been a sense that this kind of travel is somehow exempt. I used to call it the last socially acceptable form of pollution, says Dan Rutherford, who directs the shipping and aviation program at the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation. People would never brag about buying a huge SUV, but they brag about flying 100,000, 200,000 miles a year. He estimates that flying for work makes up about 75% of his personal carbon footprint. If you re a major consulting company like Deloitte, that s true for most of your staff, he says.
People would never brag about buying a huge SUV, but they brag about flying 100,000, 200,000 miles a year.
But climate activists have been putting this segment of carbon emissions in the spotlight Greta Thunberg made multiple headlines when she chose to sail rather than fly to the 2019 United Nations Climate summit. And, after a year without business travel, companies are more boldly acknowledging the toll that corporate travel takes on the environment. They re using the pandemic to announce new promises to reduce (and offset) business travel emissions as a way to reach their sustainability goals.
In January, consulting firm EY set a goal to cut business travel emissions 35% by fiscal year 2025, compared to 2019 levels; in February, Deloitte announced it would cut business travel emissions per employee in half by 2030; and in April, Salesforce promised to reduce business travel carbon emission intensity by 50% relative to pre-pandemic levels effective immediately.
advertisementBusiness travel will come back but it will be different
The pandemic is not the first crisis the travel sector has faced. After 9/11, travel dipped, but came back stronger than ever; the same happened after the 2008 financial crisis. Though the duration and magnitude of the COVID-19 crisis are unprecedented, Bryan Terry, global airlines leader at Deloitte anticipates a similar trend for travel even corporate travel. We think business travel will rebound, he says. But it will come back differently, and it will come back slower.
That slow pace isn t because of sustainability concerns, Terry says. Companies may reconsider sending someone abroad for a half day meeting in London because they can save money by doing it virtually. But Evan Konwiser, executive vice president of product and strategy for American Express Global Business Travel (GBT), which oversees corporate travel booking for companies of all sizes, doesn t see conferences, internal meetings, and even customer meetings staying completely virtual. There have always been costs associated with business travel, not just financial but also in terms of productivity (hello, jet lag). If your company was willing to greenlight travel for conferences, meetings, and so on in 2019, the vast majority of those actions, he says, will still be worth a business trip in 2022. In this scenario, companies looking to lower their carbon footprints won t simply reduce or stop business travel. They ll focus on lowering travel-related emissions a distinction that deserves the same scrutiny as broad net zero goals.
To Rutherford, the quickest and easiest thing a corporation can do to cut its business-travel emissions (besides keeping employees at home) is to opt for economy over business class. There s been a lot of resistance to that idea over the years, he acknowledges. People who travel for work like the status that accompanies the front of the plane, and being asked to squeeze into coach for a transatlantic flight just to attend one meeting is unlikely to make someone look fondly on their employer.
There are other ways to bring down emissions. Rather than purchasing the most economical flight, companies may be more willing to pay a green premium, buying a ticket for a more efficient, direct flight over a cheaper, indirect one, or intentionally choosing operators that fly newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. In June 2020, American Express GBT debuted a feature in its travel management software that lets users filter potential trips by their total emissions. There s not yet much data on how many companies will opt for the most sustainable trip over the most affordable one, but Nora Lovell Marchant, American Express GBT s VP of sustainability, thinks it will happen. After all, companies have already shown that they re willing to pay for carbon offsets, another kind of green premium.
Changing the mode of travel could also curb emissions. Switching from air to rail could mean a 90% reduction in emissions for that trip, Lovell Marchant says though she acknowledges that s easier to do in the European Union than the U.S. (France is one of multiple European countries to recently ban short flights that can be replaced by a train trip, though Rutherford points out there s a caveat for connecting flights associated with long-haul trips.)
advertisement
And finally, there s Sustainable Aviation Fuels, or SAFs, new fuel innovations that also come with a huge premium. Right now, SAFs aren t a solution to curbing emissions because usage is so low; less than 0.5% of jet fuels used today are SAFs, Rutherford says, and they can cost as much as four times a typical fuel. But corporations and airlines are beginning to work together to bring down the cost and ramp up use. In October 2020, Microsoft and Alaska Airlines partnered on a SAF deal that involved the tech giant buying SAF credits from a third-party company, which would then supply sustainable fuels to Alaska. Just last month, Microsoft joined with Boeing, Deloitte, Boston Consulting Group, JPMorgan Chase, Netflix, and Salesforce to launch the Sustainable Aviation Buyers Alliance to spur SAF production and technology innovations so these fuels can scale.
The pandemic pulled back the curtain on how much of business travel is really necessary.
With SAFs comes one big concern: Companies and airlines could double count emissions savings. When you see United or American make an announcement saying we re going to have a partnership with this corporation and use it to introduce SAFs, that s great, Rutherford says. But according to the laws of accounting emissions, that actually means the airline s greenhouse gas emissions are unchanged. They ve sold the reduction to a third-party. The trouble comes if both parties try to claim the reduction. Konwiser recognizes that s a concern and says American Express GBT is working on solutions.
SAFs could represent a breakthrough solution for future emissions. But the fact remains: We need to make drastic changes right now. You re never going to resolve the emissions issue without changes in the system. Technology is not going to cut it, says G ssling, the sustainable tourism researcher. We have to really cut down on individual travel and we have to start at the top, with that 1% of fliers who cause half of all aviation emissions. It has to start with the very frequent flyers, it has to start with the premium classes, and only then will we stand a chance to manage this through technology.
To G ssling, the pandemic pulled back the curtain on how much of business travel is really necessary. In the before-times, People would tell their bosses, Oh I ve got to fly again because otherwise I m not really sure we ll get the deal. At the end of the day, maybe that was not really true, he says.
advertisement
The world is opening up again and the appeal of business travel is coming back but the rational arguments against it still exist. It s just not our own health that s at risk with every work trip, but our planet s.
Innovation in your inbox Sign up for the daily newsletter
advertisementadvertisement05-11-21
[Photo: 
