Thanks for your interest in our recent hybrid event for Climate Action Week Sydney – we hope those who attended found the session informative and engaging.
If you missed the event on the day or would like to share the learnings with a colleague, please head to our YouTube channel for an edited recording combining the live and streamed sessions. Or, read on for the Q&As from the event.
If you’d like to explore carbon accounting or commercial clean energy solutions for your business, reach out today and a member of our team will be in touch.
Key:
Answers marked AK are answered by Smart's Head of People & Culture, Anastasi Kotoros Answers marked LB are answered by Lochie Burke, Co-CEO and Co-Founder of NetNada
LB: Yes, we’re working to align with SBTi, which is directly tied to the 1.5 to 2-degree warming targets. While it’s not yet widely adopted in Australia, it is still one of the leading frameworks. It’s also quite challenging to obtain and implement properly, so credit to the companies that have successfully achieved it—it’s a significant feat.
We’ve seen some great case studies in Australia. For example, AstraZeneca managed to get 95% of their Australian supply chain, about 3,000 companies, aligned with SBTi, which is impressive. However, if your supplier doesn’t have SBTi accreditation, the best starting point is to assess what they do have.
We recommend conducting a heat map of suppliers to understand their compliance landscape. Many Australian companies follow directives from headquarters in the U.S., Asia, or Europe, leading to a mixed bag of compliance standards. A heat map helps identify crossovers and streamline communication. For instance, a supplier might have completed their TCFD or CDP reporting but not SBTi. Since there is significant overlap, that can be a useful starting point for engagement.
AK: The minimum threshold we’re working with for monetisation opportunities is 250kWh, which is still relatively small. For on-site battery use, there is more scope for smaller batteries dependent on the business's requirements.
AK: There are many disincentives emerging in the residential solar sector. In the corporate sector, we’ve been integrating grid protection units and control systems into our setups for a long time, so we’re not as exposed to these changes.
It largely revolves around export control and ensuring the network can manage distributed generation. In residential solar, additional control mechanisms and programming are being introduced. In commercial solar, we’ve already built these into our systems, so we are ahead of the curve. That being said, any excess exported energy has little value to the grid, which is why businesses are increasingly investing in batteries to store and use that power more effectively, including participation in markets like FCAS.
LB: We often refer to the UK as the "crystal ball" because they are about three to four years ahead of us. The U.S., on the other hand, is probably three to four years behind Australia in this space.
One of the biggest indicators is public awareness. In the UK, if I mention my work at a pub, most people understand it immediately. In the U.S., I often get blank stares. Here in Australia, we’re in the middle—understanding is growing, but we’re not quite there yet.
LB: From the beginning, our stance has been clear—we calculate your footprint and emissions sources, but we do not sell offsets. We see it as a conflict of interest if the same entity measuring emissions is profiting from offsets.
That said, most of our clients want to offset emissions. We vet and recommend a small number of projects, but we don’t take commissions or fees from offsets. The key factors businesses consider when choosing offsets include alignment with their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), geographic relevance (e.g., offset projects in their supply chain regions), and the overall integrity of the credits.
LB: Yes, they must report emissions from all locations. However, it’s important to note that emissions factors vary by region. For example, the carbon footprint of a cup of coffee differs between London, Sydney, and Melbourne.
Establishing the correct reporting framework and setting boundaries—including geographical considerations—is crucial. Many companies in Australia started reporting due to pressure from their European headquarters before mandatory regulations were introduced here. Similarly, even as U.S. policies fluctuate, many large companies with European operations will continue reporting emissions as part of best practice.
LB: There are financial penalties, similar to ASIC fines for incomplete or inconsistent financial statements. Beyond fines, reputational damage is also a significant risk, especially for publicly listed companies.
Additionally, directors are personally liable for non-compliance. While jail time is technically within ASIC’s guidelines, financial penalties and reputational risks are the more immediate concerns.
AK: There’s no size limit. The feasibility of a PPA depends entirely on economics. The key factor is whether the business case makes sense.
AK: Generally, if you’re using a battery just for self-consumption and have an energy rate around $0.20/kWh, the payback period is around eight to nine years. If you participate in energy markets like FCAS, it can be reduced to under five years, with some proposals showing four-year paybacks.
Another major factor is avoided costs due to blackouts. If a business can prevent a multi-hour outage and maintain critical operations, that savings alone can significantly impact ROI. It depends on power costs, transformer size, energy market participation, and space availability.
LB: I expect to see real movement on Scope 3 next year. Under the Australian Mandatory Reporting Standards, companies with $500M+ in revenue or $1B+ in assets must report Scope 3 emissions. Once mandated, it will drive consistency and pressure competitors to take action.
Scope 3 is often the largest emissions category, so businesses want accuracy to drive meaningful action. Sustainable procurement policies are critical for tackling this.
In terms of leading industries, the food and beverage sector—especially alcohol and brewing—is ahead. They have a history of engaging the entire supply chain, down to farmers. The grocery sector is also improving, largely due to pressure from major retailers like Woolworths and Coles.