CFOs, CIOs and sustainability teams at large companies have used spreadsheets for years to track corporate carbon emissions.
We are now, however, at a tipping point where the benefits of carbon management software, also known as enterprise carbon accounting (ECA) software, outweigh the benefits of spreadsheets.
With many large companies recently completing their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) questionnaires, and entering budget planning in the fall, it is time to move away from spreadsheets to reduce risk, save money, increase productivity, and establish an enterprise-class source of record for carbon emission data.
Investors and Top Customers Demand High Quality Carbon Emission Data
The calculation and reporting of carbon emissions today is a standard, mainstream business process and needs to be treated as such. The majority of Fortune 500 companies now publicly report carbon emissions via their website and registries such as CDP; companies that don't are viewed as laggards.
Regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, and investor advocacy groups, such as Ceres, are demanding more accurate data. Meanwhile, emission data submitted to the CDP is widely available to investors through Bloomberg terminals and Google Finance. Financial accounting groups, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), are debating carbon emission disclosure standards and approaches, which will likely become a future requirement.
Investors are ever more insistent that reported environmental data have the same rigor and processes of reported financial data. Leading companies, including BASF Global and Novo Nordisk, already report with fully integrated financial and non-financial information, both of which are supported by rigorous data, control, and auditing processes. Other companies treat voluntarily reported carbon data with same transparency as financial data. El Paso Corporation, for example, issued a press release to correct an error in its voluntary submission to the CDP.
Companies are finding their top customers, such as Bank of America, HP, Procter and Gamble, and Walmart, asking for carbon emission data and, in some cases, scoring their processes against competing suppliers.
Large companies simply cannot afford the brand and image risk of incorrectly reported emission data to these important stakeholders.
7 Major Problems with Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets allow a single user to enter, manipulate, analyze and visually represent numerical data with great flexibility. It can also be easily distributed via e-mail or a network-accessible location. Without a content management system to coordinate and track changes from multiple sources, however, spreadsheets quickly becomes unwieldy and error-prone.
Problems are compounded when a spreadsheet becomes so complex that only the original author can make required fixes and improvements. This leads to the “spreadsheet guru” -- the irreplaceable employee who is the only person in the company who understands the 15MB spreadsheet.
As carbon data collection and reporting needs increase, spreadsheet disadvantages become more acute and lead to additional labor costs and frustration when coordinating changes and updates. The major problems of spreadsheets include:
• Lack of proper documentation and audit trails
• Propensity for errors, especially without proper cell protection and lack of validation and
testing of spreadsheet formula and macros
• Difficulties in reconciling year-to-year data sets
• Poor tools for creating and enforcing data ownership, including global standards for asset
types and energy usage
• Inability to generating real-time reports and read-only views across the organization
• Difficulties obtaining ad-hoc reports and analysis for numerous internal and external
stakeholders
• Difficulties in managing and sharing large files
These problems are compounded by sporadic backup processes and high training cost if or when the spreadsheet guru leaves.
Moreover, spreadsheets hamper sustainability team effectiveness. Sustainability team members with responsibility for the carbon emissions file spend an inordinate amount of time managing this spreadsheet. These activities include gathering, correcting and inputting data, reconciling current emissions with emissions from previous years and baseline calculations, and creating custom reports by country, division, product line or customer.
Team members should focus on communicating and educating stakeholders about sustainability plans and identifying reduction efforts, not draining time as spreadsheet monkeys.
To reduce risk when using spreadsheets, firms must spend more money on labor, either with its employees or outside consultants. The good news is that this does not need to be the case.
Numerous Cost-Effective Software Solutions Are in the Market
The market for carbon management or ECA software has been emerging during the past few years. Our research shows that more than 75 companies now offer a solution, including a handful of leaders. Many of these solutions more than adequately meet customer needs and are cost effective.
Sustainability teams need to educate the CFO and CIO about the importance of good carbon management processes and tools, and to develop budget requests for software investment during the upcoming fall budget season.
This summer, too many hours were spent on managing spreadsheets for CSR and CDP reports for this important, and now mainstream, business process. Better solutions now exist.
Paul Baier is vice president of advisory services at Groom Energy and senior contributor at GreenBiz.com.

Browse
Engage
Research










Software application better than spreadsheets
My work over the past few years has included reporting my organization’s carbon emissions, which includes activity for 100+ facilities across many countries. Having originally come from using spreadsheets I have been using a software application instead for the past two years. While I believe that spreadsheets are valuable and have become easier to use, the software application is much more suited to my needs.
Aside from my work calculating energy and carbon, I continue to use tools such as Excel as well as SharePoint for other things, so I know how they can handle complex equations and are flexibly sorted or configured. That said, the software application provides feature and functionality that quite frankly is not available in a spreadsheet (or even if some were available, at least without a lot of effort). Within my current solution, I am able to assign tasks for data entry, limit permissions and as well as provide reporting. I now have a central location where employees around the world have access to the right level of data entry and historical data. The data can be seen in place or output/exported as necessary and reported to management, customers in response to requests, or to programs such as the CDP. The solution also has analytics ingrained in ways that would need a lot of additional work with a spreadsheet. For example, if I want a graphical representation of all my locations and want to know where the electricity cost is the cheapest or intensity greatest in order to factor that into a decision about where to locate a datacenter, the graph is already built and is at my fingertips. This kind of built in data collection process and analysis is possible for energy and GHG emissions across a variety of sources. In addition, the system flags unusual variances in data for review. Many of the things I get rapidly from my software application took much longer by spreadsheet. Freeing up this time has allowed me and the people entering data to spend their time differently – in my case, more strategically . The software I use was originally developed by the company I work for, but after being successful here in house, it has also been purchased by other big companies for their GHG inventories and sustainability programs.
In short, the solution can do what spreadsheets provide, but with additional controls, reporting and analysis. And it’s faster.
Data Management vs Environmental and Business Performance
Simply put, the amount of time it takes to develop the multiple tools required to even resemble an enterprise-level audit-grade software solution requires a genius in data and excel/access tools. To expect this person to also be an expert level decision-maker on energy and environmental resources and outputs and the corresponding business implications is asking for something that rarely exists - especially at a level that an organization can decentralize.
In fact, much of the lack of scalability historically slowing sustainability down is the result of putting it in the wrong hands within the organization (data masters vs business masters). If software can help organize, gather, add visibility across regions, departments, activities, product-lines, reporting platforms, etc... then staff time can be devoted to cost-effective and profitable abatement strategies and initiatives and NOT to mere data gathering and reporting.
This is a crucial distinction and one the companies like Coca-Cola, Hasbro, Safeway, and others are making.
Looking beyond the "What" to the "Why" & the "How"
When looking at the debate around spreadsheets, I think the real issue is the decision to build and implement a "carbon emissions platform" in house via available tools and resources versus leveraging years of experience by others built into a software application.
The problems with spreadsheets not only extend into the Excel macro guru but well beyond that into the upkeep, understanding of emissions factors, the CO2e calculations for protocols spanning the globe, report formats for each protocol, etc. etc. etc. Spreadsheets force organizations to dedicate copious amounts of time and effort just figuring out "What the calculation or tool should be..."
Moving into the use of a software application, especially a web-based system with the abilities to include third parties like auditors, data entry by external partners, and automated workflow & role-based data management, moves organizations into figuring out the challenges of data capture and organizational change. This enables organizations to move away from the lower level "math problems" to more complex challenges.
I believe organizations should focus efforts on the areas where the effort is needed most; organizational change, supply change integration, international considerations, etc. The smarter choice is to evaluate the software applications that map to your organizational needs and look even beyond that to the knowledge experts building that software application so you can feel comfortable that the "emissions management" will cover your current and future needs for you.
All of this will lead your organization to those unique challenges around energy efficiency and emissions reductions that take real human effort and resources. In general, I'm saying lets exert the effort where change will happen the quickest. Why are we all re-inventing the "calculator" when it is all of the other stuff that matters...
I can't believe this is even being debated
I quite shocked this is being debated: spreadsheets as the "tool" versus software.
Certainly, spreadsheets, word processors and collaboration platforms like Sharepoint serve a purpose. But, when you're talking about massive amounts of data that, in order to actually save a client money, have to be aggregated, analyzed and managed to provide insight to the opportunities organizations have to reduce the use and cost of resources.
But, to try and create an audit-level sustainability report/benchmark/scorecard cannot be done in spreadsheets. For example, with one of our clients with 250 locations, for a one year environmental/sustainability baseline generally limited to Scope 1 and Scope 2 with a bit of Scope 3, this was more than 250,000 points of data.
Furthermore managing this effort year over year, determining changes to baselines, and evaluating organizational changes that affect reporting, structures and benchmarks makes the use of spreadsheets improbable.
In the world of "general reporting" around CSR versus mining data to achieve real reductions in efforts around Sustainability, spreadsheets clearly limit the insight and ability to leverage the data and to create the associated audit trail around sustainability.
As an everyday user of Excel and other products and as a "gadget geek" I am well versed in the tools available. But, by the time you configure Sharepoint to work for you around your documents and users, you can also configure a web-based software tool that actually works to deliver results in the world of Sustainability.
Sustainability and energy managers have already decided
As with any technology choice, there will be proponents on each side. No doubt this same argument played out with CRM before the power of salesforce.com, Oracle, NetSuite and others became very apparent.
In this case, you'll find few managers of national or global portfolios who really love their spreadsheets. For example, the sustainability manager for the state of Massachusetts, faced with 100s of facilities as varied as prisons, hospitals, and offices, could not imagine implementing a statewide carbon footprint with spreadsheets (see http://bit.ly/bmeohC).
While spreadsheets can be made to work in amazing ways, the organization would need content managers, macro experts, and database linking skills that are simply absent or too expensive for sustainability or energy budgets.
Finally, even if the spreadsheet manages to get you a reliable footprint, it plays no part in achieving real savings:
- Want to create an enterprise-wide program for energy savings that drives best practices throughout the organization?
- Need to audit complex utility bills during annual verification?
- Looking for real-time profiles of energy consumption so you can benchmark daily activity?
In the same way that sales and support managers decided long ago to move away from spreadsheets, now energy and sustainability managers are making the same choice, because software and metering have finally caught up with their needs.
If you dont know, please dont pretend to know
You cannot condemn all spreadsheet usage just because you dont know how to use them effectively.
Spreadsheets are one set of a bunch of tools, each having its own set of nuances.
Do not condemn the basic platforms themselves, as it is upto the solution providers or users as to how these platforms are effectively used.
The analogy to your statement is like saying because paper and pulp production produces pollution lets not use bath tissue- which of course, is a ridiculous statement. A person has to be able to effectively use it, thats all..
Links to using spreadsheets efficiently
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/how-sharepoint-2010s-content-organize...
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/document-management/document-management-rollu...
http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/hardware_software/showArticle.jh...
Thats the whole point, that
Thats the whole point, that there have been no (not a single valid) points made in the article to have to disprove.
The products are there on the market-being unbiased writer, I cannot quote them here, but they are there. Here's a counter to each of the so-called "points" raised in the article.
• Lack of proper documentation and audit trails
Sharepoint 2010 enables work flow- so this not a problem.
• Propensity for errors, especially without proper cell protection and lack of validation and
testing of spreadsheet formula and macros
This is a general problem for any software and any platform, not specific to spreadsheets.
• Difficulties in reconciling year-to-year data sets
This is a dumb argument and can be used for any platform.
• Poor tools for creating and enforcing data ownership, including global standards for asset
types and energy usage
Actually spreadsheets that can write out data in XML that has a XML signature exist on the market, that can unequivocally create these types of documents. Being unbiased writer, I cannot refer those products, but they are there.
• Inability to generating real-time reports and read-only views across the organization
This is incorrect especially with Excel 2010 and Sharepoint 2010.
• Difficulties obtaining ad-hoc reports and analysis for numerous internal and external
stakeholders
Actually spreadsheets provide better reports, better visuals, and enable much greater levels of analysis because of built in analytic functions.
• Difficulties in managing and sharing large files
Again, Excel 2010 and Sharepoint 2010
Q.E.D
Not much of a QED, I'm afraid
Paul's article is about making a system work for humans in an organization. Systems, humans, organizations: 3 words I don't see discussed in this QED.
But what you hint at is that there are tools including spreadsheets that can be turned into a system. A spreadsheet can be part of a system. There we probably all agree, including Paul. The single spreadsheet managed by a person in a cubicle does not lead to success. A spreadsheet that is part of a system designed for humans working in an organization may lead to success. With which you prove the point of the article.
To all the spreadsheet fans
To all the spreadsheet fans blaming Paul for being a luddite: You have shown that you are spreadsheet masters, but you have not disproven the points made by Paul and others in this article and the comments. Prove your case by showing a well working solution in a global corporation with users at any level of technology familiarity including the CEO who needs to get the gist in 5 minutes.
You have no data experience
It is clear the author has no clue with respect to data. Spreadsheets are just an interface. What you do with data from the interface is something else. For example, if you had a program, that had to display data, but did not use a spreadsheet, you would still have to show the data in a tabular form. Think of spreadsheets as just fulfilling that concept. Then what you do with data from that point is totally something else. It can be validated, control formatted, quality checked or whatever depending on how you write code. These days, with Sharepoint you can manage work flows. With XML, you can connect spreadsheet data to the internet or intranet.
So the spreadsheet, as a window to view and manipulate data is not a bad thing. By not making that difference, the author has shown his inexperience when it comes to data handling.
Obviously, like anything else, you need good spreadsheet based tools and many are available.
This is the problem with the carbon industry, you have a whole bunch of people who dont know much, all clamoring for dollars by writing crappy articles. This article sure is crappy.
The premises behind this blog
The premises behind this blog and messages supporting are erroneous and misleading. The problem is not in spreadsheets, but in how you use them. This differentiation is critical, as one write points out, there are new technologies for doing sophisticated things on the cloud with spreadsheets...
This statement is ludicrous -"Propensity for errors, especially without proper cell protection and lack of validation and
testing of spreadsheet formula and macros"-
if you do not how to use spreadsheets properly, then dont blame the spreadsheets. There are many solutions that address these issues, there are spreadsheets that offer connection to the cloud and to the XML processes. As one person put it, Sharepoint 2010 brings work flo and many new features into Excel 2010.
I suspect that many in the carbon business are slow when it comes to understanding new software technologies and this appears to be the case with writer of this article and supporters of that position.
Spreadsheets are one solution, perhaps not the only in a amalgam of solutions. To condemn the tools themselves and not the users or the manner of use brings to mind the saying "A bad dancer blames the stage". So its the manner you are using spreadsheets that is more likely the cause of your problems...not spreadsheets, per se.
Agree - It's Time to Give Up Spreadsheets for Tracking Carbon Em
SustainIT Solutions have worked with a number of FTSE350 companies in the UK and similar large multinational companies and public bodies across Europe. We have found that companies have reached the end of the road for using spreadsheets for Carbon and Corporate Social Responsibility projects for the following reasons
1) Managing the accuracy of data is almost impossible in spreadsheets
2) Companies who are involved in legislative programs (e.g. CRC scheme in the UK) are publishing spreadsheet gathered data that they later find to be wrong and are being fined
3) The data can not be audited
4) Spreadsheets tend to lose ownership at the data entry level and so the person entering data does not see the value
5) Managing conversion factors in spreadsheets leads to serious errors
6) Tracking multiple targets in Carbon and CSR projects can not be done accurately in spreadsheets
7) Companies are involved in multiple business and legislative programmes. They find that managing multiple cuts and reporting of the data takes far too much administration.
All of this leads to
a) errors in the reporting
b) The data gathering is too high level and not granular enough
c) spreadsheet data does not help the companies to identify strategy and deliver real savings
SustainIT Solutions are therefore engaged by companies as an independent partner to help companies to clean and expand the data that is currently being gathered. To help companies undertake an independent review of the best software on the market to help them automate and improve the data gathering and reporting processes, and we also help companies to develop their strategy so that when the implement dedicated systems they are quickly able to deliver much better quality data gathering, much more granular data, more accurate targets and strategy, and to deliver real savings.
Construction trailer guru
Paul,
Your views are generally outmoded and your view of spreadhseets are clunky.
Today, Excel 2010 comes with features unmatched in any calcualtion interface. By using Sharepoint 2010, companies that manage and track work flow, have accountability, flexibility, accuracy and performance. Today, spreadsheets have been combined with the cloud to give enable collaboration.
I looked up your antecedents. I see your experience in the carbon/air pollutant field is rather new, mostly your company shows construction tailer, old fashioned non-technical mindset.
These have all changed, check out Excel 2010, Sharepoint 2010, check out IBM's Lotus knows, check out Google Docs, more coming !
Get with program, Paul...
Spreadsheets are inadequate as a carbon management solution
Paul,
Agreed!
In general, there are four areas where spreadsheets fall short as a carbon management solution: performance, accuracy, flexibility and accountability.
Performance
Performance encompasses speed, capacity and interoperability. Depending on the size of an organization’s portfolio and the level of facility information collected, the volume of data can quickly grow to a level that severely degrades the response speed and reliability of spreadsheet-based systems. In addition, data collection is often the most time intensive step in the energy and environmental management process. When collecting data for a large number of facilities, enterprise carbon management software can easily interface with other existing systems can significantly improve the efficiency and accuracy of this process.
Accuracy
Since spreadsheets lack the validation and logic necessary to ensure data accuracy, collecting energy use and environmental performance data using a spreadsheet is extremely error prone. The risk of accuracy errors increases significantly as organizations attempt to track more facilities at a greater granularity.
Flexibility
For organizations that need the flexibility to set baselines and track performance against dynamic sustainability goals, a spreadsheet-based system lacks adequate flexibility in its analysis. Spreadsheets are also poor reporting tools for organizations that report GHG emissions to multiple carbon registries and/or multiple times throughout the year. Furthermore, spreadsheets are a cumbersome tool for analyzing and comparing opportunities to reduce energy use and improve environmental performance. It is extremely difficult to add logic to spreadsheets to drive action and prioritize green improvements.
Accountability
Although spreadsheets allow data edits by multiple people, accountability is significantly diminished as more users access the system. The ability to audit all changes made is especially important for organizations that are required to accurately report on GHG emissions.
John Clark
TRIRIGA
http://trees.tririga.com
Certainly the risk of errors
Certainly the risk of errors in spreadsheets is potentially high. But at the same time, I am not certain that the commercial systems currently available eliminate all the risks.
Have all the calculation methodologies been harmonized? How does someone reconcile the calculations/results from the new EPA GHG method, the various non-US legal requirements, voluntary programs like CCX the the Greenhouse Gas Protocol? Harmonization of the method may be closer with regard to direct or Scope 1 emissions, but what about all the indirect emissions?
I blogged on the this subject a year ago, suggesting that more upfront work should be done on the framework before relying too much on the "calculator".
http://elmconsultinggroup.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/variance-and-risk-in-...
I suggest that these matters are not resolved through software solutions, but must be addressed through public policy consensus. Until that time, we will still be facing "irreconcilable differences".