O P INIO N HHG shipping policy changes: do they help the environment? Stuart Jackson, Account Director at Sterling Lexicon, discusses the impact of mobility programme policy changes on the shipment of household goods which may not be what you think P Stuart Jackson, UK- based Account Director at Sterling Lexicon olicy revision is sitting close to the top of the list of 2023 new years resolutions for many corporate global mobility teams. The axiom that global mobility only touches one or two per cent of the total workforce might suggest organisations should focus on more carbon-intensive areas of its activities such as business travel. Nevertheless, many global mobility teams are seeking to make a positive contribution to their organisations sustainability efforts. Household goods (HHGs) shipping came sharply into focus during the pandemic years because of the eye-watering rise in international shipping costs and delays in transit times. Corporate mobility responded with agility, flexing policies to provide alternatives to such shipments. GM professionals have a strong case that these alternative options should remain part of the policy suite. Among the arguments is the hypothesis that these are less detrimental to the environment. However, in the race to go green, the demonisation of HHG shipping as both costly and anti-sustainability has met with little scrutiny. Making policy changes in the name of sustainability based purely on supposition risks consequences such as ignoring the carbon contribution of other relocation benefits or shipping alternatives. effects make up a very small percentage of the total volume. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has already implemented positive changes and has publicly stated its ambitious vision for the future. On 1 January 2020, the IMO 2020 rule came into force limiting the sulphur in the fuel oil used by ships operating outside designated emission control areas to 0.50 per cent m/m (mass by mass) a significant reduction from the previous limit of 3.5 per cent. The IMOs goal is to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40 per cent by 2030, aiming for 70 per cent by 2050, compared with 2008. Moreover, if global mobility is serious about decarbonising its policies, it needs to move from the general to the specific, which isnt as easy it might seem. There are many different calculators on the internet to estimate the carbon impact of a shipment, with results sometimes varying substantially. In part, this can be caused by calculations looking at different noxious gases and measuring another part of the life-cycle of an activity (for example, well-to-wheels vs tank-towheel emissions where shipping is involved). This is what Mike Berners-Lee refers to in his enlightening book How Bad Are Bananas?: The carbon footprint of everything, as the distinction between direct and indirect emissions. The global impact of shipping For the purposes of this calculation, weve used Freightos as a reputable industry source. According to Freightos, the well-to-wheels impact of a 20ft container moving from London to New York is 543.82 kilograms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). To put this into context, flying from London to New York and back generates around 2,863kg CO2e. So, the carbon impact of the shipment is 38 per cent of the assignee flying to New York and back. HHG shipments do, superficially, seem to be a good place to start in reducing the footprint of relocation policies. The shipping industry is responsible for around 940 million tonnes of CO2 globally every year. Greenhouse gases from shipping currently account for three per cent of global emissions. Some 80 per cent of global trade by volume is transported by ship; however, personal 66 Shipping vs flying