Substantial work is needed from the legal profession to reduce its environmental impact. A survey of law firm leaders, carried out by the IBA Law Firm Management Committee’s ESG Subcommittee and published in September, found that 59 per cent of respondents hadn’t yet calculated their carbon footprint. Meanwhile, the survey identified that of the three pillars of ESG [environmental, social and governance], the ‘E’ is the least well represented within the strategies of law firms.

Law firms are facing increased pressure from their clients – and from both existing and prospective employees – to address their environmental impact. Some are aware of growing regulation in the space, while others are attuned to the reputational risk associated with inaction, tokenism – ie, superficial gestures – or greenwashing, the making of misleading environmental claims. Some firms are even worried about being targeted by climate activists. 

The survey suggests that some firms will need to think more holistically and strategically about their environmental impact, and about their overall approach to ESG issues. It found that ‘most firms have pursued relatively low-hanging fruit’, adding that ‘it seems that the more strategic and/or impactful decisions are pushed aside’. The authors of the survey add that in most law firms, ‘ESG is not yet part of the monitoring, reporting and decision-making process’. 

Scopes 1, 2 and 3 refer to categories of emissions set out by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which supplies accounting standards in this area. Scope 1 covers all direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the company. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from the company’s consumption of purchased electricity, steam or heat. Scope 3 covers other indirect emissions generated across the company’s entire value chain. For law firms, Scope 1 and 2 emissions are potentially easier to reduce than Scope 3. 

Ian Hagg, Director of Responsible Business at DLA Piper, says his firm has adopted a science-based target to halve its emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2040. Both targets have been validated by the Science Based Targets Initiative, which he says ensures the firm’s goals are ‘meaningful’. Hagg estimates that approximately 95 per cent of his firm’s climate impact is linked to its supply chain, the most significant element of Scope 3 emissions for many businesses. 

According to Sinker, supply chain engagement is ‘what’s really falling behind at the moment from a law firm perspective’. Hagg argues that ‘to not focus on that [area of emissions] is missing the point of climate action’. 

Hagg says the responsible business team at DLA Piper works closely with the procurement team to identify the climate hot spots in the firm’s supply chain and to develop an engagement programme with its key suppliers. The firm has enhanced its supplier code of practice and its sustainable procurement policy to take environmental impact into account. 

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of environmental impact for law firms is ‘advised emissions’ or ‘Scope 4/Scope X emissions’ – those generated by the type of business a client carries on or the matters the firm advises on. ‘The tricky issue here is for whom do you work?’ and ‘what type of work do you want to do?’ says Robert van Beemen, Chair of the IBA Law Firm Management Committee’s ESG Subcommittee and a partner at DRB Group in The Hague. 

He says many firms don’t have a proper forum or governance structure in place to discuss who they want to work for, while Sinker adds that the partnership structure isn’t well-suited to making these kinds of decisions. According to Hagg, ‘ultimately that’s where a lot of focus will be for the sector outside of the direct operations: the indirect operations, Scope 4, Scope X, advised emissions’. 

Meanwhile, many firms are considering the environmental impact of their office space, and some are incorporating this factor into a broader review of their post-Covid-19 requirements. A more environmentally friendly office could use renewable energy and LED lights, have environmental management systems in place, be close to public transport links or achieve accreditation with a certifying body such as BREEAM, which provides validation and certification systems for a more sustainable built environment. 

The new London office of Linklaters, for example, has achieved an interim design stage BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ certification. The firm applies circular economy principles to its office management strategies by reusing and repairing office furniture and extending the usable life of electronic equipment.

Praveen Gopalan, Head of Sustainability at Macfarlanes, says that reducing office waste or plastic use can help set a consistent tone from the firm on its overall approach to environmental impact. This makes it easier to convince employees to co-operate with some of the bigger initiatives, such as taking fewer long-haul flights. 

Gopalan’s role was created to focus on how environmental issues affect the firm. A separate position, Head of ESG, is responsible for how it advises its clients on the subject. Gopalan is tasked with bringing the firm’s initiatives together under a coherent strategy to reduce carbon emissions and improve sustainability.

Many firms have also set a target to reduce travel-related emissions and are encouraging their employees to take a more conscious or thoughtful approach in this area. This could mean, for example, less frequent air travel and longer trips that serve multiple purposes, maximising the benefits of each flight and the associated emissions associated. Meanwhile, train journeys are the most climate-friendly option for shorter distances. To address emissions related to commuting, some firms are running initiatives such as car-sharing apps or offering staff incentives to buy an electric vehicle.
 

Stock Source/AdobeStock.com