< Previousbmta.co.uk DEMYSTIFYING NET ZERO Make UK Following the Paris Agreement when countries across the world agreed to step up their net-zero ambitions, the spotlight was firmly fixed on the UK as it hosted the UN Conference of Parties (COP26). This was the time for UK manufacturing to shine and demonstrate it is part of the solution to net zero, not part of the problem. The UK manufacturing sector has had a key part to play in the transition to a net- zero carbon economy, not only by cutting its own greenhouse gas emissions but also, and more crucially, through the innovative products, processes and services that are an integral part of the green industrial revolution. 30 The overwhelming majority (98%) of manufacturers are aware of the Government’s net- zero target. But being aware is one thing and achieving it is another. Yet the manufacturing industry is ready to step up to the challenge. 77% say net-zero by 2050 will be achievable in their business. Manufacturers are taking action, and many are already investing in process and energy efficiency improvements. Why Manufacturers Must Pay Attention to Climate Change In its Net Zero Review in December 2020, HM Treasury acknowledged that ‘climate change is an existential threat to humanity. Without global action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the climate will change catastrophically with almost unimaginable consequences for societies across the world’. To tackle the challenge head-on, in 2019 the UK became the first major economy to implement a legally binding net zero target to reduce GHG emissions to reach ‘net-zero by 2050. bmta.co.uk 31 What Does it Mean for the Manufacturing Sector? Industry is one of the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in the UK, accounting for 21% of emissions, only slightly less than surface transport. The manufacturing sector itself is responsible for 11% of total UK GHG emissions (eg about half of the overall industry’s emissions). Buildings also account for another significant portion (17%) of the total emissions of which commercial and industrial buildings represent about half. Net-zero means limiting overall GHG emissions to 100% below 1990 levels across the whole economy. Any remaining emissions which cannot be eliminated in the first place must be balanced by finding ways to offset GHG from the atmosphere. In many sectors, existing technologies can reduce emissions to actual zero (g electricity generation). Other sectors will face real challenges to get to zero, for example, some energy- intensive industries, agriculture and aviation. Therefore, some emissions will remain and will need to be taken out of the atmosphere through natural or technological solutions. The Manufacturing Industry is Responsible for 11% of Total UK Greenhouse Emissions In its Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy (March 2021) the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) stated some bold ambitions for the manufacturing sector: • Two thirds (67%) of emissions from the manufacturing sector are to be eliminated by 2035. • This must increase to 90% by 2050 from 2018 levels. • For the remaining 10% to be offset by carbon- sequestering methods. In a workshop of over 100 members from across the country, almost half (49%) of them said they consider net-zero extremely important for their business with a further 42% considering it somewhat important. The long-term 2050 goal seems far away, but what we do this next decade will determine our success. To achieve what is needed in 2030, we need to be well on our way in the next five years. If planned and implemented carefully, net-zero is a major opportunity to build back better. Manufacturers hold the key to helping others transition to the low-carbon economy. Net- zero will drive the green and digital industrial revolution, not just domestically, but also internationally as other countries awake to the need for these green technologies, products and services, all of which can be supplied by the UK to its trading partners across the globe. Emissions Net-zero is firstly about reducing and eliminating as many GHG emissions as possible, and only then offsetting the remainder that cannot be abated. So, what then do manufacturers need to consider when it comes to emissions? The first step is to select a baseline (eg measure or calculate the last two years’ emissions) and set a target to reduce carbon emissions that is relevant to the business, possibly guided by a sectoral target (net-zero by 2050 or earlier). Carbon emissions will come from the three areas of operations of a business – upstream, core direct company, and downstream activities – and they will be accounted for three ‘scopes’. • Scope 1 emissions (directly generated by manufacturing operations) are under the business’ direct control so energy and process efficiency management is key to reducing them. • Scope 2 emissions (indirect, from purchased energy) will depend on the carbon intensity of the energy supplier, so mostly on the choice of supplier. • Scope 3 emissions (value chain) are likely to constitute the bulk of the emissions and are not directly under the business’s control, so more difficult to manage. They are, however, influenced by supplier selection, supplier development, product design and marketing. The first step is to make an inventory of these emissions and deal with them at a later stage, although there are actions that can be taken immediately depending on the level of the organisation’s commitment. What is the Route to get to Net-Zero? There is no single route, and it will be an iterative process as emission reductions are tracked and reviewed over time. Make UK is working with Inspired Energy Plc to produce a roadmap for the manufacturing sector to get to net-zero. Most manufacturers have already taken measures contributing to reducing their carbon emissions, even if they were not necessarily intending to tackle net-zero in the first place. Some are replacing or upgrading equipment, conducting energy surveys and submetering, and a handful are already under a SECR6 or ESOS7 obligation. Net-zero will inevitably reduce costs in some areas. Indeed it should be possible to see quite short paybacks (ie six years) even for major investments as new financial products and models emerge. However, cost-cutting should not always be the motivator. Some of the major benefits can only be reaped after more substantial investments. Value Chain (Scope 3) Emissions The interdependency of all factors in the value chain has been highlighted by net-zero, just as the Covid-19 pandemic has done. Scope 3 emissions are those of the value chain, both upstream and downstream. They usually constitute the largest proportion of an organisation’s emissions. Scope 3 emissions will always be someone else’s scope 1 and 2 emissions. Conversely, every company reporting on its own bmta.co.uk 32 carbon emissions is key to the overall net-zero objective because once everyone has dealt with their scope 1 and 2 emissions, it will become more straightforward to access scope 3 information. Why Manufacturers Should Engage with their Value Chain Managing scope 3 emissions will drive suppliers, customers, and employees towards the low-carbon economy, enabling manufacturing businesses to maximise mutual benefits and reduce costs throughout a like-minded and therefore effective value chain. For this, engagement with the value chain is necessary. However, this can be a daunting prospect given the sheer size of the value chain. Pressure from the Value Chain is Already Starting Major manufacturers who will themselves have made net-zero commitments and made changes to their own operations to help bring everyone into line to achieve net-zero will be relying on their value chain data to inform their own scope 3 emissions. So, for those supplying these key customers, being able to respond to their requests for information will be key to maintaining their competitiveness. Funding Manufacturers are innovative and want to be part of the green industrial revolution. Today, we have a markedly different and encouraging picture from just 18 months ago with over half (51%) of manufacturers already having acted specifically on net-zero. In addition, among those who had no intention to do anything about net zero, the vast majority have in fact already taken measures which could be contributing to reducing their scope 1 and 2 emissions (reducing their energy intensity by increasing their energy efficiency). The main barrier to taking action is access to finance, and this is particularly the case for SMEs who are already burdened by the financial consequences of the Covid-19 crisis and the new EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) conditions. About 40% of carbon emission reductions for the manufacturing sector are expected to come purely from the deployment of efficient and best available technologies, so investing in energy efficiency and process improvement is very important. This can be done by applying for grants and loans or by taking advantage of tax incentives. Grants and Loans National funds: one of the most important of these is the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund (IETF), open to businesses of any size in England, Wales or Northern Ireland and targeted at existing industrial process energy efficiency and deep decarbonisation projects in the manufacturing sector. It is designed to complement other government programs of innovation and early demonstration support with feasibility studies and deployment projects of technologies proven to work and ready for commercialisation on industrial sites. Other national funds such as the Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator exist to help resource low-carbon innovation and efficient technology processes; the Heat Networks Investment Project helps connect buildings to a centralised heating system and manufacturing technology that contribute to the green economy. Despite the myriad of regional funds available (which are somewhat unevenly distributed), SMEs often do not have the resource to investigate each one of these and to identify the one that is right for them. If we are to succeed in decarbonising the bulk of our manufacturing sector, what is needed is a streamlined national funding system. This should be accessible to all companies of all sizes and from any region, covering smaller ‘close to commercialisation’ projects, as long as they aim to reduce carbon emissions or improve energy efficiency. Not only should these funds be accessible to energy- intensive (dispersed) sites, but they should also help the less energy-intensive SMEs in dispersed sites, the all-important non-foundation industries such as automotive, food and drink, and electronics. It is also possible to earn revenue from energy management, by engaging in demand-side flexibility if the operations allow the ability to control energy usage at short notice, or to generate energy to balance the supply and demand of the National Grid and the District Network Operators. However, this is complex and specialist help is advised to ensure the adapted solution is found. • Tax incentives for net-zero projects: Changes to the capital allowances scheme were introduced in the Budget which will help with net-zero projects. The £1million annual investment allowance was extended to December 2021 so it was worth accelerating investments to fit them into 2021 to take full advantage of the extension. The 130% super deduction was introduced on main rate pool assets and qualifies for the £1million investment allowance. In addition, the loss relief carry-back has been extended from one to three years. A 50% first-year allowance for Special Pool assets eg all plant and machinery, integral building structures, were also introduced. These can be claimed even for projects involving some grants (although the grant element itself cannot be included in the claim). bmta.co.uk 33 The 130% super-deduction has been welcome and analysis has suggested that a quarter of companies will bring forward investment plans in light of the new super-deduction and a further quarter will increase investment plans. That said, it is of limited help as it is in place for only two years, which does not match the longer investment cycles needed for this type of capital expenditure which usually last at least 10-20 years. If a piece of equipment has not reached its end of life before the term of the scheme and provided the expected return on investment there will be no or little incentive to replace it. Manufacturers have welcomed the R&D Tax relief for scientific or technological projects with no obvious scientific or technological solution and more projects could be eligible than at first glance: while buying and installing of capital equipment does not qualify for R&D tax relief, if its installation involves engineering challenges which have no existing solution, then it may well qualify. • The Patent Box scheme gives access to a reduced corporation tax rate of 10% on relevant intellectual property profits (eg sales of products/ components, licences). Reporting and Commitments Making a net-zero commitment makes a business truly credible. Reporting formalises the commitment, giving it context and structure, and doing it publicly drives accountability. Therefore, as soon as some action has been taken, it should be reported and communicated, and for those who have already acted before the baseline years but not communicated anything about it, there is nothing to stop them from reporting their good progress to date. Communication is Critical The reasons for companies to communicate are multiple, eg being under mandatory compliance obligations (SECR25, ESOS, TFCD), wanting to make public statements for PR reasons (in reaction to something or to lead/follow others, including roadmaps) voluntarily as this makes good business sense (eg Race to Zero). We found that over a quarter (28%) of manufacturers planned to disclose their net-zero ambitions and progress and that they communicate (or want to communicate) mostly with their customers and employees, followed by capital providers (lenders/investors,) and then their suppliers. Potential employees, and particularly the younger generation, are looking at prospective employers’ environmental credentials, so it is vital to communicate these to attract talent. Sharing internally the company’s net-zero plans, engaging staff and encouraging behaviour change are all key success factors, but whatever is communicated must be backed up by real data. Without Culture Change, Nothing Happens Culture change takes time and requires real engagement with people. It works best when net-zero is embraced by the top levels of management and embedded in everything the company does. In many big organisations, it is now quite common for executive remuneration to be linked to environmental performance. It is essential to involve staff directly, so they are engaged at a personal level. Data is key to demonstrating to the employees the impact of their efforts, gaining their trust and understanding. bmta.co.uk A “BEHIND THE SCENES” LOOK AT FOOD SAFETY CONTROLS Marta Vaquero, UKAS Accreditation Specialist – Food and Farm Certification How well informed are we about the food safety controls that are applied in each step of the food chain? Perhaps the best starting point is to highlight the numerous food safety certification schemes that have been developed over the years (for example, Red Tractor, Global GAP, RSPCA, BMPA, BRCGS, FSSC 22000, FSMS, FAMI-QS, IFS, to mention just a few of those currently related to the food sector). Farmers, manufacturers, retailers, distributors and other key stakeholders want consumers to be confident that the food they buy is safe to eat and has been produced responsibly. As has previously been seen in the sector, even a relatively minor food recall can seriously tarnish a previously glowing reputation. Public confidence in the sector is engendered not only by following applicable regulations but by the additional support of a robust management system, whereby everyone involved is aware of what needs to be done and how to do it. Regular audits which, in turn, lead to continuous improvement of the processes designed to deliver good food, are obviously the best way to ensure good practice, and certification schemes are designed to promote this. The owners of food safety schemes are constantly reviewing and revising their requirements in accordance with market demands and regulatory changes. It is not unusual to find the industry debating which scheme to adopt, so that it best satisfies their needs while at the same time supporting improvements in the quality of their products, securing production and facilitating access to national and international markets. Those with an awareness of the food safety sector will undoubtedly be familiar with the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and its objectives in benchmarking requirements. For 34bmta.co.uk 35 those who are less familiar with the sector, GFSI comprises a group of 37 retailers and manufacturers selected from members of the Consumer Goods Forum to oversee food safety standards and harmonise their approach, with the intention of ensuring food safety on a global scale. GFSI is now working on a “Race To The Top” framework, with the intention of determining how well the certification industry is managing the schemes that GFSI recognise. A primary objective of that work is to look at the processes that an individual must comply with in order to be approved as an auditor. This clearly reinforces the importance that is placed on ensuring demonstrable auditor competence as part of this global initiative. When the GFSI experts meet to discuss the needs of the industry and the harmonised approach that recognised schemes must follow, they clearly consider previous incidents and the lessons learned in their revisions of benchmarking requirements to prevent future issues. To support this, the Food Safety Scheme owners are continuously working collaboratively to develop robust sector-specific requirements, to satisfy updates to applicable legislation, maintaining Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) principles as the core of their normative requirements. The food laws, legislation and regulations of each country and the work of sector scheme owners and GFSI all have the same aims. Our lifestyles have changed dramatically over the years and expectations of the quality of products have also increased. Due to the impact of the Covid pandemic, it has often been difficult to physically attend sites to conduct audits. However, at the same time, there have been some significant challenges to contributors throughout the supply chain that have needed close scrutiny. Certification bodies, accreditation bodies and producers have had to work very closely in order to maintain an appropriate level of review to ensure that ongoing confidence in the supply chain has been maintained. In addition to the implementation of specific legislative food safety requirements, it must be borne in mind that issuing a certificate to a farmer or manufacturer involves ensuring that not only personnel who undertake audits, but also reviewers and decision-makers are fully trained and regularly monitored. It is important for certification bodies to work closely with scheme owners to ensure that any changes that are made to their schemes are quickly implemented and that specific knowledge is transferred to relevant staff in a timely manner. The food chain in the UK has traditionally been heavily reliant on EU legislation and we are already seeing changes following Brexit. We need to be cautious of relaxations to current UK legislation or requirements that could adversely affect public health, consumer protection, animal welfare and/or environmental sustainability, as other countries begin to produce food for the UK to replace imports from the EU. Practices in some other countries include: • Using chemical decontamination to circumvent the need to achieve good standards of hygiene during food production. • Increased use of chemicals in crop production, which could lead to increased consumption of pesticide residues. • Accepting different concentrations and ranges of food additives than are currently permitted in the UK. • Performing fewer welfare checks on livestock animals during transport. • Labelling that provides consumers with far less information than we are used to seeing as a result of existing standards. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t review our food safety laws and standards as a whole but it is important to be mindful of the potential impacts that decisions on changing the regulatory framework might have on food safety. But who evaluates and confirms the competence and capability of Certification Bodies? This is the role of National Accreditation Bodies (NABs), which in the UK is the responsibility of UKAS. Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17021 and ISO/IEC 17065 provides the independent verification of the competence and compliance of a certification body to review and approve the activities of its clients. Accredited certification bodies will have been assessed by relevant independent technical experts to ensure that specific requirements have been met and that the processes and procedures employed during the certification process are fit for purpose. Of course, certification is not the only supporting activity that is in place to ensure food safety. Much could be said in relation to food inspection, the impact on food when in contact with packaging materials and the huge range of food testing activities that are conducted globally on a day-to-day basis. All of these are also covered by regulation and legislation and conducted under the auspices of accreditation to ISO/IEC 17020 and/or ISO/IEC 17025. Most consumers are unaware or do not distinguish between a product that has been produced under a food safety certification scheme and one that hasn’t, so how important then is this recognition? For those who are unfamiliar with the food safety sector it is most likely that they probably don’t really care at all, as long as the final product tastes good and doesn’t make them ill - and here is the key - consumers expect the products to be safe and that’s all that really matters. The chain of control is in constant operation and consumers should be reassured that, with every bite they take, these comprehensive processes are at work in the background, making their lives easier and safer. bmta.co.uk ACCREDITED AND NON- ACCREDITED CERTIFICATION Wayne Terry, Chief Executive, ABCB Over 2.4 million organisations across the globe benefit from certification against management systems standards agreed upon and published by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). The most widely adopted of these is ISO9001, the management systems requirements standard for quality, the latest version of which was published in 2015. Using management systems standards can help organisations streamline processes, improve efficiency, mitigate business risk, manage growth and drive continual improvement. And certification against these internationally recognised standards can reduce trade barriers, meet and exceed customer tender requirements and provide market differentiation. As such, certification is a vital business tool offering a degree of assurance to customers and suppliers. Certification is offered by conformity assessment, or certification, bodies (CABs) which may or may not be accredited by national accreditation bodies (NABs). 36bmta.co.uk 37 Accreditation is the formal recognition by an independent NAB that a CAB is competent to perform conformity assessments. Such recognition is based on the CAB being able to demonstrate its competence, consistency and impartiality, according to the relevant international standards, in assessing organisations’ ability to meet the requirements of recognised ISO standards. Although it is not mandatory for CABs to be accredited by a NAB, those that are accredited are able to demonstrate that they have been rigorously assessed by an independent, recognised authority against internationally recognised standards. Non-accredited CABs are not subject to this independent scrutiny. This does not necessarily mean that a non-accredited CAB is not a competent, impartial and capable organisation. However, it cannot demonstrate that it has the competence, capability and impartiality required to conduct conformity assessments in a universally accepted way. A consequence of this is that many organisations which require their suppliers’ management systems to be certified will only recognise accredited certification. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), the sole government recognised NAB in the UK, has issued approximately 3,200 accreditations to over 2,700 conformity assessment bodies. These accreditations apply to a wide range of products, services, processes, systems, bodies and persons from all industry sectors, adding an estimated £1billion annually to the UK economy [Source: University of Birkbeck]. The UK government provides guidance and information on accreditation and conformity assessment including that: “The UK government expects UK based conformity assessment bodies to: • be compliant with European legislation • seek accreditation from the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS)” Furthermore, it “recommends UK businesses, government and local authorities that need third-party conformity assessment services to use services from conformity assessment bodies accredited by a national accreditation body.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conformity-assessment-and- accreditation-policy-the-uks-quality-infrastructure In addition, the UK government guidance on accreditation and conformity assessment state that: “the only ‘authoritative statement’ of competence, that has public authority status - providing the last level of control in the conformity assessment chain is from the UK’s national accreditation body, UKAS.” Consistent with this guidance, it is advised that organisations requiring conformity assessment should use the services only of CABs that are accredited by the national accreditation body.bmta.co.uk HELP SHAPE THE DIGITAL FUTURE OF NPL Daniel Povey – Higher Research Scientist, Manufacturing Metrology group, NPL There are already many plans at NPL to develop our ability to support industry as digitalisation progresses, but it is critical that we remain closely informed by industry in order to ensure our efforts are relevant, useful and timely. As such, we would be extremely grateful to hear from any members of the BMTA. • How would your business benefit from digitally-delivered, machine-readable calibration certificates? • How would you benefit from digital access to data obtained during the calibration of instruments in the traceability chain of your equipment? • How do you think a fully digitalised traceability chain would affect operations at your company? • Are there any particular areas within the digitalisation umbrella that you believe NPL, as the UK’s NMI, should be focusing its efforts to support? These questions are just a sample of those you may wish to offer your opinion on – but we would greatly appreciate input on any point within the context of digitalisation. We will be sharing a survey with more specific questions through BMTA soon, but we would be glad to get your general thoughts ahead of that. Existing Digitalisation Projects As the UK’s NMI, NPL is responsible for the dissemination of the SI within the UK – meaning that calibration and traceability chains all lead back to NPL (or another national NMI). By digitalising measurement and calibration services, the journey to fully digital dissemination of the SI can begin. As an example of some of the ways in which we are already adapting to the evolving needs of industry, an outline of some of the activities which are part of the Digital Calibration and Verification project at NPL might provide some context. Machine-readable Certificates Machine-readable digital calibration certificates (DCCs) are a focus of active research, and the potential for these certificates is easy to imagine. Fully digital certificates go hand-in-hand with the use of quality management systems that are increasingly digital. By making them machine- readable, the potential for highly automated quality and compliance becomes much more feasible. Of course, it will take some time to establish this technology – and there are several considerations when it comes to Standardisation, both nationally and internationally, for the potential of machine-readable calibration certificates to be fully realised. A first step towards the development of international implementation of DCCs was taken during the EU-funded project SmartCom (https://www.ptb.de/empir2018/smartcom/ project/). Together, project partners, comprising of European and Asian NMIs and industrial and academic organisations, developed a basis for a secure, unambiguous and unified exchange of metrological data. The outputs of the project included specification of the minimum contents required for a DCC to fulfil the same role as a paper certificate, and definition of a framework that unambiguously specifies those contents. An XML schema that implements the DCC framework was developed and made available online and could form the basis for future standardisation of DCCs. Work is ongoing at NPL and elsewhere to develop tools to make the transition to DCCs simple and smooth for the end user. Update and Automation of Measurement Services As part of the Digital Calibration and Verification project, the Temperature and Humidity group have nearly completed the implementation of a full automation of contact thermometry calibration service data handling and certificate generation. In doing so, the group can eliminate some of the labour- intensive administration associated with these activities, dramatically reduce user errors and instead, focus more on performing critical research and services in support of the National Measurement System. Also within the scope of the project, the Surface Technology group are responding to growth in demand for X-ray 38 Developing a Digital NMI As industry adopts increasingly digital technologies (be it automation, virtualisation, etc), the UK’s National Measurement Institute must continue to develop to support that evolution. NPL is actively seeking feedback and guidance on how we can best shape our development in the context of industrial digitalisation. We would like to hear your thoughts, views and observations: how are your businesses adopting digitalisation and how should NPL’s capability evolve to support that? bmta.co.uk 39 photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) by exploring the possibility of remote verification through digital means. By translating their existing intensity calibration procedure to be more suitable for online access, the group will be ideally placed to support a rapidly growing area of active research and development. With new standards for XPS on the horizon, this is an opportune time for the group’s efforts. As a group that works very closely with manufacturers to provide dimensional measurements and calibrations, the Manufacturing Metrology group are developing a system for automating their measurement-to-dissemination pipeline. Once complete, this system should allow the group to continue producing reports according to customer requirements, whilst reducing the need for manual data entry and formatting once the measurements have been performed. All of these activities are being coordinated by NPL’s Data Science group, who are conducting reviews of the calibration services offered across NPL in order to identify those with the greatest potential for digitalised delivery – while also monitoring those with processes that would benefit from increased automation or virtualisation. All of these activities will lead to a new understanding of the steps on the route to digitalisation. This knowledge will be shared across NPL and beyond, to enable UK industry to get the most from the opportunities that digitalisation brings, and to make NPL a digital NMI. Conclusions With digitalisation coming to the fore of transformation processes, it has never been more important for the world’s National Measurement Institutes to be ready to provide support. Maintaining the chain of traceability to the SI is the core mission of NPL. Our efforts to transform our processes and services must be intimately linked to the developments occurring in UK industry so that we can not only maintain traceability to the SI, but also streamline that chain and make it more accessible to algorithms and automated decision- making processes. We hope that you agree with our ambition to develop our capability in tandem with industry and in doing so we would greatly value your input. Please direct your thoughts, observations and support to Daniel Povey. Image courtesy of NPL. Image courtesy of NPL. CONTACT Daniel Povey Higher Research Scientist, Manufacturing Metrology group, NPL e: daniel.povey@npl.co.uk | w: https://www.npl.co.uk/about-us/locations/north-england/Next >