Assessing carbon readiness in the automotive sector: Insights from a new study
The automotive sector needs to be carbon neutral and decarbonise with exports going abroad to be competitive.
Nedbank and Naacam have done a study to determine carbon readiness in the automotive sector. The survey sought to assess industry awareness of local and global sustainability regulations, the current capacity to measure and reduce carbon emissions and water usage, and the type of support required to meet evolving sustainability expectations.
The study 67.9% of respondents indicated that they have some export-related component sales, with EU and UK being the most served export markets. The reliance on particularly European and UK markets is critical to note, as these markets are the most regulated in terms of carbon emission reduction.
The study looked at decarbonisation as a business strategy.
It asked respondents if a company familiar with current sustainability trends and carbon regulations. Respondents answered that 32.1% were very familiar, while 35.7% were moderately familiar.
Amith Singh of Nedbank Commercial Banking said, "The worrying part about 40% of respondents that they believe carbon readiness and neutrality in a long-term goal and initiative not the short term. The reason I am worried is that there is a belief and that we have, and I believe it's an opportunity that the early adoption of carbon readiness could be a differentiator in the market."
He said the early adoption of carbon readiness is critical because South Africa was up against other developing countries.
"So the quicker we adapt, the quicker we play ahead of the curve," Singh said.
Singh gave an example of Melbourne Engineering and how they migrated to green steel, saying it was ahead of the curve in South Africa and was the first of its kind. Subsequently, this put them at the forefront of advancement of technology and steel manufacturers.
"It was a costly exercise and did require investment but now they are market leaders, which is a benefit of early adoption," he said.
The study found immediate consideration of decarbonization remains limited across respondents. Those with higher prioritisation of decarbonization tend to be export-oriented multinational businesses, while businesses that are not exporting or are locally owned have suggested decarbonization to be a longer-term consideration for their business.
It said the lack of immediate urgency to decarbonize is likely a function of carbon regulations. Few component subsectors currently fall within CBAM, and the SA Carbon Tax currently has little impact on the sector.
While 36% of companies view decarbonization as an opportunity, 32% view it as a threat.
Singh said, "How do we multiply 36% of respondants viewing decarbonisation as an opportunity? We have a lot of work ahead of us. But it's a mountain we have to climb."
Non-exporters tend to have a more positive outlook on decarbonization (55.56%), potentially due to there being a less immediate and pressing need to pursue decarbonization to maintain a market
Similarly, multinational suppliers tend to be slightly more positive in their outlook on decarbonisation (45.45%), possibly an outcome ofaccess to greater resources within their multinational group to support their decarbonization strategy.
The study found that there is a significant drop off of companies tracking scope 3 emissions, suggesting from a sector perspective, support in a common methodology for collecting and reporting supply chain emissions is needed.
While more than 60% of companies have sustainability strategies, a minority (42%) have a time-bound target for decarbonisation. In general, decarbonization strategies and targeted timelines for net zero are significantly more prevalent in multinational companies as compared to locally owned companies.
The cost implications attached to sustainability initiatives is reflected upon as the largest barrier to decarbonization. Along with this, a lack of reason or business case to decarbonize, and uncertainty linked to regulations, measurement of emissions and the correct activities to implement are also hurdles.
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
2 days ago
- eNCA
What's in the EU's two-trillion-euro budget bazooka?
BRUSSELS - EU members got their first chance on Friday to debate the bloc's two-trillion-euro budget bazooka, laying bare divisions among the 27 capitals over the spending plans for 2028-2034. Seeking to balance the European Union's key priorities, Brussels wants the next long-term budget to bolster the bloc's economy, support farmers and plough billions more into defence -- all while paying off its debts. The battle lines are now drawn for two years of fraught negotiations between the EU parliament and member states -- which provide the lion's share of funds along with tax-based resources and custom duties. Don't come to us for more money, EU capitals have already told the European Commission. "In a time where national budgets are under great economic pressure, the answer can't be more money and a bigger budget," Sweden's EU Minister Jessica Rosencrantz said. Here are the key parts of the spending proposals: Competitiveness fund Beyond security, the EU's biggest priority is to bolster its competitiveness and help European businesses catch up with US and Chinese rivals. The author of a seminal report last year, Mario Draghi, delivered hard truths: to see real change, the EU needs yearly investment of at least 750-800 billion euros. Without stretching that far, commission chief Ursula Von der Leyen has proposed a 451-billion-euro competitiveness fund that will focus on the clean and digital transition, health as well as defence and space. Brussels also proposed establishing a fund of up to 100 billion euros for Ukraine's reconstruction. - Agriculture - Von der Leyen is steeled for a fight with the bloc's farmers over a proposed overhaul of the EU's massive subsidies scheme known as the common agricultural policy (CAP). At least 300 billion euros would be dedicated to support farmers in the next budget, but some funding would move to other spending columns. The sector fears this will mean less aid while France, whose farmers are some of CAP's biggest beneficiaries, accused the commission of "turning its back" on agriculture. Brussels, however, stresses the CAP will still have its own rules and earmarked financial resources, especially direct aid to farmers. Climate With all the focus on security and competition, there were fears the environment would be sidelined in the budget -- despite heatwaves, forest fires and flooding caused by human-caused climate change wreaking havoc across Europe in recent years. The commission said 35 percent of the overall budget -- around 650 billion euros -- would be dedicated to the climate and achieving the EU's environmental aims. Some environment groups slammed the target as vague, while the World Wildlife Fund warned it risked "defunding vital nature and climate action" if, as planned, a key environment programme is absorbed into the larger competitiveness fund. Climate think tank E3G however saw the 35-percent target as a sign of commitment to the green ambitions of the commission's previous 2019-2024 term, while insisting on the need for sufficient funds to pursue its climate goals. Rule of law The EU proposes that future funding will be more closely linked to democratic values, telling member states: protect the judiciary's independence and maintain freedoms if you want money. "No EU money without the respect of rule of law," budget chief Piotr Serafin said. Hungary, which has often been the target of the EU's ire and of infringement proceedings for rule-of-law violations, was not happy. "It's a tool for political and ideological pressuring," said the country's EU minister, Janos Boka, calling the notion a "non-starter" for Budapest. Beyond Europe The EU's eyes are not only on itself. Brussels proposed a more than 200-billion-euro fund for investments and aid abroad -- welcomed by humanitarian groups after the deep cuts to US foreign aid under President Donald Trump. This also includes the EU's efforts to protect its borders through stepped-up partnerships with countries in the Middle East and North Africa, despite criticism this can amount to throwing money at authoritarian countries with poor human rights records.
TimesLIVE
2 days ago
- TimesLIVE
Volvo boss Samuelsson wants EU to cut ‘unnecessary' car tariffs to defuse Trump threat
The CEO of Volvo Cars urged the EU to cut its 10% tariff on American-made cars, arguing European carmakers do not need protection from US competitors in an interview with Reuters on Thursday. Brussels, along with representatives from the car industry, has spent months trying to persuade Washington to lower its 27.5% tariff on imports of European cars. "If Europe is for free trade, we should be the ones showing the way and going down to very low tariffs first," Hakan Samuelsson said after the company reported second quarter earnings. US President Donald Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on EU car imports to 30% from August 1, increasing pressure on the bloc to strike a deal. Before Trump's tenure, the US had a 2.5% tariff on European-made cars, while the EU had a 10% duty on vehicles imported from the US, which Samuelsson previously said was unfair. "I think it's absolutely unnecessary. The European car industry definitely does not need to have any protection from American car builders," he told Reuters. Volvo Cars, majority-owned by China's Geely Holding ], is one of the most exposed European carmakers to US tariffs as most of its cars sold there are imported from Europe. Volvo announced on Wednesday that it would start US production in late 2026 of its best-selling model, the hybrid XC60, as a way to mitigate the tariffs. Its South Carolina plant only produces the Polestar 3 and electric vehicle model EX90, which has struggled to gain traction with US consumers. Volvo has also started slimming down its product offering in the US, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Eyewitness News
3 days ago
- Eyewitness News
Zuckerberg settles lawsuit over Cambridge Analytica scandal
WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES - Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg and other company board members settled a shareholder lawsuit on Thursday concerning decisions made in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. A trial over the long-running case had just begun on Wednesday, with defendants accused of overpaying the US government in 2019 when they engineered a $5 billion settlement for alleged privacy violations in the scandal. Sources familiar with the matter confirmed the settlement to AFP, without providing details. The settlement comes the same day that Marc Andreessen, one of Silicon Valley's most influential venture capitalists and a board member of the company now known as Meta, was to take the stand. Zuckerberg himself was expected in the Wilmington, Delaware courtroom on Monday. Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel and former Meta top executive Sheryl Sandberg were also expected to face questioning in the court. Cambridge Analytica was a political consulting firm that was found to have improperly harvested personal data from millions of Facebook users for targeted political advertising, particularly during the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum. The scandal thrust Facebook and Zuckerberg in particular into a political firestorm, leading to major regulatory changes and public scrutiny of tech companies' data practices. The shareholders in the lawsuit alleged that the board members conspired to pay more to the US government in exchange for ensuring that Zuckerberg would not be named personally for wrongdoing in the settlement. Longtime observers of the company were hoping that the trial would expose inside details of how Zuckerberg and the Facebook executives handled the scandal. Zuckerberg was under huge pressure at the time from US and European lawmakers amid widespread allegations that Russia and other bad actors were weaponising Facebook to sow chaos around major elections in the West. The multi-faceted case also alleged insider trading at the time of the events, with board members to be questioned about the timing of their share sales before the scandal was made public.
