The Sustainable Value For The Company Delphi Tvs Accounting Essay

Published:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

In this report, we calculate the Sustainable value for the company Delphi-TVS by following the methodology of the paper, Liesen et al., (2009). We compare the company with the other Organisations from the reference paper and arrive at several conclusions. Since the values are given to us by Delphi-TVS themselves, we decided to scrutinize the exact value of any one of the indicators used and check if our value is similar to theirs. To carry out this operation, we picked one indicator, which is Green House Gas Emissions and used another paper titled "Guidelines to DECC's conversion factors for company reporting", (also given in the reference), and arrived at a value. Thus we are able to make a detailed analysis by obtaining a Sustainable value and we are also able to compare a generated value with one that has been calculated and thus arrive at the conclusion about the stand of the company in today's environmental standards and also assess if the company is sustainable or not.

TO BE REVISED ON COMPLETION OF ANALYSIS

Table of Contents

 

     Introduction

     Method of analysis

     

     Analysis

 

     Conclusion

 

     References

Introduction

Sustainability has gained high importance and is the most asked question in a growing firm in today's economic situation. But what does sustainability mean? According to Harmon et al.(2009), sustainability as defined in a business-oriented global economy is "a company's ability to achieve its business goals and increase its long term shareholder value, by integrating economic, environmental and social opportunities into its business strategies." This attention to sustainability is not sudden and has been gradually gaining momentum over the years. 

It is evident from all regular sources of media and information that highlight us about climate change, corruption, destruction to natural environment, water scarcity, dependency on fossil fuels (Harmon et al. 2009). It is also noted that this enforcement of sustainability issues only on corporations is because they are the powerful as well as most destructive organisations on earth. Several sustainability strategies have been adopted by companies beside Quality Management Systems and Environment Management Systems.

We are analysing such a company which is in the manufacturing field and keeps a high regard for EMS and thus for its sustainability.

As elucidated by Hamschmidt (2001), due to the implementation of EMS through the ISO 14001 certification, it is seen the companies under survey pointed out that the main motive of implementing the certification was 'To improve public image'. By doing so, their products will automatically be accepted by the public and other customers and they can set higher standards for their suppliers. Another important question raised by the author is the monetary benefits that EMS provides for the company, where several companies are able to benefit from the implementations within two years and hence see it as a great improvement tool. But he also stresses that the non-monetary benefits are as important and generate unexpected operative benefits and help the organisation in the long run.

Literature also suggests that organisations are often driven towards developing sustainability strategies and do so once they realise that their resources are becoming scarce and their service values become more internalised (Harmon et al. 2009).

The need has come for corporations to integrate sustainability strategies into their culture since it is seen that when the company reaches a mature stage, sustainability using environmental awareness is a main factor that takes it to a higher level and will determine the ways they operate. If this incorporation is done on earlier stages, it will steer the organisation on how to think and will be able to influence the decisions towards a greener strategy. The social-environmental outlook will be influenced and productivity can also be increased (Harmon et al. 2009).

Another important factor to take into consideration is the redefinition of the market. The company has to continuously look for ways to beat its competitors. This can be done in many innovative ways and as discussed earlier, these process innovations need to be implemented with social and environmental concerns in mind. From the paper Reinhardt (1999), we read about the example of the strategy of the company 'Xerox', where instead of selling copier machines, they leased them out to the corporations and hence saved costs, reduced manufacturing, and directly or indirectly reduced effects on the environment.

The report will briefly study the sustainability of Delphi-TVS and compare it with other industries and analyze how it fairs. It will discuss the arrival of the figures and its methodology and help strengthen the analysis.

Delphi-TVS Diesel Systems Limited

Delphi-TVS is a joint venture between Delphi corporation USA and TV-Sundaram  Iyengar  & Sons , India, manufacturing  Diesel Fuel equipment for cars ,multi and sports utility Vehicles ,LCV's  Tractors . Delphi-TVS is the largest Automotive Supplier in India. The initial investment for the diesel fuel injection plant was 500 crores INR. Delphi-TVS has designed its manufacturing systems based on the manufacturing concepts such as lean manufacturing through value stream mapping, TPM and Delphi Manufacturing system. Delphi-TVS have always concentrated to have a sustainable development in the field of EMS and Quality management systems.

As a first step of their environmental development they have successfully implemented waste management systems and an eco-friendly effluent treatment for its manufacturing plant. They have also adopted efficient energy management system by using solar energy for its in-house lighting and for running its machines. To reduce the CFC emissions they have successfully implemented Environmental control Technology (ECT) for their air conditioning system. In 1996 Delphi-TVS successfully implemented ISO 9000(Quality Standards). It started implementing Environmental standards ISO 14001 from the year 2003. It has continually been on the stream of sustainability since then by adopting a series of management practices like ISO/TS 16949 and by practicing various platforms like TPM, TQM, and Kaizen. Delphi-TVS was also awarded the Global environmental award in 2004 and Asia pacific award for and environmental excellence in 2006 .

The whole manufacturing plant supports an environmental balancing atmosphere by having artificial ponds around the area and by having plantation drives to support green revolution. On their road to corporate social responsibility Delphi-TVS have adopted an orphanage and a nearby village and take care of their needs.

We analyzed the product life cycle and identified the various sustainable measures followed from the management perspective.

When we take into account the product life cycle from the input raw materials to the functioning of the product at the customers end, the company has adopted various methods at different stages of the product life cycle to keep the emissions low. The product has been under sustainable improvements and has a very low level of environmental impact.

The product life cycle starts with the input raw-materials. As a fuel injection systems equipment manufacturer, they require high level of quality manufacturing processes. They select their suppliers with ISO 14001 certifications. Continuous audits are done to the suppliers and various improvements to the systems are suggested for sustainable environmental growth. The contract with the suppliers is only extended if they show a constant improvement in the ISO14001 implementation. The second stage is of in-house manufacturing and consists of various heat treatment processes and machining. Chemicals such as Ammonia used in various heat treatment processes such as for running furnaces are managed properly for minimum usage .The fumes from the furnaces are passed through a chamber of distilled water to reduce Green house gas emission into the environment. On the manufacturing machining sector clear standards and reports for chemical management and (Material Safety Data Sheet) MSDS are maintained. Audits are done to the system to ensure proper management of the adopted system. A separate procedure is followed for coolant management to reduce the GHG emission. Delphi-TVS follows recycling and reuse of scrap and coolant management which reduces emissions at various level of production of the product. The Water used in the plant is reused using Reverse Osmosis. In the assembly stage the testing oil used at the testing rigs are filtered and recycled in the system. In the logistics stage the goods are transported with an efficient logistics system. Delphi-TVS have also received the environmental award for best logistics management for Asia pacific region. When the product reaches the customer end the product fits as a complementary product with the engine of the cars. The products are manufactured using the Euro IV and Euro V Emission standards with minimum emission levels.

The performance of the automobiles mainly depends of the quality of this product and the emission from the automobiles is influenced by this product.

Methodology of Analysis:

Methodology of making an analysis for calculating the sustainability index

The base of analysis is from the paper by Liesen et al., (2009) and also a comparison with the "Guidelines to DECC's GHG conversion factor for company reporting".

Part 1 (Calculating Sustainable Value)

Analysis is done by calculating the sustainable value attained by the company through the implementation of EMS and comparing it with the international emission level permitted by the UN Convention. Also, we would try to analyze the process involved by defining the parameters required in the form of sustainability Indicators. The particular project taken into consideration is the "Clean development mechanism "undertaken by Delphi TVS in December 2006.

In addition, the sustainability performance is analyzed on the basis of value obtained by comparing it with the international standards and also the industry peer group which have adopted same management systems.

The primary step of calculation is defining the benchmarks the following are the ones which we would embark on:

a) How efficiently does the company use its resources .This we would do by using resource allocation based on efficiency analysis by Korhonen & Syrjänen (2004).

b) How does the benchmark use the resources?

c) Does the company use its resources more efficiently than the benchmarks?

d) A 'sustainability value' is arrived upon by calculating the resources as well as the emissions/output from the company for the respective EMS under study. (Figge & Hahn 2004a)

e) We check how this 'value' generated by the company compares with a benchmark company and also how it compares with the UN standard.

We have planned to make our analysis on the basis of three classifications -

Financial indicators:

Environmental indicators (made by comparing the companies sustainable value with standard threshold)

Social indicators.

Part 2 (Calculating GHG emissions)

We have tried to compute the GHG emission values from the company through various different stages i.ein the company they are classified as below

a) From the direct sources (burners, furnaces, heaters) etc..

b) From the transportation of the Goods from and within the company.

c) Through the electricity use of the company.

d) From the water disposal and water treatment methods of the company.

e) From the refrigerants in the company.

g) From the peripheral operations of the company.

We have tried to compute the output of The GHG emissions at each of these steps through the various methods which are type specific (relating to each stage differently)

We finally arrive at consolidated emissions by combining all the above values obtained ,then this particular value is compared with the value obtained in analysis in the method one .

From the above findings we then try to theoretically criticize the company's performance.

Analysis:

PART 1

The study adopted on the basis of the sustainability value approach describes the performance of the company under study in comparison with the performance of the peer group. Even though the difference in the performance measures could be attributed to the difference in the portfolio handled, this approach gives a quantitative measure of the environmental performance of the company. The sustainable value approach provides a link between the sustainability and value oriented approach that is common in the management practice (Liesen et al., 2009).

DERIVING THE SUSATIANBLE VALUE:

This method of calculating the sustainable value is an indicative measure of the corporate sustainability performance in terms of the financial aspects. The word value stands for creation of profit whenever a resource is used in comparison with the peer group under study. This benefit is termed as the opportunity costs in financial terms and this kind of the sustainable value is created and measured whenever a company uses its resources more efficiently than its bench marks (Liesen et al., 2009).

The following is the sample descriptive explanation of how a sustainable value is calculated.

 

Company

 

Market

 

 

Investment

 

Market

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return

10%

8%

CO2 Efficiency

$15/t

$12/t

 

 

 

Value Spread

2%

 

Value Spread

$3

 

 

 

 

Capital Employed

$50

 

Quantity Emitted

20t

 

 

 

 

Value Contribution

$5

 

Value Contribution

$60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the above tabulation, it is very much evident that a company which emits 20 tonnes of CO2 to obtain a credit of $50 has a efficiency ratio of $2.5 per ton of CO2, while the sector average which is mentioned in the upper right column is about $3. Hence it is evident that the company falls well below the expected level of the industry standards of $3 hence there needs to be revitalization in the process of changing the emission control methods of the company. This above principle is just an example and is an illustration of one of our basic methods for calculating the sustainable value.

There are two parts in assessing the company's performance against that of the industry standards they are

Calculating the return to cost ratio

Calculating the sustainable value.

i) Return to cost ratio (Back ground):

When assessing the performance of the company in terms of financial indicators and the monetary benefit obtained there arises a serious problem of comparing the companies of differing operational sizes and differing investment ratios (Liesen et al., 2009). Sustainable value as and such is the amount of return obtained for a investment on a particular resources in a corresponding period of time and to negate the difference in the size factor we have introduced the concept of relating return for a particular company against that of a similar company's value (this is termed as bench mark /peer group and selection is based on the ratio of investment).One of the critical concepts used in calculating return on cost ratio is opportunity costs.

Opportunity cost: The earnings forgone from these investment alternatives are casts as far as the investor is concerned and are referred to as investment costs. Opportunity cost therefore is the cost of using the company's capital (Liesen et al., 2009).

Thus the opportunity costs for an entire group of parameters can be calculated by deducting the total influx of cash from the sustainable value calculated for the company for a particular period of time, the resulting value would give the actual opportunity costs. The following is the calculation of return on cost ratio for Delphi TVS.

 

Delphi-TVS

2006

 

 

 

 

 

Net operating cash flow - Sustainable Value = Opportunity Costs

 

€ 60m

-

€ 15m

=

€ 45m

 

 

 

 

RCR

=

60/45

 

 

=

1.3:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above figure gives the return to cost ratio.

HOW TO CALCULATE RETURN TO COST RATIO:

The return to cost ratio is usually calculated with reference to some corresponding previous point and is a factoring of 4 different values .The values are listed and explained as follows:

The company return effect Cr:

This is the degree to which the RCR of a company varies due the variation in the capital returns. RCR will be on increasing slope when the company generates more returns.

The company resource effect: This is the measure of variation in the RCR with the amount of increases or deduction in the use of its resources i. e the company's RCR will increase with the reduction in resource use.

The benchmark return effect: This is the measure of variation in RCR of a company with the change in the return of the bench mark company, i e the RCR of the company under study decreases if the bench mark generates very less returns.

The bench mark resource effect: It is the measure of variation in the RCR of the company due to the changes in the resources used by the bench mark.

The main query in the above is the calculation of the cost of the resources:

This is obtained by returns that could have been generated from the alternative use of resources and in this particular case of Delphi-TVS it was calculated with the assistantship of the company's environmental manager and the opportunity costs was taken into account for the calculations. Thus the cost of the resources is not treated as measure of cost incurred or potential damage, but as the percentage of contribution for increasing the return of the company.

ii) THE METHOD OF CALCULATING SUSTAINABLE VALUE:

The efficient use of the resources by the company: This is obtained by the total amount of the or the quantity of the resources used by the company divided by the total return value generated by the company, ie., the operating cash flow is the monetary value used in this method and the cash influx generated by the company for each unit of resource used is calculated. The sample calculation part is mentioned in the earlier part of the report.

2006

Delphi - Tvs

Peer Group

GHG -efficiency (cash flow/GHG emissions)

104

154

value spread

49.4

GHG - Emissions

1.75 mill tons/year

value Creation

87 million Euros

2007

Delphi - Tvs

Peer Group

GHG -efficiency (cash flow/GHG emissions)

106.5

154

value spread

47

GHG - Emissions

1.906 mill tons/year

value Creation

90 million Euros

b) How does the peer group or the benchmarks use its resources:

Since this bench mark is usually a group of companies the average cash generated for per use of the resources is assessed since the companies differ in the size the weighted average of the bench mark group is calculated to do this the returns generated by all the companies is divided by the resources used by the companies. Thus the average net operating influx is calculated for per unit resource and finally for all the resources put together.(see previous example)

c) Comparing resource use of the company against the bench mark values:

In this step we calculate the value spread by deducting the efficiency of the company against that of the benchmark group, thus the value spread is calculated for all the parameters examined. This is where the opportunity costs plays a very vital role and the difference between the bench mark and company under study will project whether the company uses its resources profitably or not.

d) In the final step the total value generated by the resources is calculated on the whole. For this the corresponding quantity of resource is multiplied by the respective value spread. (Liesen et al., 2009)

Consolidation :

If we add up the value from the individual resources we may end up being redundant hence while calculating the sustainable value the total aggregation of the value contribution is divided by the consolidated number of the resources used.

By adopting the idea proposed by Figge & Hahn (2004a), we will be able to get a value for sustainability in Delphi-TVS and hence this will give us new grounds for accurate comparison with other companies and also give us leverage to critically assess the EMS and procedures adopted by the company.

We have based the calculation of the sustainable value on the paper Liesen et al. (2009). And have used the companies discussed in the paper as the benchmark. They are Air Liquide S.A, Akzo Nobel N.V, BASF SE, Bayer AG, The DOW Company, Koninklijke DSM N.V, E.I.Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Reliance Industries and Shell Chemicals.

Indicators:

The Indicators used are the same as discussed in the paper Liesen et al. (2009), and their values are generated and shared for our research by the company's environmental Engineering team.

Financial Indicators

Total assets (Euros)

Environmental Indicators

Green-House Gas Emissions (tons)

Acidification Potential (tons)

Volatile Organic Compounds emissions (tons)

Water use (cubic meters)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (tons)

Hazardous Waste (tons)

Non-Hazardous Waste (tons)

Total Energy use (MWH)

Social Indicators

Number of Work Accidents

Number of Employees

Research expense (Euros)

Personnel expenses (Euros)

The above aspects need no introduction into the subject of environmental management and sustainability and thus will not be defined. The values generated against these resources by Delphi-TVS, is given below and these values are pitched against the nine other companies using them as a benchmark.

Sustainable Value:

DELPHI-TVS

 

2006

2007

Values in Million Euros

Total Assets

67

84

GHG Emissions

87

90

Acidification Potential

-29

-18

VOC Emissions

80

91

Water use

210

231

COD

-53

-45

Hazardous waste

-120

-112

non-hazardous waste

68

79

Energy use

145

167

No. of work accidents

-118

67

No. of employees

-45

-38

Research expenses

-90

-121

Personnel expenses

-238

-178

Sustainable Value

15

98

The several values have been generated by the company and given for our assessment.

Comparison of the sustainable value with the peer group.

 

2006

Rank

2007

Rank

Values in EUROS

 

Values in EUROS

 

Air Liquide

601,271,287

3/10

888,864,430

2/8

AKZO

-318,340,687

8/10

-428,315,299

6/8

BASF

1,649,181,720

1/10

1,133,321,767

1/8

Bayer

938,031,553

2/10

720,922,869

3/8

Delphi-TVS

15,453,095

6/10

98,346,671

5/8

DOW

-2,308,893,406

10/10

-2,178,046,459

8/8

DSM

-898,457,849

9/10

-644,720,777

7/8

DuPont

21,921,328

5/10

211,871,149

4/8

Reliance

351,888,143

4/10

N/A

N/A

Shell

-36,602,098

7/10

N/A

N/A

Graph for the years 2006 and 2007 showing trend in Sustainable Value

Return to Cost Ratio:

The return to cost ratio is calculated as follows.

 

Delphi-TVS

2006

 

 

 

 

 

Net operating cash flow - Sustainable Value = Opportunity Costs

 

€ 60m

-

€ 15m

=

€ 45m

 

 

 

 

RCR

=

60/45

 

 

=

1.3:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delphi-TVS

2007

 

 

 

 

 

Net operating cash flow - Sustainable Value = Opportunity Costs

 

€273m

-

€98m

=

€175m

 

 

 

 

RCR

=

273/175

 

 

 

=

1.5:1

 

 

 

The RCR comparison of the peer group is given below

Company

2006

Rank

2007

Rank

Air Liquide

1.5:1

1/10

1.7:1

1/8

AKZO

1:1

8/10

1:1.7

7/8

BASF

1.4:1

2/10

1.2:1

3/8

Bayer

1.3:1

3/10

1.2:1

4/8

Delphi-TVS

1.3:1

4/10

1.5:1

2/8

DOW

1:1.8

7/10

1:1.8

5/8

DSM

1:2.4

5/10

1:1.8

6/8

DuPont

1:1

9/10

1.1:1

8/8

Reliance

1.2:1

6/10

N/A

N/A

Shell

1:1

10/10

N/A

N/A

Graph Denoting Return to Cost Ratio between 2006 and 2007.

Discussion

Limitations of the Report

This report is an independent study made from generating a sustainable value which is given from the company, and checking through another method if the GHG value provided by the company is similar. But due to the scope of the report, we have certain limitations discussed below.

Due to the time-span of the report, we are unable to individually dissect each and every indicator and calculate the value for each one. It would be a much more time consuming operation and can be done with more assistance from the company and the university.

All the values generated must be calculated for every year so that we can make yearly comparisons and thus is a tedious process.

Some of the values generated for finding the Sustainable value has been calculated by the company and they could be biased.

The variables discussed in the two papers referred are high in number and thus there are certain assumptions done either from similar readings or from previous values.

The EMS standards database for companies in India at the United Nations Website has been updated only up to 1994 and hence there is no standard to compare it with otherwise.

PART 2

Calculating GHG emissions:

We have tried to adopt a method of calculating three predominant types of GHG gases from the different sources in the different phases of the life cycle. Under the Kyoto protocol frame work the major GHG emissions are classified to be the CO2 ,CH4, N2O, hydrofluro carbons(HFCs), perfluro carbons (PFCs).

We have classified and identified the main type of emission sources and the corresponding scope

a) Direct Sources --- Fuel combustion (boilers, furnaces, turbines)

--- Transportation

--- Fugitive emissions (air conditioning and refrigeration links)

b) Indirect Sources ---- Energy consumption (amount of electricity consumed)

c) Other indirect sources --- Peripheral sources.

A. Direct Sources:

i). GHG Emissions from Stationary sources:

The direct GHG types of gases are often emitted by the combustion activities. The primary types of the emissions are CO2, CH4, and N2O. The emission level of these gases depends mainly upon the level of the fuel consumed.

The combustion devices which emit these gases can be broadly classified as boilers, burners, turbines, heaters, furnaces.

To calculate the emission level we need to first gather the information about the type of the gaseous output produced from the fuel used and the amount of the fuel used .

Thus the formulae employed is :

Emission of CO2=Sum (Amount of fuel consumed *emission factor of co2)

The emission is always calculated in terms of CO2 equivalent only. The emission factor is a predetermined value for the type of the fuel used and it is calculated by using the formulae

Emission factor of CO2=Net calorific value of fuel *carbon factor of the fuel *fraction of carbon iodised, (but it is usually available while data calculation)

Emission calculation for (Ch4&N2O)

Sum (amount of fuel consumed *emission factor )of CH4/N2O*relative GWP

Again the emission is in terms of the Co2 equivalent .where GWP stands for relative global warming potential which is a standard value for each type of the gas emitted.

ii) Direct emissions from transportation vehicles used in the company:

It is calculated by the preliminary categorization of the vehicle in terms of tons *its weight laden (standard value)*average ton of material transported *standard co2 emitted per ton

The resulting value would be the required CO2 emission that had to be obtained for the transportation sector in Delphi TVS.

In the calculation of CH4 and N2O the values for the CO2 equivalent would alone be changing each time.

Source description with location

Fuel information

CO2 emission

factor

CO2 emissions in tones of CO2 equivalent

((BxE)x1000)

CH4 emission

factor

CH4

emissions in tones of CO2 equivalent

((BxE)/(1000x1000)xGWP)

N2O emission factor

N2O emissions in tones of CO2 equivalent (BxI)/(1000x1000)x GWP

Gross Vehicle Weight(tones)

% weight laden

Average tones goods carried per vehicle

Total tone Km travelled

Kg Co2 per tone.km (x)

Total Kg CO2

>3.5 - 7.5 t

40%

0.81

0.67115

>7.5 - 17t

37%

2.31

0.31518

>17t

55%

5.25

0.17797

>3.5-33t

43%

6.00

0.1961

>33t

60%

11.40

0.08237

CH4

Kg CO2eq per tone.km

Total Kg CO2eq

0.00038

0.00013

0.00006

0.00025

0.00013

N2O

Kg CO2eq per tone.km

Total Kg CO2eq

0.00728

0.00342

0.00193

0.00151

0.00089

Total GHG

Kg CO2eq per tone.km

Total Kg CO2eq

0.00728

0.00342

0.00193

0.00151

0.00089

iii) GHG Gas emission by refrigerators:

The HFCs And PFCs have much higher global warming potential than that of Co2 , hence these type of the gases have significant impact than of the normal gases. Calculating this value is a meticulous task as it involves data collection about the type of refrigerant used , amount of refrigerant ,inventory storage time of refrigerant etc..

Depending upon the reliability of the data the report could contain the account of the HFC and PFC during the assembly and the installation put together .

The calculation method for finding the emissions from air conditioning equipment is as follows

Type of the refrigerant =number of the units used *equipment charge capacity *time used during the reporting period*annual leak rate *refrigerant type *global warming potential = total co2 equivalent emitted.

Equipment

No. of units

Equipment charge capacity

Time used during reporting periods

Annual leak rate

Refrigerant type

Global warming

Total Kg CO2 equivalent

Domestic Refrigeration

0.3%

Stand alone commercial applications

2.0%

Medium & Large Commercial applications

11.0%

Transport refrigeration

8.0%

Industrial refrigeration

8.0%

Chillers

3.0%

Total

B. Indirect Emissions:

i) GHG Emission calculation from the electricity:

The method for calculating emissions from electricity is

Total emissions from = The value of kg of co2 per kwh*amount used per year in kwh=total co2 in kg

Similarly the same method is applied to calculate the values for N2O and CH4.,

International Electricity Emission Factors for India:

Amount used per year

Kg CO2 per kWh

Total Kg CO2

0.9303

0.8672

ii) GHG emission from the usage of water resources:

The amount of Co2 emitted from water treatment and water supply is calculated by

=total units of the resources used (in million litres)*co2 equivalent per kilogram

The final value gives the total co2 equivalent in the corresponding year which is expresses in terms of Kg

Conversion factors for Water resources:

Fuel used

Total units used

Units

Kg CO2 eq Per unit

Total Kg CO2 eq

Water supply

Million litres

276

Cubic litres

.2760

Water treatment

Million litres

693

Cubic litres

0.6930

C. Other Indirect resources:

i) GHG emissions from peripheral

Product category

Amount spent in product category (€)

Total Kg CO2 eq per €

Total kg CO2 eq

Iron steel

4.11

Metal products

1.18

Electrical machinery

0.77

Final value calculated from the above method after applying the corresponding values we arrived at the following GHG values

Year 2006:1.9 million tons of co2 equivalent.

Year :2007 2.1 million tons of co2 euquivalent.

Discussion for part 2 of the analysis:

The reporting procedure of the company had been analyzed on the following criteria,

a) The general company information has been obtained and studied,

b) The reporting period covered was for two years 2006 and 2007

c) The significant changes are in emission for the reporting period are

year 1 2006=1.75 billion tons, year 2 2007=1.925 billion tons emitted.

d) The list of activities taken into consideration has been stated in detail in the analysis.

e) The company has not provided with any detailed exclusion factors of particular boundaries which were not taken into consideration.

f) The emission mechanisms have been clearly stated in the methodology

g) The base year recalculation policy has not been applied .

H) The application procedures which led to the significant procedures in causing the emission reduction has not been disclosed.

e) There is no specific details on the intensity measurement procedures followed in the company.

f) There is no external agency reviewing the reporting procedures or values.

According to the Kyoto protocol each and every organization which follows the Ems reduction system for GHG gases an external agency must review the procedures but there is no accounting for the review of their reporting.

In case of the green tariffs they have not explicitly set a reduction target and have not shown significant reduction levels .

The additional carbon saving levels have not been explicitly mentioned in teh reporting procedures

The assessment of the company reporting was based on guidelines in the document "how to measure and report green house gas emissions"Defra 2009 (department of environment .food and rural affairs .

Conclusion

Not arrived yet

Writing Services

Essay Writing
Service

Find out how the very best essay writing service can help you accomplish more and achieve higher marks today.

Assignment Writing Service

From complicated assignments to tricky tasks, our experts can tackle virtually any question thrown at them.

Dissertation Writing Service

A dissertation (also known as a thesis or research project) is probably the most important piece of work for any student! From full dissertations to individual chapters, we’re on hand to support you.

Coursework Writing Service

Our expert qualified writers can help you get your coursework right first time, every time.

Dissertation Proposal Service

The first step to completing a dissertation is to create a proposal that talks about what you wish to do. Our experts can design suitable methodologies - perfect to help you get started with a dissertation.

Report Writing
Service

Reports for any audience. Perfectly structured, professionally written, and tailored to suit your exact requirements.

Essay Skeleton Answer Service

If you’re just looking for some help to get started on an essay, our outline service provides you with a perfect essay plan.

Marking & Proofreading Service

Not sure if your work is hitting the mark? Struggling to get feedback from your lecturer? Our premium marking service was created just for you - get the feedback you deserve now.

Exam Revision
Service

Exams can be one of the most stressful experiences you’ll ever have! Revision is key, and we’re here to help. With custom created revision notes and exam answers, you’ll never feel underprepared again.