This month, we’ve teamed up with Ricardo, a global consultancy providing specialist technical services at the intersection of transport, energy and global climate agendas, and the Air Pollution Footprint Partnership— to explore one of the most overlooked risks facing business today: air quality.
In our urgent focus on climate change, are we failing to give air quality the distinct attention it deserves?
After water, the air we breathe is arguably the earth’s most vital resource — and yet it’s critically overlooked and taken for granted.
As governments, businesses and communities act to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and decarbonise economies — countering the existential threat of climate change — they may be missing other equally insidious air quality risks. Moreover, many have fallen into the trap of mistakenly assuming that any GHG and carbon mitigation will automatically improve air quality — and some may simply not recognise there could be an air quality crisis at all.
With significantly negative potential impacts on productivity, health, income, community relations, legal compliance and reputation, organisations cannot afford to ignore air quality. At best, they’re overlooking a critical blind spot in their risk profile; at worst, they’re directly contributing to the problem.
Challenge your thinking:
How much of a problem do you think air quality is: a silent global killer or just a localised irritant? Share your thoughts in our discussion forum.
Is air quality a problem for business?
In fact, air quality is a significant global problem. Causing a range of serious illnesses and contributing to more than 8 million deaths annually around the world, air pollution is now considered the second leading global risk factor (after high blood pressure[1]) for fatalities. Air pollution harms the rest of the natural world, as well — damaging biodiversity and ecosystems and contributing to climate change.
Beyond global existential concerns, poor air quality can have insidious impacts on businesses:
Absenteeism: The OECD estimated some 1.2 billion working days are lost every year to air pollution-related health issues — which could rise to nearly 4 billion lost days by 2060.[2]
Productivity: Air pollution impairs cognitive function — a 2019 study estimated that this could reduce employee productivity by up to 10% on high-pollution days.[3]
Reduced consumer spending: Poor air quality links directly to poor quality of place — the characteristics of a location which impact the overall well-being and quality of life for its residents and visitors. In retail terms, this has been shown to reduce foot traffic to businesses, with research showing consumers spend 10% less on days where air quality was worse than usual.[4]
Reputational costs: Businesses which worsen air pollution face significant risks from brand equity damage, reduced consumer loyalty, poor community relations and ultimately less revenue.
Challenge your thinking:
Is your organisation doing enough — or anything at all — to understand and act on the air quality crisis?
Case study: tp bennett tackles air pollution
Hear how Ricardo customer, tp bennett, has focused on air pollution, the challenges they faced, the steps they took to improve their impact on air quality, and the results so far.
A collective failure?
We’ve seen massive, undeniable progress in air quality on some fronts. For example, a significant reduction (and even elimination in some countries) of coal-fired electricity production — a major historical contributor to air pollution. We’ve also successfully de-sulfurised and improved road transport fuels, and introduced cleaner vehicle exhaust systems. We’ve introduced clean air zones, promoted public transport, and supported the increasing adoption of EVs — all with significant positive impacts on air quality. And we’ve cleaned up many of the dirtiest industrial sites and moved much of heavy industry away from dense urban centres.
However, to be blunt, every business still contributes to air pollution in some way. That may be through direct effects, like dust and other particles produced by construction sites, emissions from industrial processes, transportation vehicles or improper chemical waste management. Even firms which don’t have these activities in their value chain usually have employees who travel on business, and there are many other less-direct ways that business operations can negatively impact air quality.
Energy use is one of the most significant contributors to air pollution, with many businesses still reliant on fossil fuels for power, heating and other operations — either burning them directly or using electricity produced that way. In today’s tech-focused environment, the fastest-rising energy demands are coming from the data centres that power our digital world. A recent study estimated that air pollution generated by data centres will result in an additional 1,300 premature deaths a year by 2030 and cost $20 billion annually in health impacts — in the U.S. alone.[5] This adds another layer of complexity to the corporate responsibility quandary posed by energy-hungry AI.
Challenge your thinking:
If air quality impacts business outcomes — and businesses significantly affect air quality — why isn’t it on every boardroom agenda? Share your thoughts.
The culprits beyond combustion
Air pollution arises from more than just the burning of fuel. Combustion byproducts (like carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter) are major contributors, but other industrial and commercial activities play a significant role too:
Industrial volatile organic compounds (VOCs): Chemical manufacturing, mining and agriculture release a wide range of hazardous air pollutants, including VOCs which contribute to smog and heavy metals that can persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain.
Construction dust and particulates: Construction sites generate substantial dust and particulate matter, which can cause respiratory problems and exacerbate existing health conditions, especially in densely populated areas.
Pollution from everyday product use: Consumer use of everyday products like paints, cleaning agents and even personal care items releases chemical pollutants into the air, impacting indoor and outdoor air quality.
Challenge your thinking:
To what extent should businesses be held accountable for the air pollution generated by the products they manufacture and sell? How can we incentivise companies to design and produce less-polluting goods? Join the live debate on 25 June.
We’re aiming for net zero — but are some solutions flawed?
The drive for net zero is essential to tackle the risks of climate change — and net zero initiatives, broadly speaking, can significantly improve air quality. Cutting GHG emissions can significantly reduce the formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which causes more than 200,000 premature deaths in the U.S. every year.[6] Mitigating climate change can also address the risks of extreme heat, which exacerbates ground level ozone formation when VOCs and NOx emissions react in sunlight. Mitigating extreme heat also addresses the wildfires that are now a major source of air pollution in many countries.
However, some decarbonisation initiatives create an ironic paradox whereby some of our foremost climate solutions may not improve air quality — and could even create or exacerbate air pollution:
Electric vehicles (EVs) reduce tailpipe emissions, but they are substantially heavier and can increase particulate matter from tyre wear (a key contributor to air pollution in urban areas).
Biofuels and biomass offer renewable energy sources, but burning biofuel and biomass still releases significant air pollutants (sometimes even more than fossil fuels).
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) does not necessarily remove other existing air pollutants — and can increase upstream emissions if the practices are energy-intensive.
Energy-efficient buildings can negatively impact airflow and create indoor air quality risks, unless factors like prevailing wind directions and natural ventilation are carefully considered in their design.
Of course, the drive towards net zero is rightly reshaping industries and shifting reliance away from fossil fuels. However, increased electrification only improves air quality if that electricity comes from sources like wind, wave or solar energy. Electricity derived from fossil fuel plants will increase localised air pollution — though natural gas power plants are dramatically cleaner than coal-fired plants.
In essence, we can’t chase net zero without considering these nuances. Achieving resiliency demands a better balance between addressing the longer-term questions of climate change and the very immediate need to have clean air to breathe.
Challenge your thinking:
How effectively do you — or could you — explain the impact of climate change actions on air quality? Share your thoughts.
A wake-up call: act now or wait to react?
Clean air is a vital component of the healthy environments that the UN has endorsed as a fundamental human right. Clean air is also a cornerstone of economic stability. Like many other climate concerns, the evidence that air quality impedes successful business is becoming irrefutable — air pollution damages health, productivity and bottom lines. There are also risks related to the costs of compliance (or non-compliance) with direct or indirect air quality regulations.
So, businesses have choices to make on air quality. Should they seize the opportunity to shape (and be) a significant part of the solution, reducing their risk exposure and improving the health of local communities? Or, faced with ever-present competitive pressures, should they wait for legislators and regulatory agencies to provide guidance, set standards and force them to act?
If we’ve learned one lesson from the last decade or so of progress with GHG, net zero and broader ESG concerns, it’s that regulations tend to lag well behind the science and best practices for environmental protection. Moreover, given inconsistent enforcement of those requirements, organisations may find themselves weighing up whether the costs of voluntary compliance put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Arguably, one of the key steps for businesses to take is to at least understand their impact on (and contribution to) air pollution. There are valuable tools available to help with making that first step, such as:
Air Pollution Footprint Partnership (APFP): Developed by Ricardo plc with support from the Clean Air Fund and Impact on Urban Health, APFP provides tools to help businesses link air pollutant emission reporting with GHG disclosures — often using the same underlying data — and assess the benefits and monetary value of their net zero plans.
Climate and Clean Air Coalition: This organisation develops best-practice guidance for businesses to estimate their air pollutant emissions.
Businesses may be one of the culprits when it comes to air pollution. However, by considering air pollution and climate change holistically, they can be part of the solution and reduce their financial and operational risks.
Challenge your thinking:
Should your business adopt a proactive air quality strategy, potentially beyond current regulatory requirements, or would this further burden competitive advantage and not justify your investment?
Join the live debate — Mind the gap — are we sleepwalking into an air quality crisis?
Join us for a live discussion with Ricardo and the Clean Air Fund as we unpack why air quality remains absent from many corporate agendas, how businesses contribute to the problem, and what it takes to lead responsibly.
Wednesday, 25 June at 10:00 AM EDT | 3:00 PM BST | 30 minutes
