Footprint category Scope tonnes CO2e GHG Protocol boundary Calculation methodology / Notes Change from 23/24 Comments
Locational Based Footprint Market Based Footprint
SCOPE 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Belive buildings have been incorrectly allocated to scope 1 and 2 previously. SEL uses US Government guidance to decide which category to allocate the category for  leased office spaces.
Refrigerant  1 0.0 0.0 No HRW owned air con systems
Gas 1 0.0 0.0 No buildings with operational control and sub-metered consumption for HRW. Buildings impact acounted under leased assets 0.0
Business travel in company / hired vehicles  1 0.0 0.0 No company owned vehicles
SCOPE 2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Indirect emissions (electricity, steam)  2 0.0 0.0 No buildings with operational control and sub-metered consumption for HRW. Buildings impact acounted under leased assets
SCOPE 3  1427.2 1424.4 1427.2
Purchased Goods & Services  3.1 1304.9 1304.9 GHG Protocol minimum -1223.0 Includes shared IT services and shared costs such as insurance and legal. Microsoft used specific carbon factor. These figures use our preferred spend based dataset (Exiobase), but we have tested using CEDA (old consultants dataset) and they both return a figure within 100 t of each other. Digging down into previous year carbon footprint shows use of carbon factors which are not those on the referenced dataset. Overall spend between the 2 years included in the carbon footprint is similar.
Capital Goods  3.2 9.0 9.0 No capital goods specified -6.0 Noted Dell – listed as service but description is capital items, so have removed from PGS and added to this category
Upstream transportation and distribution  3.4 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
Fuel & energy related activities 3.3 0.0 0.0 Not relevant -4.1 This is a consequence of the scope 1 and 2 issue.
Waste  3.5 15.3 15.3 No travel distance included, waste processing only 14.5 Most of the emissions come from NY office where there is a high emission factor for landfilling (predominant method for dealing with trash in NY state). However, based on information for Wallingford, this location alone would exceed the footprint for all office last year. Not a large figure overall. If waste provider provides weight collected this could be refined but will not result in a value as low as previously.
Business travel 3.6 36.5 36.5 GHG Protocol minimum -41.9 Major difference is significant reduction in international flights. 172,846 km in 23/24 vs 46,601 in 24/25.
Employee commuting  3.7 31.1 28.3 GHG Protocol minimum and optional -10.3 Similar technique used, so assume difference reflects actual behaviours.
Upstream leased assets  3.8 30.4 30.4 GHG Protocol minimum plus WTT energy emissions from building occupation. London office used epc energy consumption per m2 x floor area. Wallingford consumption is based on building emissions x share of floor area. NYC data was not available,. so a nearby building was used as a proxy x HRW floor area. The NY office is assumed to use steam for heating. This was in scope 1 and 2 last year. However our calculations appear to be slightly higher. Main obvious methodology difference is the assumption previously that the NY office used gas when it is in the heart of the NY steam district.
Downstream transportation and distribution  3.9 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
Processing of sold products  3.10 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
Use of sold products  3.11 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
End of life treatment of sold products  3.12 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
Downstream leased assets  3.13 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
Franchises  3.14 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
Investments  3.15 0.0 0.0 Not relevant
Total 1427.2 1424.4
Logo

© Copyright HRW 2026

Designed in the UK by Yellowball.

Contact

UK | +44 (0) 1491 822515 US | (+1) 914 239 4025

About us

Legal & Compliance

By clicking the "Accept" button below, you agree to our <%= link_to 'Cookie Policy', cookies_url, target: '_blank' %>.