ExaminingESG: Southwest vs. jetBlue
Flying is inherently polluting, and the race to make flying sustainable will definitely be hard won.
Do you have a summer vacation booked that requires a flight? Were you asked to offset carbon emissions by paying extra for the ticket, or told on Google which flight path uses less CO2?
It’s hard to avoid these when buying tickets, which got me thinking about comparing the ESG reports of airlines.
I chose Southwest because of their popular messaging about taking care of their customers and employees, so I assumed their ESG reporting would be robust. Because jetBlue, like Southwest, is a regional carrier within the United States, they were chosen as the competitor.
One can argue that having access to fly whenever and wherever we want has been a huge driver of climate change, so can flights be part of a sustainable world at all?
As you can see in the chart below, each company includes every required metric under SASB reporting standards. They also each include more information than necessary, such as in-flight recycling or utilizing more sustainable options such as canned water — which is more easily recyclable than plastic.
The jetBlue ESG & Social Impact Report
Airline companies have an immense amount of logistics to track from workers driving on the tarmac at every airport where they operate to the plastic cups used on every single flight. The largest metric to track is jet fuel — and because of that, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a huge component of both Jet Blue and Southwest’s Net Zero goals.
The jetBlue ESG & Social Impact Report highlights their SAF strategy and much more.
What stood out:
Respectable goals of converting their ground fleet, i.e. bag tugs, to 50% electric by 2030 with a goal of 30% by 2025 — I’m looking forward to seeing progress towards numbers when their 2023 report is released.
jetBlue has set a goal to be Net Zero by 2040 — but, due to their intent of only having 10% SAF, noted below, by 2030, I will assume that the main way they plan to meet this goal is by carbon credits and carbon offsets. This is a less effective method than reducing emissions outright.
My assumption proved to be true because this quote appears later in the report: “JetBlue is proud to have voluntarily offset more than 11 million metric tons of CO emissions. We continue to see value in supporting high-quality projects that truly remove or avoid CO2 and deliver community benefits such as improving local air quality, introducing employment opportunities, and improving biodiversity of local habitats.”
jetBlue was one of the inaugural airlines to join the Climate Pledge - a coalition of companies that are committed to reaching Net Zero by 2040.
There is an option for customers to pay more for SAF via Chooose — more on what this means below.
What could be improved:
jetBlue mentions their goal of adding 10% blended SAF fuel to their fleet by 2030, but what they don’t mention is whether it will replace 10% of the fuel in use by then or against a past baseline. This is important because one could expect jetBlue to also have a goal of adding more flight paths and planes, increasing their fuel needs. So will it be 10% of all fuel in 2030, or 10% based on current fuel use?
Lots of industry jargon — their goal is to reduce emissions per available seat mile….which needs a lot of defining in itself.
jetBlue does highlight climate risks that have the potential to affect the business, which is a great first step for mitigating climate impacts, but some of them are so on the nose it’s rather ironic. For example:
I’d think more people would choose not to fly in general versus not picking one company over another because they are more sustainable. But, that could change if one airline truly does commit to SAF.
The Southwest One Report
Southwest states the goal that they want to be the most loved, efficient, and profitable airline by caring for people and extending their “Heart” to the planet. Let’s find out how they define an extension of the “Heart.”
What stood out:
Southwest outlines its high-level climate goals at the beginning of the report, highlighting the Nonstop to Net Zero by 2050 strategy with the pillars that they will focus on; carbon, circularity, and collaboration.
Southwest is focusing on LEED-certified buildings for any new construction, and they are targeting 50% all-electric ground fleets by 2030.
Compared to jetBlue, Southwest does lay out what their CO2 emissions are being measured against, but in the same section they note that “achieving their goals is dependent on third parties,” which is a convenient excuse to lean on if goals aren’t met.
Source: Southwest One Report Southwest also clearly lays out the potential climate change impacts on their business
Source: Southwest One Report
What could be improved:
Their goal to Net Zero hinges on carbon capture and storage technology that does not quite exist yet.
Southwest lists 24,873,759 MT CO2e (carbon emitted) under “progress” but, the source chart on pg. 67 with carbon accounting metrics actually lists 22,309,123 MT CO2e as their combined emissions in 2022, the prior year, so their emissions increased.
Source: Southwest One Report
Both companies are relying a lot on things that are not within their control to reach Net Zero, like carbon capture, carbon storage, and SAF. This is disappointing, there could be a larger push for policy changes by each company, encouraging the expansion of SAF instead of then just waiting for the market to catch up.
Quick facts about sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)
Both companies will be relying heavily on SAF to meet their climate goals. Currently, to be used within jets that are not built only for SAF use, SAF must be blended with jet fuel up to 50%, depending on the type of SAF.
SAF can be made from things like ethanol (corn), cooking oils, and wood biomass. Up-cycling cooking oils is probably the best option because growing crops specifically to burn for fuel comes with its own set of emissions and takes up space that could be used for crops for human consumption.
The best way to fly
Is to not…. but, flights will fly even if you are not on it. Of course, if fewer people choose to fly, demand will decrease and eventually fewer flights will need to exist.
During my research for this, I did find that United Airlines’ commitment to Net Zero is not relying on offsetting their unavoidable emissions with carbon offsets. That’s huge since that means they will need to reach Net Zero goals using SAF and electrification of their ground fleet alone.
As someone who lives right by a United Hub, they were always my choice. With airlines, often the cheapest and most convenient option is the best choice. What about you, would you pick a more sustainable airline or the cheapest, most convenient ticket?
Thanks for sticking around for 2 months! This is a weekend passion project, and as you might imagine, summer weekends are a bit more full.
Til next time,
Ana
