CDP Corporate Questionnaire 2025 features integrated data requests that combine Climate Change, Forests, Water, Plastics, and Biodiversity topic areas. Because of this, you will see rows for all of these environmental issues in data requests throughout the survey. However, datapoints on forests and water security only apply if a discloser has been requested to or has opted to report on these environmental issues.
Datapoints on plastics and biodiversity will be unscored in 2025, and therefore will not impact an organization's CDP score. It is at an organization's discretion whether they choose to respond to these datapoints.
This data request allows you to configure your experience within Nasdaq Metrio to select for which topic areas your organization wants to provide answers.
In the dropdown below, please select which topic areas you would like to answer. Climate Change is excluded because it is required for all disclosers. Responses to this data request will apply throughout the survey and apply conditionality to relevant data requests.
For more information on the questionnaire structure and topic areas, see the 2025 CDP Question Bank.
For full questionnaire scoring information, see CDP's Full Corporate Scoring Methodology for Climate, Forests, and/or Water Security.
For scoring information related to essential criteria, see CDP's Essential Criteria 2025 for Climate, Forests, and/or Water Security.
CDP Corporate Questionnaire 2025 environmental topic area Forests features data requests that request information about commodities your organization produces and/or sources. This data request allows you to configure your experience within Nasdaq Metrio to select for which commodities your organization wishes to disclose.
In the dropdown below, please select which commodities your organization is disclosing on for CDP Forests. Responses to this data request will apply conditionality to relevant data requests throughout the survey.
For more information on the questionnaire structure and topic areas, see the 2025 CDP Question Bank.
For CDP Forests scoring information, see CDP's Full Corporate Scoring Methodology for Forests.
For scoring information related to essential criteria, see CDP's Essential Criteria 2025 for Forests.
Type of financial institution [Financial Services only] | Organization type | Description of organization | Description of legislative mandate |
No response provided
|
Publicly traded organization
|
Unless the context requires otherwise, all references in this CDP response to Republic, the Company, we, us and our refer to Republic Services, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. Republic is one of the largest providers of environmental services in the United States, as measured by revenue. Geographically, 99.9% of our operations by revenue are located in the United States of America and Canada, with less than 0.1% in United States Overseas Territories (Puerto Rico and United States Virgin Islands) and Mexico. As of December 31, 2024, we operated treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDF), 5 salt water disposal wells, 14 deep injection wells, and 1 polymer center. We are engaged in 79 landfill gas-to-energy and other renewable energy projects and had post-closure responsibility for 125 closed landfills. 248 transfer stations, 75 recycling centers, 208 active landfills, 2 treatment, recovery and disposal facilities, 23 treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDF), 5 salt water disposal wells, 14 deep injection wells, and 1 polymer center. We are engaged in 79 landfill gas-to-energy and other renewable energy projects and had post-closure responsibility for 125 closed landfills . Our Scope 1 and 2 emissions include landfill methane emissions, vehicle and equipment emissions, and building electricity emissions. We have adopted an aggressive target for reducing these operational GHG emissions, approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Our goal is to reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions 35% by 2030 (2017 baseline year), which aligns with the United Nations “Climate Action” Sustainable Development Goal, 13.2 — reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the Paris Agreement. While our Scope 3 emissions are not included in our SBTi-approved goal, we publicly report them and actively engage with our value chain. |
No response provided
|
End date of reporting year (DD/MM/YYYY) | Alignment of this reporting period with your financial reporting period | Indicate if you are providing emissions data for past reporting years | Number of past reporting years you will be providing Scope 1 emissions data for | Number of past reporting years you will be providing Scope 2 emissions data for | Number of past reporting years you will be providing Scope 3 emissions data for |
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
5 years
|
5 years
|
5 years
|
Is your reporting boundary for your CDP disclosure the same as that used in your financial statements? | How does your reporting boundary differ to that used in your financial statement? |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
Unique identifier | Does your organization use this unique identifier? | Provide your unique identifier |
ISIN code - bond |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
ISIN code - equity |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
CUSIP number |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Ticker symbol |
Yes
|
|
SEDOL code |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
LEI number |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
D-U-N-S number |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Your response to 1.8 will determine if subsequent questions apply in this section. If your response to 1.8 is amended, data in those dependent questions may need to be edited. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Are you able to provide geolocation data for your facilities? | Comment |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, for all facilities” or “Yes, for some facilities” in response to 1.8.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Identifier | Latitude | Longitude | Comment |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Your response to this question will determine which subsequent questions apply. If your response to 1.22 is amended, data in those dependent questions may need to be edited.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Commodity | Produced and/or sourced | Commodity value chain stage | Indicate if you have direct soy and/or embedded soy in your value chain | Indicate if you are providing the total commodity volume that is produced and/or sourced | Total commodity volume (metric tons) | Of the total commodity volume, state how much is embedded soy (metric tons) | Of the total commodity volume, state how much is direct soy (metric tons) | Did you convert the total commodity volume from another unit to metric tons? | Original unit | Provide details of the methods, conversion factors used and the total commodity volume in the original unit | Form of commodity | % of procurement spend | % of revenue dependent on commodity | In the questionnaire setup did you indicate that you are disclosing on this commodity? | Is this commodity considered significant to your business in terms of revenue? | Reason for not disclosing | Completion date of acquisition or merger [DD/MM/YYYY] | Explanation for not disclosing | Please explain |
Timber products |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Palm oil |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Cattle products |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Soy |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Rubber |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Cocoa |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Coffee |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Value chain mapped | Value chain stages covered in mapping | Highest supplier tier mapped | Highest supplier tier known but not mapped | Portfolios covered in mapping [Financial Services only] | Smallholder inclusion in mapping | Description of mapping process and coverage | Primary reason for not mapping your upstream value chain or any value chain stages | Explain why your organization has not mapped its upstream value chain or any value chain stages |
Yes, we have mapped or are currently in the process of mapping our value chain
|
Upstream value chain,
Downstream value chain [does not apply for FS]
|
Tier 2 suppliers
|
Tier 2 suppliers
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Our first value chain mapping exercise was conducted as part of our supplier diversity initiative, using a trusted partner to solicit and collect information about key diversity criteria for our direct and tier-2 suppliers. We also maintain visibility and, in some cases, direct relationships with tier 2 suppliers for certain categories, where our tier 1 supplier serves as a distributor, for example, many of our fleet fuels are provided to us through an intermediary and many of our vehicle purchases are sold through authorized distributors on behalf of OEMs. |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Your response to this question determines which questions will apply throughout the questionnaire and which response options will apply within these questions. If your response to 1.24.1 is amended, data in those dependent questions may need to be edited.
Plastics mapping | Value chain stages covered in mapping | Portfolios covered in mapping [Financial Services only] | End-of-life management pathways mapped | Primary reason for not mapping plastics in your value chain | Explain why your organization has not mapped plastics in your value chain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Commodity | Value chain mapped for this sourced commodity | Highest supplier tier mapped for this sourced commodity | % of tier 1 suppliers mapped | % of tier 2 suppliers mapped | % of tier 3 suppliers mapped | % of tier 4+ suppliers mapped | Highest supplier tier known but not mapped for this sourced commodity |
Timber products |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Palm oil |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Cattle products |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Soy |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Rubber |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Cocoa |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Coffee |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Time horizon | From (years) | Is your long-term time horizon open ended? | To (years) | How this time horizon is linked to strategic and/or financial planning |
Short-term |
|
N/A |
|
This aligns with broader operational, financial and strategic planning timeframes. |
Medium-term |
|
N/A |
|
This timeframe aligns with capital decisions for fleet assets, which have roughly a 10-year lifetime. |
Long-term |
|
No response provided
|
|
This timeframe aligns with larger infrastructure capital decisions. For example, recycling facilities are 20-30 year assets and we plan for and monitor landfill airspace for 40+ years and as much as 100 years for some sites. |
Process in place | Dependencies and/or impacts evaluated in this process | Biodiversity impacts evaluated before the mining project development stage [Metals and Mining only] | Primary reason for not evaluating dependencies and/or impacts | Explain why you do not evaluate dependencies and/or impacts and describe any plans to do so in the future |
Yes
|
Both dependencies and impacts
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Process in place | Risks and/or opportunities evaluated in this process | Is this process informed by the dependencies and/or impacts process? | Primary reason for not evaluating risks and/or opportunities | Explain why you do not evaluate risks and/or opportunities and describe any plans to do so in the future | Explain why you do not have a process for evaluating both risks and opportunities that is informed by a dependencies and/or impacts process |
Yes
|
Both risks and opportunities
|
Yes
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Indicate which of dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities are covered by the process for this environmental issue | Value chain stages covered | Coverage | Supplier tiers covered | Mining projects covered [Metals & Mining ONLY] | Type of assessment | Frequency of assessment | Time horizons covered | Integration of risk management process | Location-specificity used | Tools and methods used | Risk types and criteria considered | Partners and stakeholders considered | Has this process changed since the previous reporting year? | Further details of process |
Climate change
|
Dependencies,
Impacts,
Risks,
Opportunities
|
Direct operations,
Upstream value chain,
Downstream value chain [Does not apply to Financial Services],
End of life management
|
Full
|
Tier 1 suppliers
|
No response provided
|
Qualitative and quantitative
|
Annually
|
Short-term,
Medium-term,
Long-term
|
Integrated into multi-disciplinary organization-wide risk management process
|
National,
Site-specific
|
Enterprise Risk Management - Enterprise Risk Management,
Enterprise Risk Management - Internal company methods,
International methodologies and standards - Environmental Impact Assessment ,
International methodologies and standards - IPCC Climate Change Projections ,
International methodologies and standards - Life Cycle Assessment ,
Databases - Nation-specific databases, tools, or standards,
Other - Desk-based research,
Other - External consultants,
Other - Internal company methods,
Other - Materiality assessment
|
Acute physical - Cold wave/frost,
Acute physical - Cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons,
Acute physical - Drought,
Acute physical - Flood (coastal, fluvial, pluvial, ground water),
Acute physical - Heat waves,
Acute physical - Heavy precipitation (rain, hail, snow/ice),
Acute physical - Wildfires,
Chronic physical - Changing precipitation patterns and types (rain, hail, snow/ice),
Chronic physical - Changing temperature (air, freshwater, marine water),
Chronic physical - Heat stress [Climate, Forests],
Chronic physical - Increased severity of extreme weather events,
Chronic physical - Temperature variability,
Chronic physical - Water stress,
Liability - Exposure to litigation,
Liability - Non-compliance with regulations,
Market - Availability and/or increased cost of certified sustainable material,
Market - Availability and/or increased cost of raw materials,
Market - Changing customer behavior,
Market - Uncertainty in the market signals,
Policy - Carbon pricing mechanisms [Climate only],
Policy - Changes to national legislation,
Policy - Changes to international law and bilateral agreements,
Policy - Increased difficulty in obtaining operations permits,
Policy - Poor coordination between regulatory bodies,
Reputation - Impact on human health,
Reputation - Increased partner and stakeholder concern and partner and stakeholder negative feedback,
Reputation - Stigmatization of sector,
Technology - Data access/availability or monitoring systems,
Technology - Transition to lower emissions technology and products [Climate only],
Technology - Transition to increasing renewable content [Plastics only],
Technology - Transition to increasing recycled content [Plastics only],
Technology - Transition to reusable products [Plastics only],
Technology - Transition to recyclable plastic products [Plastics only]
|
Customers,
Employees,
Investors,
Local communities,
NGOs,
Regulators,
Suppliers
|
No
|
Our multi-disciplinary, company-wide Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) process is designed to respond to and monitor risks and opportunities across the business, including identification, assessment, prioritization, and assignment of ownership. It is a formalized framework that is embedded into and fed by our processes, which creates greater insight and durability. Climate-related risk management is integrated into our broader ERM process. Our ERM process applies to our direct operations, as well as upstream and downstream value chain partners. Through our ERM process, we assess risks more than once a year. The ERM register is populated with risks and opportunities that have been identified by the following business functions and processes: • Budget reviews • Business impact analysis • Area operating reviews (AORs) • Quarterly management operating reviews (QMORs) • Management representation process • Individual functions • Sustainability • Management Interviews Both the local operating review and corporate planning functions include assessment of risks and opportunities, dependencies and impacts across short- (0-5 years), medium- (5-10 years) and long-term (10-100 years) time horizons, incorporating market strategy, scenario analysis, and expected asset life. At the local level, leaders assess current and potential assets, competitive analysis, risks and opportunities, growth plans, market dynamics and pricing, regulatory and legislative changes, and other market factors. Executive management meets on a quarterly basis, or more often, and discusses market trends and drivers, the business climate, innovation, risks and opportunities, regulatory and legislative changes, and other factors that influence our business strategy. Risks identified through both the business processes and the sustainability function include those that are directly linked to climate change, such as fuel and electricity consumption, our recycling and composting business, emissions from our fleet, emissions from our landfills and impacts of adverse weather. We periodically conduct physical risk assessments on each of our sites based on IPCC Shared socioeconomic pathways and incorporate this analysis in our risk management, business continuity, and capital management processes. These risks, impacts, opportunities, and dependencies are evaluated by the ERM team, reported to our ERM Council. The ERM Council provides governance over the ERM program by overseeing program effectiveness and monitoring key enterprise risks and opportunities, including those related to climate change, and their associated mitigation plans. The ERM Council includes select executives and reports to the Board through the Sustainability & Corporate Responsibility Committee. |
Interconnections between environmental dependencies, impacts, risks and/or opportunities assessed | Description of how interconnections are assessed | Primary reason for not assessing interconnections between environmental dependencies, impacts, risks and/or opportunities | Explain why you do not assess the interconnections between environmental dependencies, impacts, risks and/or opportunities |
Yes
|
Interconnections between environmental dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities are assessed and incorporated into our process through both the ERM process described in 2.2.2 and our general strategy and operations planning. Our core business of environmental services is dedicated to providing our customers with solutions to manage their environmental risks and impacts. As a result, our ability to navigate the interconnection of these concepts is essential to our success as a business. For example, the increasing likelihood of severe storms are a risk to our operations through damage to our assets and interruption of service. We use our ERM and business continuity processes to evaluate these risks, and incorporate the analysis in our operating plans. At the same time, the aftermath of extreme weather events often presents an opportunity as we provide disaster response support (e.g. oil spilling from a damaged vessel) and waste collection (e.g. dumpsters and hauling to clean-up damaged areas). |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Identification of priority locations | Value chain stages where priority locations have been identified | Types of priority locations identified | Description of process to identify priority locations | Will you be disclosing a list/spatial map of priority locations? | Provide a list and/or spatial map of priority locations | Primary reason for not identifying priority locations | Explain why you do not identify priority locations |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Effect type | Type of definition | Indicator used to define substantive effect | Change to indicator | % change to indicator | Absolute increase/ decrease figure | Metrics considered in definition | Application of definition |
Risks |
Qualitative,
Quantitative
|
EBITDA
|
Absolute decrease
|
No response provided
|
1,000,000
|
Frequency of effect occurring,
Time horizon over which the effect occurs,
Likelihood of effect occurring
|
Criteria used to determine what constitutes substantive financial and strategic business impacts were developed by our enterprise risk management (ERM) team with the guidance and approval of the Board and executive management. These criteria are applicable to climate risks and other corporate wide risks. The quantifiable indicators of substantive financial impact include lost operating income, which may include a loss of revenue or increase in costs above certain dollar amounts. Quantifiable indicators of substantive strategic impact may include substantial fines or suspension of operations due to legal, regulatory or compliance matters; operational challenges that result in major impacts on customer experience in multiple regions or major disruption to routine products/services. Qualitative indicators of substantial effects include brand/reputational impacts which result in significant national media coverage/extended image problem, as well as internal employee morale and culture. Any of these impacts alone or in combination may elevate a topic to the level of being considered substantive. For example, each risk is scored by impact, resulting in a negligible, minor, moderate, major or catastrophic risk categorization. The likelihood and probability are then estimated, and the risks are plotted into a matrix that facilitates discussions about risk management. For the purposes of assessing climate-related risks, these analyses may consider financial impacts at or above 1M. |
Opportunities |
Qualitative,
Quantitative
|
EBITDA
|
Absolute increase
|
No response provided
|
1,000,000
|
Frequency of effect occurring,
Time horizon over which the effect occurs,
Likelihood of effect occurring
|
Criteria used to determine what constitutes substantive financial and strategic business impacts were developed by our enterprise risk management (ERM) team with the guidance and approval of the Board and executive management. These criteria are applicable to climate risks and other corporate wide risks. Qualitative effects can include improved brand/reputational value, employee morale and culture, and increased community/customer engagement. Quantitative indicators of substantive opportunities includes expanded operating income, new investment opportunities, increased bid activity and customer acquisition. Any of these impacts alone or in combination may elevate a topic to the level of being considered substantive. For example, each risk is scored by impact, resulting in a negligible, minor, moderate, major or catastrophic risk categorization. The likelihood and probability are then estimated, and the risks are plotted into a matrix that facilitates discussions about risk management. For the purposes of assessing climate-related risks, these analyses may consider financial impacts at or above 1M. |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Your response to 2.5 prompts 2.5.1. If your response to 2.5 is amended, data in the dependent question may need to be edited. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for the relevant question.
Identification and classification of potential water pollutants | How potential water pollutants are identified and classified | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if in 2.5 “Yes, we identify and classify our potential water pollutants” is selected.
Water pollutant category | Description of water pollutant and potential impacts | Value chain stage | Actions and procedures to minimize adverse impacts | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
3.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Note that the Biodiversity row in this data request should be completed by companies in the mining sector only. If your company is not in the mining sector, do not complete this row even if you are otherwise reporting on Biodiversity.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Environmental risks identified | Primary reason why your organization does not consider itself to have environmental risks in your direct operations and/or upstream/downstream value chain | Please explain |
Climate change |
Yes, both in direct operations and upstream/downstream value chain [does not apply to Financial Services]
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Plastics |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity [Mining-Biodiversity only] |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select any of the “Yes, ” options in response to column “Environmental risks identified” of 3.1.
3.1.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Note that the Biodiversity row in this data request should be completed by companies in the mining sector only. If your company is not in the mining sector, do not complete this row even if you are otherwise reporting on Biodiversity.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue the risk relates to | Risk identifier | Commodity [Only applies to Forests] | Risk types and primary environmental risk driver | Value chain stage where the risk occurs | Risk type mapped to traditional financial services industry risk classification [Financial Services only] | Country/area where the risk occurs | River basin where the risk occurs [Only applies to Water] | Mining project ID [Mining-Biodiversity only] | Organization-specific description of risk | % of portfolio value vulnerable to this risk [Financial Services only] | Primary financial effect of the risk | Time horizon over which the risk is anticipated to have a substantive effect on the organization | Likelihood of the risk having an effect within the anticipated time horizon | Magnitude | Effect of the risk on the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of the organization in the reporting year | Anticipated effect of the risk on the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of the organization in the selected future time horizons | Are you able to quantify the financial effect of the risk? | Financial effect figure in the reporting year (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the short-term – minimum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the short-term – maximum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the medium-term – minimum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the medium-term – maximum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the long-term – minimum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the long-term – maximum (currency) | Explanation of financial effect figure | Primary response to risk | Cost of response to risk | Explanation of cost calculation | Description of response |
Climate change |
Risk1
|
N/A |
Policy - Changes to regulation of existing products and services
|
Upstream value chain
|
No response provided
|
Canada,
United States of America
|
N/A | N/A |
According to an industry trade publication, we operate the 5th largest vocational fleet in the U.S. Fuel costs are volatile and a substantial change in fuel costs, including changes in fuel-related regulations, could materially affect our cost of operations. We depend on fuel purchased in the open market to operate our collection and transfer trucks and other equipment used for collection, transfer and disposal. Historically, we have employed fuel-recovery fees for our customers to limit impacts of unexpected increases in fuel prices. We engage in regulatory monitoring to ensure our fleet programs comply with current and future legal requirements. The US EPA Renewable Fuel Standard affects the type of fuel we use in our fleet. Pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the EPA establishes annual renewable fuel volume requirements for four different categories of renewable fuels (renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel). Additionally, in California, the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule requires a percentage of our fleet to be electric vehicles (EVs) at an increasing rate over the next 20 years. These regulations are one of many factors that may affect the cost of the fuel we use. |
No response provided
|
Increased direct costs
|
Medium-term
|
More likely than not
|
Medium-low
|
No response provided
|
We would expect increased regulation to impact our financial position by increasing the direct operating cost of our fleet through fuel cost increases. The immediate impact of fuel cost increase would be reduced margins, though we would likely implement a fuel recovery fee to recover increase. We would potentially recover full profitability, however, higher fuel costs could increase our working capital needs. Please see the following columns for more information. |
Yes
|
0
|
0
|
No response provided
|
0
|
163,870,000
|
0
|
No response provided
|
We assessed the impact of a carbon tax as an example of a regulatory device that could impact our business because it is a very specific type of policy lever that is readily modeled using scenarios to determine financial impact and demonstrate the resilience of our strategy. The estimated fleet fuel emissions cost impact is based on numerous assumptions and estimates, is subject to numerous uncertainties, and does not necessarily reflect or predict the actual impact on the Company's fleet fuel emissions costs. We expect that we will achieve a 35% reduction below our 2017 fleet emissions of 1,867,472 mtCO2e, aligned with our emissions reduction goal, with projected 2030 fleet emissions of 1,213,857. We assessed the impact from a $135/ton carbon tax in 2030, based on IEA and the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) as $135 * 1,213,857 mtCO2e = $163,870,000. For more information on the impact a carbon tax would have on our operations and the ways we are seeking to mitigate its impact please see our TCFD response at: https://republicservicesinc.gcs-web.com/static-files/2024-Republic-Services-TCFD-Addendum.pdf |
Infrastructure, technology and spending - Increase environment-related capital expenditure
|
37,400,000
|
The cost of response is based on the upfront, incremental capital expenditure to invest in 100 electric vehicles, purchased in lieu of replacing 100 CNG vehicles ($37.4M). |
We continue to monitor the potential for carbon taxes on both a national and regional level at the same time that we expand our alternative fuel fleet. We continually assess the impacts of changes in fuel costs, and whether due to market, regulatory, or other factors, we evaluate options to mitigate potential impacts and implement mitigation actions. Fuel costs represent a significant operating expense. When economically practical, we may enter into fuel hedges or engage in other strategies to mitigate market risk. We had no fuel hedges in place during the reporting year. When fuel prices increase, we charge fuel recovery fees to a majority of our customers, though we are unable to charge such fees to all customers. We have long been a leader in alternative fuel vehicles, beginning with natural gas vehicles until our partnership with OEMs allowed electric vehicles to become commercially viable. Since 2023 we have visibly rolled out EV trucks from several manufacturers. Using electric vehicles provides us a competitive advantage in communities with strict clean emission initiatives that focus on protecting the environment, while mitigating our exposure to diesel commodity risk and the potential of a carbon tax. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Plastics |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity [Mining-Biodiversity only] |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Climate change
|
Risk2
|
Not applicable
|
Acute physical - Cyclone, hurricane, typhoon
|
Direct operations
|
No response provided
|
Canada,
United States of America
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Our operations could be adversely impacted by extended periods of inclement weather, or by increased severity of weather resulting from climate change, some of which we likely are already experiencing. For example, in 2021 we experienced significant impacts from 5 major climate events (5 hurricanes, 2 major wind storms). Recent studies suggest that global warming is occurring faster than previously projected, with the US EPA projecting a 2° to 10° Fahrenheit temperature increase in the United States by the end of the century. In addition to sea level rise, this temperature increase is expected to result in more severe droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events. Any of these factors could increase the volume of waste collected under our existing contracts; interfere with collection, transfer station and landfill operations, delay the development of landfill capacity; or reduce the volume of waste generated by our customers. In addition, adverse weather conditions may result in the temporary suspension of our operations, which can affect our operating results in the affected regions during those periods. Notably, while weather events such as hurricanes may increase the amount of material that is sent to our landfills, they could negatively impact the quality of recycling materials, making those materials unsalvageable and therefore decreasing profitability. |
No response provided
|
Increased direct costs
|
Short-term
|
Very likely
|
Medium-low
|
No response provided
|
We expect there to continue to be major weather and climate events that affect our business over the course of each year. In the short-term, the effect on the organization will depend on the types and frequency of events and the necessary response. In the medium- and long-term, the organization will continue to implement appropriate risk management practices to adapt the business to the existing environment. We expect periodic increased operating costs to manage the immediate impact, with potential capital costs coming in the longer-term to adapt to changes in climate activity. |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
164,000
|
1,968,000
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
We calculated the minimum financial impact figure by taking an average of tons of commodities sold per month across various facilities in 2024 (2.5 million tons/year across 75 facilities averages 2,778 tons/month at one facility) multiplied by the average sale of materials (SOM) value for 2022 ($164/ton used for this analysis). This estimates that the loss for one month of downtime at an average-sized facility caused by a weather event would be approximately $456,000. The financial impact would be greater from multiple months of downtime at average-size facilities or closures at larger facilities, which can produce 12,000 tons per month. The financial loss from a one month closure of one of these larger facilities would be approximately $1,968,000. As an example, we had to shut down a large recycling facility in New Orleans for 1 month after Hurricane Katrina, which resulted in approximately $1.5M in lost recycling revenue (inflation-adjusted to 2023 dollars). |
Policies and plans - Amend the Business Continuity Plan
|
2,500,000
|
Costs to manage this risk continue to be incorporated into our business-as-usual activities, but do include insurance premiums, program management costs associated with developing and maintaining the Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plan for Field Staff, training that is done each year to make sure the local coordinator is up to speed, and cost to maintain back-up generators. In total, this cost is approximately $2.5M. |
Republic reviews physical risks to our business as part of a risk management process, which is ongoing, and considered more than once per year. We have also initiated a periodic Physical Risk Assessment based on Shared Socioeconomic Pathways developed by IPCC. As we identify and prioritize critical risks to our physical assets, we implement the changes or management programs, to mitigate impacts. We have in place and continue to update an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plan for Field Staff and perform local-level training on an ongoing basis. Each Area President (AP) owns this plan and its implementation for their respective region. The Plan not only prepares Republic for impact to our assets and operations, but it also ensures business continuity after severe weather events by providing field staff with guidance in preparing for an emergency or recovery from a natural disaster. Republic starts planning as soon as we learn of an impending storm. For example, in 2019, Hurricane Dorian was bearing down on the Southeast, where Republic has collection, recycling and landfill operations. The business continuity teams prepared for protection of our people and their families, our assets and our customers. We discuss and arrange shelter locations and ensure that all employees are safe and secure before the storm strikes. We also move trucks and equipment to high ground, secure recycling facilities and place landfills into safe mode. Finally, we provide guidance to our customers to prepare their carts and containers to withstand the storm and to prevent them from becoming a hazard during the storm. These actions help to minimize impact to our people and assets during the storm and ensure we can be back up and running as soon as possible after the storm passes. Republic also maintains property and other forms of insurance to protect against catastrophic losses of assets. |
Climate change
|
Risk3
|
Not applicable
|
Policy - Changes to regulation of existing products and services
|
Direct operations
|
No response provided
|
Canada,
United States of America
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
We purchase or collect and process recyclable materials such as paper, cardboard, plastics, aluminum and other metals for sale to third parties. In 2024, recycling and organics processing operations accounted for 2.5% of our total revenue. Our results of operations may be affected by changing prices or market requirements for recyclable materials. The resale and purchase prices of, and market demand for, recyclable materials are volatile due to changes in economic conditions, governmental regulation, and numerous other factors beyond our control. For instance, in 2017 the Chinese government imposed strict limits on the import of recyclable materials. These limitations significantly decreased the global demand for recyclable materials and resulted in lower commodity prices. In the American context, consumer handling and sorting of recyclables is limited in magnitude and quality. Lower quality and poorly sorted recyclables incur increased handling costs and reduced commodity value. Our performance may be affected by changing prices or market requirements for recyclable materials. The resale and purchase prices of, and market demand for, recyclable materials are volatile due to changes in economic conditions, regulatory changes, lack of market/social drivers and numerous other factors beyond our control. |
No response provided
|
Change in revenue mix and sources
|
Short-term
|
Very likely
|
Medium-low
|
No response provided
|
Volatility in the value of recycled commodities directly impacts our revenue and cost structure for our recycling business. As discussed below, our revenue and profitability move in-line with commodity prices, though we have worked to pass through much of the volatility to our customers to focus on capturing the value of our services. |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
0
|
11
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
At 2024 volumes and mix of materials, we believe a $10 per ton change in the price of recycled commodities has the potential to change both annual revenue and operating income by approximately $11 million. We calculate this using several factors that impact our operating costs and revenues. We then compare the difference in costs and revenues resulting from the associated adjustments in the price of our commodities sold. The potential financial impact includes factors beyond volume and material mix, including municipal billing cycles and other factors that impact billed rates. |
Engagement - Engage in multi-stakeholder initiatives
|
0
|
The cost of management of this risk includes our community training programs and materials, and recycling contract management program. However, implementation of the training program and the contract management program result in positive benefits through cleaner recycling streams, and therefore greater revenue, that outweigh all the management costs. Therefore, this cost was negative (zero entered in the field above, as a negative number is not allowed). |
In order to drive increased demand for and the value of recycling, we actively provide education in to help consumers and businesses understand the value of recycling and the importance of proper separation of recyclables to minimize contamination. Republic's Recycling Simplified consumer education campaign won the 2019 Best Recycling Public Education Program Award from the National Waste & Recycling Association, which recognizes innovators and leaders in the industry who have made substantial contributions to American recycling through partnerships, public education and innovations in recycling facilities. After the 2018 launch of the Recycling Simplified initiative and a supporting national public relations campaign, we executed a $2 million multichannel marketing campaign in 2019 in six cities to further help reduce contamination rates by focusing on what and how to recycle correctly. The local campaigns employed radio ads, billboards and social media to reach residents. In two of the markets, pre- and post-campaign audits were conducted on residential recycling routes, which found that contamination rates had decreased significantly in both communities. In addition, we are working with our customers to move to a more sustainable economic model that includes a fee for the services we provide and a more equitable commodity risk sharing arrangement. This action reduces our risk exposure in the future. We also engage with policymakers to ensure that public policy supports a sustainable business model for recycling, in-line with desirable public outcome. |
This question only applies if you select any of the “Yes,…” options in response to column 1 “Environmental risks identified” in the “Climate change”, “Forests”, or “Water” row of 3.1.
3.1.2 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Applicable rows depend on answers to the column "Environmental risks identified" in the "Climate change", "Forests", or "Water" row of 3.1.
Environmental issue | Financial metric | Amount of financial metric vulnerable to transition risks for this environmental issue (unit currency as selected in 1.2) | % of total financial metric vulnerable to transition risks for this environmental issue | Amount of financial metric vulnerable to physical risks for this environmental issue (unit currency as selected in 1.2) | % of total financial metric vulnerable to physical risks for this environmental issue | Amount of CAPEX in the reporting year deployed towards risks related to this environmental issue | Explanation of financial figures |
Climate change |
OPEX
|
163,870,000
|
1-10%
|
3,366,000,000
|
31-40%
|
No response provided
|
Transition risk identified in Exhibit S5 of our 2024 TCFD is $163,870,000. We divided that by 2024 OPEX from p.66 of our most recent 10-K of $9,350,000,000 to get 1.8%. We defined the % of total financial metric in that is vulnerable to physical risks as equal to the % of assets subject to Extreme Heat (as measured by annoual count of days when the maximum temperature surpassed 35 degrees C under SSP2-4.5, which comes from Exhibit A3 of our 2024 TCFD Report. In Exhibit A3, we see that 36% of our assets would be expected to experience high or very high number of days above 35 degrees C. We multiplied that % by the same OPEX of $9,350,000,000 to arrive at $1,144,726,500. 2024 TCFD https://republicservicesinc.gcs-web.com/static-files/2024-Republic-Services-TCFD-Addendum.pdf 2023 10-K https://investor.republicservices.com/static-files/7ce6ac05-3e50-415b-a45b-42173621bfba |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select any of the “Yes…” options in response to column “Environmental risks identified” for the “Water” row of 3.1.
Country/Area & River basin | Value chain stages where facilities at risk have been identified in this river basin | Number of facilities within direct operations exposed to water-related risk in this river basin | % of your organization’s total facilities within direct operations exposed to water-related risk in this river basin | Number of facilities within downstream value chain exposed to water-related risk in this river basin | Number of facilities in upstream value chain exposed to water-related risk in this river basin | Production value for the metals and mining activities associated with these facilities (currency) [Metals and Mining only] | % organization’s annual electricity generation that could be affected by these facilities [Electric Utilities only] | % organization’s global oil and gas production volume that could be affected by these facilities [Oil and Gas only] | % organization’s total global revenue that could be affected | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Your response to 3.3 will determine which subsequent questions apply in this section. If your response to 3.3 is amended, data in those dependent questions may need to be edited. In this case, be sure to check data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.
Water-related regulatory violations | Fines, enforcement orders, and/or other penalties | Comment |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Fines” or “Fines, but none that are considered as significant” in response to 3.3.
Total number of fines | Total value of fines | % of total facilities/operations associated | Number of fines compared to previous reporting year | Comment |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Fines” or “Enforcement orders or other penalties” in response to 3.3.
Type of penalty | Financial impact | Country/Area & River basin | Type of incident | Description of penalty, incident, regulatory violation, significance, and resolution |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 3.5.
System name | % of Scope 1 emissions covered by the ETS | % of Scope 2 emissions covered by the ETS | Period start date [DD/MM/YYYY] | Period end date [DD/MM/YYYY] | Allowances allocated | Allowances purchased | Verified Scope 1 emissions in metric tons CO2e | Verified Scope 2 emissions in metric tons CO2e | Details of ownership | Comment |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Tax system | Period start date [DD/MM/YYYY] | Period end date [DD/MM/YYYY] | % of total Scope 1 emissions covered by tax | Total cost of tax paid | Comment |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
3.6 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Note that the Biodiversity row in this data request should be completed by companies in the mining sector only. If your company is not in the mining sector, do not complete this row even if you are otherwise reporting on Biodiversity.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Environmental opportunities identified | Primary reason why your organization does not consider itself to have environmental opportunities | Please explain |
Climate change |
Yes, we have identified opportunities, and some/all are being realized
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity [Mining - Biodiversity only] |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select either of the “Yes,…” options in response to column “Environmental opportunities identified” of 3.6.
3.6.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue the opportunity relates to | Opportunity identifier | Commodity | Opportunity type and primary environmental opportunity driver | Value chain stage where the opportunity occurs | Country/area where the opportunity occurs | River basin where the opportunity occurs | Mining project ID [Metals and Mining only] | Organization specific description | Primary financial effect of the opportunity | Time horizon over which the opportunity is anticipated to have a substantive effect on the organization | Likelihood of the opportunity having an effect within the anticipated time horizon | Magnitude | Effect of the opportunity on the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of the organization in the reporting period | Anticipated effect of the opportunity on the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of the organization in the selected future time horizons | Are you able to quantify the financial effects of the opportunity? | Financial effect figure in the reporting year (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the short-term - minimum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the short-term – maximum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the medium-term - minimum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the medium-term - maximum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the long-term - minimum (currency) | Anticipated financial effect figure in the long-term – maximum (currency) | Explanation of financial effect figures | Cost to realize opportunity | Explanation of cost calculation | Strategy to realize opportunity |
Climate change |
Opp1
|
N/A |
Products and services: Development of new products or services through R&D and innovation
|
Direct operations
|
Canada,
United States of America
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
We foresee increased revenues resulting from increased demand for products and services, driven by a broad societal trend toward landfill diversion, due in part to concerns over climate change. We are actively looking for ways to reduce organic materials in our landfills that generate methane upon decomposition, like fiber, food, and yard waste. Recycling and composting remove organics from landfills and returns recycled materials to industries that otherwise must source virgin materials with heavy GHG footprints. We have invested in growing and upgrading our recycling and organics processing capabilities, enabling us to more efficiently handle and capture materials. We have publicly committed to increase our recovery of key materials 40% above 2017 levels by 2030, supported by the development of our Polymer Center network, North America's first integrated plastics recycling facility, managing recyclables from collection to delivery of high-quality recycled content for consumer packaging. Our first Polymer Center opened in Las Vegas in 2023, our second opened in Indianapolis in 2024, and we've begun construction on our third. Republic anticipates opening at least one more center to provide national coverage and further drive circularity. |
Increased revenues resulting from increased demand for products and services
|
The opportunity has already had a substantive effect on our organization in the reporting year
|
No response provided
|
Medium
|
We are able to retain and gain business by providing alternative methods of managing waste, such as recycling and composting. We are investing in innovative recycling technology and have expanded our organics operations to help customers meet their diversion goals. We are committed to meeting the increased market for recycling and recycled commodities, which will translate to increased revenue and margins. |
No response provided
|
Yes
|
1,681,700,000
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Our 2024 recycling and organics collection, processing, and commodity sales were 1,681 million or 10% of our total revenue of 16,032 million. This revenue was made possible by our continued investment in our recycling and organics diversion capabilities, from collection to processing to returning those materials to the marketplace. |
119,100,000
|
In 2024 we invested $114.2M into upgrading our recycling facilities, and an additional $5M in organics processing infrastructure to more efficiently handle and capture materials, totaling the $119.1M reported here. Upgrades include the use of robotics and advanced sorting equipment, such as disk screens, magnets and optical sorters, to identify and separate different kinds of paper, metals, plastics and other materials increasing efficiency and maximizing our recycling volume. Many of Republic's composting facilities are technologically advanced, using mechanical aeration to speed up the biological process and reduce odors. The facility at the Otay Landfill in Chula Vista, Calif., is an innovative example – it's completely off the grid, using solar-powered fans and a cover technology that requires little energy consumption and traps odors, dust and emissions. |
We continue to invest in proven technologies to control costs and to simplify and streamline recycling for our customers. As of December 31, 2024, we operated 75 recycling facilities and have publicly committed to increase our recovery of key materials by 40% from 2017 to 2030. The investments described enabled us to support the recycling of 5.3 million short tons of traditional recyclables and 1.1 million short tons of organics, and to profitably sell 2.5 million short tons of recyclables and organics in 2024. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity [Mining-Biodiversity only] |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Climate change
|
Opp2
|
No response provided
|
Products and services: Increased sales of existing products and services
|
Direct operations
|
Canada,
United States of America
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Republic provides recycling, solid waste, and broader environmental services throughout North America, where we have seen an increase in frequency of severe weather events over the last decade. While these events can cause service disruption during the actual storms, the clean-up efforts required after an event typically result in an increase in demand for our services due to storm damage to buildings, infrastructure, trees and other natural areas that require quick, reliable transport and responsible disposal, including recycling and emergency response. We have business continuity plans in place for severe weather, natural disasters and other emergencies— hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, winter storms, earthquakes and wildfires, among others—to help limit disruptions in our operations and help ensure the continuity of our services. |
Increased revenues resulting from increased demand for products and services
|
Short-term
|
Likely
|
Medium-low
|
No response provided
|
Providing disposal services during storm cleanup has the potential to increase volumes to our disposal sites, thus increasing revenue and profit. |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
0
|
10,000,000
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Our operations can be favorably affected by severe weather, which can increase the volume of waste in situations where we are able to charge for our additional services or provide services when our competitors are not able to operate due to storm damage to their assets or operations. Republic estimates revenue from these events to range from $1-10 million, based on the amount of incremental material created by the storm and Republic's market share in the affected areas. As an example, the Solid Waste Association of North America estimated that Hurricane Michael in 2018 resulted in 13 million tons of storm debris in two counties. Assuming 75% of storm debris is taken to landfills at an average FEMA landfill rate of $10/ton, this would result in $97.5M of incremental revenue opportunity. If Republic was awarded a 10% share of this business, we would receive $9.75M in storm related revenue. This revenue can be offset or exceeded by costs for overtime, extra hauling distances, etc. |
7,000,000
|
We estimate that profitability of this business would be slightly lower than our corporate average. Therefore we apply a 30% EBITDA margin to the business, implying approximately $7 m of costs. |
We have continued to invest capital into our Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plans in to better position ourselves in the event of climate or natural disasters. This investment allowed us to make significant progress towards preparation plans in addition to yearly supply restocking. Our plan for field staff not only prepares us for impact to our assets, it also aims to keep our business, an essential service, up and running. The plan provides field staff with guidance in preparing for an emergency or recovery from a natural disaster. Republic starts planning as soon as we learn of an impending storm. For example, in 2019, Hurricane Dorian was bearing down on the Southeast, where Republic has significant operations. The business continuity teams planned in advance for protection of our people and their families, our assets and our customers. These actions helped minimize impact to our people and assets to ensure we were back up and running as soon as possible after the storm passed. Republic begins operations as soon as local emergency management officials give the go ahead. We begin by ensuring that all employees are accounted for and assess damage to their personal property. We also ensure they and their families have meals, clothing and daily necessities. Our teams then resume collection of solid waste and recycling once roads are clear and we provide storm debris removal where contracted by FEMA. Our early preparation generally enables us to be one of the first service providers back on the streets, which positions us well to win storm debris removal contracts and to pick up business where our competitors are not able to resume operations as quickly. The Plan was initially developed following the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita recovery efforts and continues to be evaluated and implemented annually. |
This question only applies if you select either of the “Yes” options in response to column “Environmental opportunities identified” in the Climate change, Forests, or Water row of 3.6.
3.6.2 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Applicable rows depend on answers to the column "Environmental opportunities identified" in the "Climate change", "Forests", or "Water" row of 3.6.
Environmental issue | Financial metric | Amount of financial metric aligned with opportunities for this environmental issue (unit currency as selected in 1.2) | % of total financial metric aligned with opportunities for this environmental issue | Explanation of financial figures |
Climate change |
Revenue
|
1,681,700,000
|
1-10%
|
Our 2024 recycling and organics collection, processing, and commodity sales were $1,681 million or 10% of our total revenue of $16,032 million. This revenue was made possible by our continued investment in our recycling and organics diversion capabilities, from collection to processing to returning those materials to the marketplace. See further explanation in response to the preceding question (3.6.1).
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Board of directors or equivalent governing body | Frequency with which the board or equivalent meets | Types of directors your board or equivalent is comprised of | Board diversity and inclusion policy | Briefly describe what the policy covers | Attach the policy (optional) |
Yes
|
More frequently than quarterly
|
Executive directors or equivalent,
Independent non-executive directors or equivalent
|
Yes, and it is publicly available
|
Republic Services and the Board are committed to a policy of Board inclusiveness. To assist in promoting diversity on the Board, the Board shall, to the extent consistent with applicable legal requirements and with its fiduciary duties, take reasonable steps to ensure that new Board nominees are drawn from a pool that includes diverse candidates . |
No response provided |
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Board of directors or equivalent governing body” of 4.1.
Environmental issue | Board-level oversight of this environmental issue | Primary reason for no board-level oversight of this environmental issue | Explain why your organization does not have board-level oversight of this environmental issue |
Climate change |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Board-level oversight of this environmental issue” for any row of 4.1.1.
4.1.2 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Positions of individuals or committees with accountability for this environmental issue | Positions’ accountability for this environmental issue is outlined in policies applicable to the board | Policies which outline the positions’ accountability for this environmental issue | Frequency with which this environmental issue is a scheduled agenda item | Governance mechanisms into which this environmental issue is integrated | Scope of board-level oversight | Please explain |
Climate change |
Director on board,
Board-level committee
|
Yes
|
Board Terms of Reference
|
Scheduled agenda item in every board meeting (standing agenda item)
|
Reviewing and guiding the assessment process for dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities,
Monitoring compliance with corporate policies and/or commitments,
Overseeing the setting of corporate targets,
Monitoring progress towards corporate targets,
Overseeing and guiding public policy engagement,
Overseeing and guiding the development of a business strategy,
Approving and/or overseeing employee incentives,
Reviewing and guiding innovation/R&D priorities,
Overseeing and guiding acquisitions, mergers, and divestitures,
Overseeing and guiding major capital expenditures,
Overseeing and guiding scenario analysis
|
The impact of our own operations on the environment,
Risks and opportunities to our own operations
|
Given the importance of corporate sustainability to our stakeholders, Republic created a dedicated Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Committee (SCR) of the board in 2015. The SCR has responsibility for climate-related issues. From the Committee Charter, the Committee “...is appointed by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Republic Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “Republic”) to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and to act in an advisory capacity to the Company's management with respect to significant issues, strategies, goals, objectives, policies and practices that pertain to (1) Republic's sustainability performance including sustainability innovation; (2) Republic's corporate responsibilities that are of significance to the Company and its role as a socially responsible organization; (3) Republic's Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) programs; and (4) risks and opportunities facing the Company, including climate change, safety, environmental, regulatory and reputational risks and opportunities, and the practices by which these risks are managed and mitigated. The Committee also shall perform such other duties and responsibilities as may be delegated to it from time to time by the Board.” One of the Board's decision-making responsibilities that directly impacts the Company's climate-related activities is the approval of our annual budget, which allocates funding for the Company's sustainability-related agenda. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Board of directors or equivalent governing body” of 4.1.
4.2 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Board-level competency on this environmental issue | Mechanisms to maintain an environmentally competent board | Environmental expertise of the board member | Primary reason for no board-level competency on this environmental issue | Explain why your organization does not have a board with competence on this environmental issue |
Climate change |
Yes
|
Consulting regularly with an internal, permanent, subject-expert working group,
Regular training for directors on environmental issues, industry best practice, and standards (e.g., TCFD, SBTi),
Engaging regularly with external stakeholders and experts on environmental issues,
Integrating knowledge of environmental issues into board nominating process,
Having at least one board member with expertise on this environmental issue
|
Experience - Executive-level experience in a role focused on environmental issues,
Experience - Experience in an organization that is exposed to environmental-scrutiny and is going through a sustainability transition,
Experience - Active member of an environmental committee or organization
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
4.3 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Management-level responsibility for this environmental issue | Primary reason for no management-level responsibility for environmental issues | Explain why your organization does not have management-level responsibility for environmental issues |
Climate change |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Management-level responsibility for this environmental issue” of 4.3.
4.3.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Position of individual or committee with responsibility | Environmental responsibilities of this position | Coverage of responsibilities [Financial Services only] | Reporting line | Frequency of reporting to the board on environmental issues | Please explain |
Climate change |
Executive level - Other C-Suite Officer, please specify - Specify: EVP - Chief Development Officer
|
Dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities - Assessing future trends in environmental dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities,
Dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities - Assessing environmental dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities,
Policies, commitments, and targets - Setting corporate environmental targets,
Policies, commitments, and targets - Measuring progress towards environmental corporate targets,
Engagement - Managing public policy engagement related to environmental issues,
Strategy and financial planning -Conducting environmental scenario analysis,
Strategy and financial planning -Developing a business strategy which considers environmental issues,
Strategy and financial planning -Implementing the business strategy related to environmental issues,
Strategy and financial planning -Managing acquisitions, mergers, and divestitures related to environmental issues,
Strategy and financial planning -Managing major capital and/or operational expenditures relating to environmental issues,
Other - Providing employee incentives related to environmental performance
|
No response provided
|
Reports to the board directly
|
Quarterly
|
The CDO reports to the CEO for day-to-day responsibilities and regularly reports to the Board of Directors and its committees, including the Sustainability & Corporate Responsibility Committee of the Board. The CDO is responsible for assessing current and future trends throughout sustainability and developing and implementing strategy to drive value from our sustainability related offerings. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “No” in response to column 1 “Board of directors or equivalent governing body” of 4.1.
4.4 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issues | Management-level competency on this environmental issue | Mechanisms to maintain management level competency on this environmental issue | Environmental expertise of the individual at management level | Primary reason for no management-level competency on environmental issues | Explain why your organization does not have management-level competency on this environmental issue |
Climate change |
Yes
|
Consulting regularly with an internal, permanent, subject-expert working group,
Engaging regularly with external stakeholders and experts on environmental issues,
Regular training at management level on environmental issues, industry best practice, and standards (e.g., TCFD, SBTi),
Having at least one individual at management level with expertise on this environmental issue
|
Academic - Postgraduate education (e.g., MSc/MA/PhD in environment and sustainability, climate science, environmental science, water resources management, forestry, etc.), please specify - Specify: Master of Environmental Science and Management, specializing in Energy & Climate,
Experience - Management-level experience in a role focused on environmental issues,
Experience - Staff-level experience in a role focused on environmental issues,
Experience - Experience in an organization that is exposed to environmental-scrutiny and is going through a sustainability transition,
Experience - Active member of an environmental committee or organization
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
4.5 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Environmental issue | Provision of monetary incentives related to this environmental issue | % of total C-suite and board-level monetary incentives linked to the management of this environmental issue | Please explain |
Climate change |
Yes
|
10%
|
As reported in our Proxy Statement, our annual cash incentive is subject to a Sustainability Modifier, which is an additional adjustment, up or down by up to 10 percentage points, based on the Company's interim performance on safety, talent and climate leadership goals. This sustainability modifier is “universal,” meaning the adjustment is applied consistently for all corporate members of our senior management team, including our named executive officers. See page 66 of our 2025 Proxy https://investor.republicservices.com/static-files/11a307e8-016d-4265-b28e-be9fdec018f7. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity [Mining-Biodiversity only] |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column “Provision of monetary incentives related to this environmental issue” in 4.5.
4.5.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Position entitled to monetary incentive | Incentives | Performance metrics | Incentive plan the incentives are linked to | Further details of incentives | How the position’s incentives contribute to the achievement of your environmental commitments and/or climate transition plan |
Climate change |
Board or executive level - Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
|
Bonus - % of salary
|
Targets - Progress towards environmental targets,
Emission reduction - Implementation of an emissions reduction initiative [Climate only]
|
Short-Term Incentive Plan, or equivalent, only (e.g. contractual annual bonus)
|
To ensure our annual short-term incentive compensation aligns with our Company values on sustainability and employee development and safety, we utilize a sustainability modifier as a component of our annual incentive program. The sustainability modifier is aligned around the sustainability pillars from our 2030 sustainability goals – safety, talent and climate leadership. Each pillar has one or more specific quantitative metrics such that achievement against that metric can result in an adjustment of the annual incentive achieved by senior executives, including our NEOs, upward or downward within a range of ten percentage points. For each pillar, the Talent & Compensation Committee also has the discretion to consider other factors that may impact the rating for a specific pillar. After a rating is determined for each pillar, the Talent & Compensation Committee aggregates these ratings to determine the sustainability modifier percentage that an NEO's annual bonus should be adjusted up or down. This includes two of our 2030 Climate Leadership goals, one to increase recovery and circularity of key materials by 40% and a second to increase beneficial reuse of biogas 50%, both from a 2017 baseline. These goals both reduce emissions throughout our value chain, including emissions reduction impacts in our own operations. |
These incentives ensure buy-in and engagement at the highest levels of company leadership, with a real, measurable consequence when performance is not tracking towards targets (e.g., as reported on page 69 our 2024 Proxy, Executive incentive pay was reduced by 3% for 2023, while on page 66 of our 2025 proxy incentive pay was unchanged for 2024) and a motivation for executives to accelerate performance. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity [Mining-Biodiversity only] |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Does your organization have any environmental policies? | Primary reason for not having an environmental policy | Explain why you do not have an environmental policy |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Does your organization have any environmental policies?” of 4.6.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issues covered | Level of coverage | Value chain stages covered | Explain the coverage | Environmental policy content | Indicate whether your environmental policy is in line with global environmental treaties or policy goals | Public availability | Attach the policy |
Climate change
|
Organization-wide
|
Direct operations,
Upstream value chain,
Downstream value chain
|
Our policy is written for Republic Services, as an entire entity. The policy states that our commitment extends to the selection and ongoing evaluation of environmentally responsible suppliers, service providers, and contractors. Our policy also clarifies that we partner with customers to create a more sustainable world, that we help our customers meet their goals through our work, and that it is imperative for us to reduce emissions and achieve greater circularity with the materials we handle for our customers to help preserve the environment. |
Environmental commitments - Commitment to a circular economy strategy,
Environmental commitments - Commitment to comply with regulations and mandatory standards,
Climate-specific commitments - Other climate-related commitment, please specify [applies if "Climate change" is selected in column 1] - Specify: To reduce emissions, achieve greater circularity, and increase renewable energy production.
|
Yes, in line with the Paris Agreement [applies if "Climate change" is selected in column 1]
|
Publicly available
|
Republic Services Environmental Policy 2024.04
Page(s)
|
Are you a signatory or member of any environmental collaborative frameworks or initiatives? | Collaborative framework or initiative | Describe your organization’s role within each framework or initiative |
Yes
|
Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)
|
Our greenhouse gas emissions reduction target was validated by SBTi in 2019 and we remain in good standing. |
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
External engagement activities that could directly or indirectly influence policy, law, or regulation that may impact the environment | Indicate whether your organization has a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with global environmental treaties or policy goals | Global environmental treaties or policy goals in line with public commitment or position statement | Attach commitment or position statement | Indicate whether your organization is registered on a transparency register | Types of transparency register your organization is registered on | Disclose the transparency registers on which your organization is registered & the relevant ID numbers for your organization | Describe the process your organization has in place to ensure that your external engagement activities are consistent with your environmental commitments and/or transition plan | Primary reason for not engaging in activities that could directly or indirectly influence policy, law, or regulation that may impact the environment | Explain why your organization does not engage in activities that could directly or indirectly influence policy, law, or regulation that may impact the environment |
Yes, we engaged indirectly through, and/or provided financial or in-kind support to a trade association or other intermediary organization or individual whose activities could influence policy, law, or regulation,
Yes, we engaged directly with policy makers
|
Yes, we have a public commitment or position statement in line with global environmental treaties or policy goals
|
Paris Agreement [Climate only]
|
2024 GRI
Page(s)
|
Yes
|
Mandatory government register
|
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 c/o Alignment Government Strategies Senate ID# 401103295-214, House ID# 425880021 c/o West Front Strategies Senate ID# 401103493-125, House ID# 427640012 |
Republic Services employees responsible for policy engagement actively participate in conversations related to our sustainability management, ensuring that we advocate for aligned with our policy positions (e.g. supporting the Paris Agreement), including engagement with positions of trade association. |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, we engage directly with policy makers” in response to column 1 “External engagement activities that could directly or indirectly influence policy, law, or regulation that may impact the environment” of 4.11.
Specify the policy, law, or regulation on which your organization is engaging with policy makers | Environmental issues the policy, law, or regulation relates to | Focus area of policy, law, or regulation that may impact the environment [select options from one focus area only] | Geographic coverage of policy, law, or regulation | Country/area/region the policy, law, or regulation applies to | Your organization’s position on the policy, law, or regulation | Details of any exceptions and your organization’s proposed alternative approach to the policy, law, or regulation | Type of direct engagement with policy makers on this policy, law, or regulation | Funding figure your organization provided to policy makers in the reporting year relevant to this policy, law, or regulation (currency) | Explain the relevance of this policy, law, or regulation to the achievement of your environmental commitments and/or transition plan, how this has informed your engagement, and how you measure the success of your engagement | Indicate if you have evaluated whether your organization’s engagement on this policy, law, or regulation is aligned with global environmental treaties or policy goals | Global environmental treaties or policy goals aligned with your organization's engagement on this policy, law or regulation |
· Clean Fuels: advocacy on policies that transition medium and heavy-duty vehicles to cleaner fuel standards and/or electrification, e.g. Renewable Fuel Standard |
Climate Change
|
Energy and renewables - Alternative fuels [Climate only]
|
National
|
United States of America
|
Support with no exceptions
|
Not applicable |
Regular meetings,
Discussion in public forums,
Participation in working groups organized by policy makers,
Participation in voluntary government programs,
Responding to consultations,
Submitting written proposals/inquiries
|
390,000
|
We have an industry-leading ambition towards fleet electrification and expect to continue to expand our EV refuse truck fleet . We also participate in the development of landfill gas to renewable natural gas (RNG), and we power a fifth of our fleet with RNG. The Renewable Fuel Standard rules impact our ability to use and develop these critical, carbon-avoiding technologies successfully . |
Yes, we have evaluated, and it is aligned
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, we engaged indirectly through, and/or provided financial or in-kind support to a trade association or other intermediary organization or individual whose activities could influence policy, law, or regulation” in response to column 1 “External engagement activities that could directly or indirectly influence policy, law, or regulation that may impact the environment” of 4.11.
Type of indirect engagement | Type of organization or individual | State the organization or position of individual | Trade association | Environmental issues relevant to the policies, laws, or regulations on which the organization or individual has taken a position | Indicate whether your organization’s position is consistent with the organization or individual you engage with | Indicate whether your organization attempted to influence the organization or individual’s position in the reporting year | Describe how your organization’s position is consistent with or differs from the organization or individual’s position, and any actions taken to influence their position | Funding figure your organization provided to this organization or individual in the reporting year (currency) | Describe the aim of this funding and how it could influence policy, law or regulation that may impact the environment | Indicate if you have evaluated whether your organization’s engagement is aligned with global environmental treaties or policy goals | Global environmental treaties or policy goals aligned with your organization’s engagement on policy, law or regulation |
Indirect engagement via a trade association
|
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) or charitable organization
|
National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) |
North America - Other trade association in North America, please specify - Specify: National Waste and Recycling Association
|
Climate Change
|
Consistent
|
Yes, and they have changed their position
|
We regularly evaluate positions of the organization with respect to those positions of our company, and where there are gaps, we voice our opinion in direct engagement with NWRA leadership, in conversations with other members, and in group meetings. We generally have constructive engagements with the organization and it's leadership in working towards positions that benefit the industry and our policy. |
537,250
|
The funding represents our membership dues, granting us the same access to the organization, its events, and its resources as is granted to other members. This includes advancing policies that increase opportunities for greater circularity and beneficial climate impacts.
|
Yes, we have evaluated, and it is aligned
|
Paris Agreement [applies if "Climate change" is selected in column 2]
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 4.12.
Publication | Standard or framework the report is in line with | Environmental issues covered in publication | Status of the publication | Content elements | Page/section reference | Attach the relevant publication | Comment |
In mainstream reports, in line with environmental disclosure standards or frameworks
|
GRI,
TCFD,
IFRS,
Other, please specify - Specify: UN SDGs
|
Climate change
|
Complete
|
Emission targets [Climate only],
Emissions figures [Climate only],
Governance
|
Entire Sustainability Report, GRI, SASB, and TCFD reports, |
2024 GRI
Page(s)
|
Our GRI report includes our emissions, emissions targets and governance. |
5.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Environmental issue | Use of scenario analysis | Frequency of analysis | Primary reason why your organization has not used scenario analysis | Explain why your organization has not used scenario analysis |
Climate change |
Yes
|
Every two years
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to any row of column 1 “Use of scenario analysis” of 5.1.
5.1.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Environmental issue this scenario has been used to analyze | Scenario used | SSPs used in conjunction with scenario | Approach to scenario | Scenario coverage | Risk types considered in scenario | Temperature alignment of scenario | Reference year | Timeframes covered | Driving forces in scenario | Assumptions, uncertainties and constraints in scenario | Rationale for choice of scenario |
Climate change |
Climate transition scenarios - IEA APS
|
No response provided
|
Qualitative and quantitative
|
Organization-wide
|
Acute physical,
Policy,
Market,
Chronic physical,
Reputation,
Liability,
Technology
|
2.5ºC - 2.9ºC
|
|
2025,
2030,
2040,
2050,
2060
|
Regulators, legal and policy regimes - Global regulation,
Macro and microeconomy - Globalizing markets ,
Macro and microeconomy - Domestic growth,
Stakeholder and customer demands - Consumer attention to impact
|
We used the International Panel on Climate Change's Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 4.5 and 8.5, with the associated uncertainties and constraints laid out in their documentation: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/emissions_scenarios-1.pdf . |
We selected IPCC SSP 4.5 and SSP 8.5 to capture a range of plausible climate futures and better understand the resilience of our business under varying levels of physical and transition risk. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to any row of column 1 “Use of scenario analysis” of 5.1.
5.1.2 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Environmental issue | Business processes influenced by your analysis of the reported scenarios | Coverage of analysis | Summarize the outcomes of the scenario analysis and any implications for other environmental issues |
Climate change |
Risk and opportunities identification, assessment and management ,
Strategy and financial planning,
Resilience of business model and strategy,
Capacity building ,
Target setting and transition planning
|
Organization-wide
|
Through our transition risk scenario analysis, we found that the IEA 2023 projections for carbon taxes are sufficiently high to be considered an incentive for the Company to reduce emissions as a cost-avoidance measure. The risk of incurring the projected carbon tax must be weighed by Company management when considered as part of our Enterprise Risk Management function and other business planning processes. The projected costs are considered in the business case to evaluate capital expenditures on emissions-reduction measures. Through our physical risk scenario analysis, we found that SSP5-8.5 represented an increase of 75% of our facilities experiencing extreme heat, as compared to the baseline. At the same time, we saw a clear, though less pronounced, increase in the number of our facilities facing water stress, flooding events, extreme cold, wildfires, drought and cyclones. These findings are being incorporated into our planning for the purposes of employee safety, facility maintenance, and other operational considerations. These findings support the continued investment in employee safety programs, such as the Company's "101 Days of Summer" program, promoting healthy employee behaviors during the hottest months of the year. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Transition plan | Temperature alignment of transition plan | Publicly available climate transition plan | Plan explicitly commits to cease all spending on, and revenue generation from, activities that contribute to fossil fuel expansion | Description of activities included in commitment and implementation of commitment | Explain why your organization does not explicitly commit to cease all spending on and revenue generation from activities that contribute to fossil fuel expansion | Mechanism by which feedback is collected from shareholders on your climate transition plan | Description of feedback mechanism | Frequency of feedback collection | Description of key assumptions and dependencies on which the transition plan relies | Description of progress against transition plan disclosed in current or previous reporting period | Attach any relevant documents which detail your climate transition plan (optional) | Other environmental issues that your climate transition plan considers | Explain how the other environmental issues are considered in your climate transition plan | Primary reason for not having a climate transition plan that aligns with a 1.5°C world | Explain why your organization does not have a climate transition plan that aligns with a 1.5°C world |
Yes, but we have a climate transition plan with a different temperature alignment
|
Well-below 2°C aligned
|
Yes
|
No, but we plan to add an explicit commitment within the next two years
|
Our Climate Transition Road Map was first announced on page 38 of our 2022 Sustainability Report (https://investor.republicservices.com/static-files/24010725-16c0-445f-a5d6-bab0c897a41f) and expanded upon in our 2023 Sustainability Report (https://republicservicesinc.gcs-web.com/static-files/2023-Republic-Services-Sustainability-Report.pdf). The road map describes our actions to reduce emissions at our landfills, through waste diversion, in our fleet, and across our buildings over time periods covering the rest of the decade and beyond. |
We have not been told by a majority of our ownership (shareholders) that they wish for the company to engage in this action. We have also not heard this from a majority or significant portion of any other group of stakeholders (e.g. customers, employees, regulators, communities, etc.). |
We have a different feedback mechanism in place
|
We conduct annual shareholder outreach, which covers progress towards our SBTi-approved goal, the basis of our climate transition plan. As reported in our 2025 Proxy Statement, during our 2024 shareholder outreach, we met with shareholders holding the majority of our outstanding shares (56%). See page 37 of our 2025 Proxy Statement for more details, including reference to our SBTi goal in the context of that annual outreach. https://investor.republicservices.com/static-files/11a307e8-016d-4265-b28e-be9fdec018f7 |
Annually
|
We expect climate change to continue occurring, so long as global emissions do not dramatically decrease. We understand that our ability to invest in the continued decarbonization of our own operations is dependent on our continued financial viability as a company. This may create the perception of tension from third parties, however, that is not our view. If a company that leads on climate transition were to invest in decarbonization at a level that the company cannot financially sustain, any vacuum that arises would be filled by less responsible, more heavily emitting companies. We continue to lead on initiatives to divert materials from landfills, to electrify and therefore decarbonize our fleet, and to work with our customers to develop solutions that enable them to reduce emissions through partnership with us. |
In 2024, we emitted 21% lower Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions than in 2017, the baseline of our 2030 SBTi-approved goal. That reduction represents significant progress towards our decarbonization. |
No response provided |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Not an immediate strategic priority
|
Our current SBTi-approved goal is the basis of our strategy and that goal continues to be approved by SBTi. We recognize that any future SBTi-approved goal would need to be 1.5-degree aligned. |
Environmental risks and/or opportunities have affected your strategy and/or financial planning | Business areas where environmental risks and/or opportunities have affected your strategy | Primary reason why environmental risks and/or opportunities have not affected your strategy and/or financial planning | Explain why environmental risks and/or opportunities have not affected your strategy and/or financial planning |
Yes, both strategy and financial planning
|
Products and services,
Operations,
Upstream/downstream value chain
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, strategy only” or “Yes, both strategy and financial planning” in response to column “Environmental risks & opportunities have affected our strategy and/or financial planning” of 5.3.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Business area | Effect type | Environmental issues relevant to the risks and/or opportunities that have affected your strategy in this area | Describe how environmental risks and/or opportunities have affected your strategy in this area |
Products and services |
Risks,
Opportunities
|
Climate change
|
Recycling: Risks and opportunities related to the shifting market demand for waste solutions that result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions have influenced our municipal, commercial, and residential service offerings. Case study of substantive decisions - Republic created a strategic initiative in 2012 to provide recycling collection and processing services in markets with high demand in response to climate-related concerns of our customers. We partner with customers to develop new contractual arrangements that are dynamic and mutually beneficial, and incentivize improved recycling behaviors, bringing simplification to customers and the general public alike on what and how to recycle. Each year during our annual budgeting process we determine where to invest capital to expand, modernize or establish our recycling capabilities based on market demand as indicated through our annual Market Planning and Development Process. We are committed to recycling for the long term and continue to invest in technology that increases efficiencies and maximizes the recovery of higher-quality recyclables. We recognize our facilities must continually evolve to address consumer trends, as well as changing package designs and unprecedented levels of contamination. |
Upstream/downstream value chain |
Risks,
Opportunities
|
Climate change
|
Lower emission fuel/energy sources: Risks and opportunities related to the market demand for lower emission fuel sources and the desire to insulate our business from potential regulations on fossil fuel have influenced our supply chain strategy with our key truck/engine suppliers. Case study of substantive decisions - Leveraging lower-emission fuel sources requires working with major truck/engine suppliers and developing relationships with new fuel and fueling station suppliers. As the operator of one of the largest fleets in the country, these efforts are strategic to our supply chain department. Republic has worked with key suppliers over the past several years to develop and deploy clean fuel engines (CNG), as well as develop and instal CNG fueling stations. Our previous investments in CNG trucks and fueling stations made the use of RNG seamless. We have worked with suppliers to create and purchase RNG as a drop-in fuel replacement for CNG. Using trucks powered by RNG helped us meet our previous emissions goal, established in 2014, earlier than expected. Currently, 100% of our collection vehicles that operate on natural gas are powered by RNG. We are taking a leadership position in electric technology innovation for our fleet. This is a critical step toward reducing our environmental impact through lower fleet emissions and will also improve our total cost of ownership while providing competitive advantages in certain communities. We are partnering with multiple manufacturers to pilot electric-powered trucks. Our EV deployment continues with an expected increase in electric vehicles on the road each year. Time horizon – this opportunity spans short to medium-term as we are rolling out RNG-ready trucks today. |
Investment in R&D |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Operations |
Risks,
Opportunities
|
Climate change
|
Diesel Fuel Costs: Potential and realized increases to fossil fuel costs due to regulations and taxes aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to fossil fuels have led Republic to develop a strategic program to seek alternative sources of fuel to mitigate climate change impacts for our customers and our business. Case study of substantive decisions – Our recycling and waste collection trucks are complex, high-performance machines designed to be safe, comfortable and efficient. As we retire and replace older trucks, we are able to take advantage of advancements in alternative fuels in addition to safety technology and other modern efficiencies. Trucks running on alternative fuels like RNG emit fewer emissions and are less carbon intensive, which is why we continue to transition our fleet toward natural gas. Our alternative fuel programs are typically executed by Corporate and rolled out to the operations teams strategically based on the age of the vehicles in each local business unit and local demand for lower emissions collection vehicles. Powering our fleet with renewable natural gas is one way we are lowering our emissions. With one of the largest vocational fleets in the country, using innovative technology to reduce emissions is vital. Time horizon – this opportunity spans short to medium-term as we are purchasing RNG as a bridge fuel today and our initiative will span 5-10 more years as we continue to use RNG bridging the gap to the eventual transition to electric vehicles. |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, financial planning only” or “Yes, both strategy and financial planning” in response to column “Environmental risks and/or opportunities have affected our strategy and financial planning” of 5.3.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Financial planning elements that have been affected | Effect type | Environmental issues relevant to the risks and/or opportunities that have affected these financial planning elements | Describe how environmental risks and/or opportunities have affected these financial planning elements |
Capital expenditures
|
Risks,
Opportunities
|
Climate change
|
Most of the states in which we operate landfills require counties and municipalities to formulate comprehensive plans to reduce the volume of solid waste deposited in landfills through waste planning, composting, recycling or other programs. In addition, many of the world's largest companies are setting zero-waste goals. Although such actions help to protect our environment and reduce the impact of waste on climate change, they may reduce the volume of waste going to landfills which may affect the prices that we charge for landfill disposal. We identified a risk that we would not be able to operate our landfills at their current volumes or charge current prices for landfill disposal services due to possible decreases in demand for such services. This trend is related to the effects of the “evolving ton” which we have been tracking and managing for many years. Recycling is on the rise and the mix of materials is leaning towards lighter materials like plastic versus glass and steel. Our response in 2012 was to launch a strategic initiative to develop traditional recycling in select and prioritized markets to capitalize on this trend. This initiative primarily impacts revenue planning, because we have developed a revenue stream, and capital planning to develop the recycling infrastructure. Republic strategically built out this infrastructure and capability over the past decade. We continue to invest in our recycling and organics capabilities, including our first two Polymer Centers - North America's first integrated plastics recycling network, the first of which opened in Las Vegas in 2023, quickly followed by another in Indianapolis. See additional details in CDP 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 regarding the amount of revenue, CapEx and other related metrics to these initiatives. |
Identification of spending/revenue that is aligned with your organization’s climate transition | Methodology or framework used to assess alignment with your organization’s climate transition | Indicate the level at which you identify the alignment of your spending/revenue with a sustainable finance taxonomy |
Yes
|
Other methodology or framework
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column “Identification of spending/revenue that is aligned with your organization's climate transition” of 5.4.
Methodology or framework used to assess alignment | Taxonomy under which information is being reported | Objective under which alignment is being reported | Indicate whether you are reporting eligibility information for the selected objective | Financial metric | Amount of selected financial metric that is aligned in the reporting year (currency) | Percentage share of selected financial metric aligned in the reporting year (%) | Percentage share of selected financial metric planned to align in 2025 (%) | Percentage share of selected financial metric planned to align in 2030 (%) | Percentage share of financial metric that is taxonomy-eligible in the reporting year (%) | Percentage share of financial metric that is taxonomy non-eligible in the reporting year (%) | Details of the methodology or framework used to assess alignment with your organization’s climate transition |
Other, please specify - Specify: Republic Services bespoke classifications
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
CAPEX
|
No response provided
|
28%
|
27%
|
30%
|
No response provided
|
0%
|
While we identified EU sustainable taxonomy activities Republic Services engages in, we did not perform an analysis to assess alignment with the criteria outlined in the EU Sustainable Taxonomy. Republic does not operate or sell products/services in the EU and is not subject to the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities Taxonomy regulation. To report the CapEx ($s) spend percentage in the reporting year, we identified the amount of spend capital that was allocated spent in the reporting year on the toward emission-reducing activities named in the EU Sustainable Taxonomy such as recycling and organics infrastructure and equipment material recovery from non-hazardous waste; landfill gas capture and utilization collection systems and to energy projects; sustainable vehicles and transportation infrastructure composting of biowaste; etc. To calculate the percentage share, we compared divided by to total company capital expenditures. To calculate the percentage planned in 2025 moving forward we assumed that total capex increased by 8%, which is in line with the prior 5-year period. To calculate the percentage planned in 2030, For future spend, calculations we included both knowledge of future increases on specific emissions-reducing climate-related activities and historical averages. |
This question only applies if you select “At both the organization and activity level” in response to column “Indicate the level at which you identify the alignment of your spending/revenue with a sustainable finance taxonomy” of 5.4.
Economic activity | Taxonomy under which information is being reported | Taxonomy alignment | Financial metrics | Types of substantial contribution | Taxonomy-aligned turnover from this activity in the reporting year (currency) | Taxonomy-aligned turnover from this activity as % of total turnover in the reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned turnover from this activity that substantially contributed to climate change mitigation as a % of total turnover in the reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned turnover from this activity that substantially contributed to climate change adaptation as a % of total turnover in the reporting year | Taxonomy-eligible but not aligned turnover from this activity in the reporting year (currency) | Taxonomy-eligible but not aligned turnover from this activity as % of total turnover in the reporting year | Taxonomy-eligible, alignment not assessed turnover from this activity as % of total turnover in reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned CAPEX from this activity in the reporting year (currency) | Taxonomy-aligned CAPEX from this activity as % of total CAPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned CAPEX from this activity that substantially contributed to climate change mitigation as a % of total CAPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned CAPEX from this activity that substantially contributed to climate change adaptation as a % of total CAPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-eligible but not aligned CAPEX associated with this activity in the reporting year (currency) | Taxonomy-eligible but not aligned CAPEX associated with this activity as % of total CAPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-eligible, alignment not assessed CAPEX associated with this activity as % of total CAPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned OPEX from this activity in the reporting year (currency) | Taxonomy-aligned OPEX from this activity as % of total OPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned OPEX from this activity that substantially contributed to climate change mitigation as a % of total OPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-aligned OPEX from this activity that substantially contributed to climate change adaptation as a % of total OPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-eligible but not aligned OPEX associated with this activity in the reporting year (currency) | Taxonomy-eligible but not aligned OPEX associated with this activity as % total OPEX in the reporting year | Taxonomy-eligible, alignment not assessed OPEX with this activity as % of total OPEX in the reporting year | Calculation methodology and supporting information | Substantial contribution criteria met | Details of substantial contribution criteria analysis | Do no significant harm requirements met | Details of do no significant harm analysis | Minimum safeguards compliance requirements met | Attach any supporting evidence |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided |
This question only applies if you select “A sustainable finance taxonomy” in response to column “Methodology or framework used to assess alignment with your organization's climate transition” of 5.4.
Details of minimum safeguards analysis | Additional contextual information relevant to your taxonomy alignment | Indicate whether you will be providing verification/assurance information relevant to your taxonomy alignment in question 13.1 | Please explain why you will not be providing verification/assurance information relevant to your taxonomy alignment in question 13.1 |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water-related CAPEX (+/- % change) | Anticipated forward trend for CAPEX (+/- % change) | Water-related OPEX (+/- % change) | Anticipated forward trend for OPEX (+/- % change) | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Use of internal pricing of environmental externalities | Environmental externality priced | Primary reason for not pricing environmental externalities | Explain why your organization does not price environmental externalities | Other environmental externalities priced | Further details of other environmental externalities priced |
Yes
|
Carbon
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
The question only applies if you select “Carbon” in response to column 2 “Environmental externality priced” of 5.10.
Type of pricing scheme | Objectives for implementing internal price | Factors considered when determining the price | Calculation methodology and assumptions made in determining the price | Scopes covered | Pricing approach used – spatial variance | Indicate how and why the price is differentiated | Pricing approach used – temporal variance | Indicate how you expect the price to change over time | Minimum actual price used (currency per metric ton CO2e) | Maximum actual price used (currency per metric ton CO2e) | Business decision-making processes the internal price is applied to | Internal price is mandatory within business decision-making processes | % total emissions in the reporting year in selected scopes this internal price covers | Pricing approach is monitored and evaluated to achieve objectives | Details of how the pricing approach is monitored and evaluated to achieve your objectives |
Shadow price
|
Conduct cost-benefit analysis,
Incentivize consideration of climate-related issues in decision making,
Navigate regulations,
Setting and/or achieving of climate-related policies and targets,
Incentivize consideration of climate-related issues in risk assessment
|
Alignment to scientific guidance,
Alignment with the price of a carbon tax,
Scenario analysis
|
We followed the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 202 4 . |
Scope 1
|
Uniform
|
Not applicable - we applied uniform pricing across our North American operating geography. |
Evolutionary
|
Following the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 202 4 , Table B. 1 CO2 prices for Advanced Economies, we applied a price of $135/mtCO2e in 2030 and $200/mtCO2e in 2050. |
135
|
200
|
Risk management,
Dependencies management
|
Yes, for some decision-making processes, please specify - Specify: When evaluating investments in emissions reductions, we consider the impact of the resulting emissions reductions on potential avoided costs from a carbon tax.
|
12%
|
Yes
|
As part of the transition risk scenario analysis in our TCFD reporting, we engage with external experts to review and evaluate best practices. This regular monitor ensures that the basis for the prices we use is current and consistent with the best available research. |
This question only applies if you select “Water” in response to column 2 “Environmental externality priced” of 5.10.
Type of pricing scheme | Objectives for implementing internal price | Factors beyond current market price are considered in the price | Factors considered when determining the price | Calculation methodology and assumptions made in determining the price | Stages of the value chain covered | Pricing approach used – spatial variance | Indicate how and why the price is differentiated | Pricing approach used – temporal variance | Indicate how you expect the price to change over time | Minimum actual price used (currency per cubic meter) | Maximum actual price used (currency per cubic meter) | Business decision-making processes the internal water price is applied to | Internal price is mandatory within business decision-making processes | Pricing approach is monitored and evaluated to achieve objectives | Details of how the pricing approach is monitored and evaluated to achieve your objectives |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Your response to this question will determine which subsequent questions and response options within subsequent questions apply. If your response to 5.11 is amended, data in those dependent questions may need to be edited.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Value chain stakeholder | Engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues | Environmental issues covered | Primary reason for not engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues | Explain why you do not engage with this stakeholder on environmental issues |
Clients [Financial Services only] |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Investees [Financial Services only] |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Suppliers |
Yes
|
Climate change
|
No response provided
|
|
Smallholders [Forests only] |
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Customers [Does not apply to Financial Services] |
Yes
|
Climate change
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Investors and shareholders |
Yes
|
Climate change
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Other value chain stakeholders |
No, and we do not plan to within the next two years
|
Climate change
|
Not an immediate strategic priority
|
Almost all emissions are in Scope 1, and we already engage with a number of our value chain partners. |
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues” for the row “Suppliers” of 5.11.
5.11.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Applicable rows depend on answers to the column "Environmental issues covered" for the row "Suppliers" of 5.11.
Environmental issue covered | Assessment of supplier dependencies and/or impacts on the environment | Criteria for assessing supplier dependencies and/or impacts on the environment | % Tier 1 suppliers assessed | Define a threshold for classifying suppliers as having substantive dependencies and/or impacts on the environment | % Tier 1 suppliers meeting the thresholds for substantive dependencies and/or impacts on the environment | Number of Tier 1 suppliers meeting the thresholds for substantive dependencies and/or impacts on the environment |
Climate change |
Yes, we assess the dependencies and/or impacts of our suppliers
|
Contribution to supplier-related Scope 3 emissions [Climate only]
|
Less than 1%
|
We targeted the top quartile of suppliers by spend, which corresponded to the top quartile by EEIO-calculated emissions. This was a n engagement to understand how our suppliers respond to such requests and their current maturity on GHG and climate. |
Less than 1%
|
22
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Plastics |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues” for the row “Suppliers” of 5.11.
5.11.2 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Applicable rows depend on answers to the column "Environmental issues covered" for the row "Suppliers" of 5.11.
Environmental issue covered | Supplier engagement prioritization on this environmental issue | Criteria informing which suppliers are prioritized for engagement on this environmental issue | Primary reason for no supplier prioritization on this environmental issue | Please explain |
Climate change |
Yes, we prioritize which suppliers to engage with on this environmental issue
|
In line with the criteria used to classify suppliers as having substantive dependencies and/or impacts relating to climate change [applies if “Yes, we assess the impacts/dependencies of our suppliers” is selected in column 1, “Climate change” row of 5.11.1, CC only]
|
No response provided
|
We targeted the top quartile of suppliers by spend, which corresponded to the top quartile by EEIO-calculated emissions. This was a pilot engagement to understand how our suppliers respond to such requests and their current maturity on GHG and climate. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Plastics |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues” for the row “Suppliers” and if "Cimate" or "Water" or "Forests" is slected in Column 2 "Environmental issues covered" in 5.11.
5.11.5 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Applicable rows depend on answers to the column "Environmental issues covered" for the row "Suppliers" of 5.11.
Environmental issue | Suppliers have to meet specific environmental requirements related to this environmental issue as part of the purchasing process | Policy in place for addressing supplier non-compliance | Comment |
Climate change |
Yes, environmental requirements related to this environmental issue are included in our supplier contracts
|
Yes, we have a policy in place for addressing non-compliance
|
We continue to make progress toward our ambitious sustainability goals, which are designed to significantly benefit the environment and society while enhancing the foundation and profitability of our business for the long term. Republic is committed to doing our part to create a cleaner, safer, and healthier world where people thrive – not just for today, but for generations to come. As part of this commitment, we expect our Suppliers to responsibly manage their impact on the environment and our communities by operating efficiently and minimizing adverse impacts while complying with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. We also encourage our suppliers to develop a sustainable procurement program for their own suppliers . |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select any “Yes” option in response to column 1 “Suppliers have to meet specific environmental requirements for this environmental issue as part of the purchasing process” in any row of 5.11.5.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Environmental requirement | Mechanisms for monitoring compliance with this environmental requirement | % tier 1 suppliers by procurement spend required to comply with this environmental requirement | % tier 1 suppliers by procurement spend in compliance with this environmental requirement | % tier 1 suppliers with substantive environmental dependencies and/or impacts related to this environmental issue required to comply with this environmental requirement | % tier 1 suppliers with substantive environmental dependencies and/or impacts related to this environmental issue that are in compliance with this environmental requirement | % tier 1 supplier-related scope 3 emissions attributable to the suppliers required to comply with this environmental requirement | % tier 1 supplier-related scope 3 emissions attributable to the suppliers in compliance with this environmental requirement | Response to supplier non-compliance with this environmental requirement | % of non-compliant suppliers engaged | Procedures to engage non-compliant suppliers | Comment |
Climate change |
Disclosure of GHG emissions to your organization (Scope 1, 2 and 3) [Climate only]
|
First-party verification
|
Less than 1%
|
Less than 1%
|
100%
|
51-75%
|
1-25%
|
1-25%
|
Retain and engage
|
Less than 1%
|
Providing information on appropriate actions that can be taken to address non-compliance
|
We continue to make progress toward our ambitious sustainability goals, which are designed to significantly benefit the environment and society while enhancing the foundation and profitability of our business for the long term. Republic is committed to doing our part to create a cleaner, safer, and healthier world where people thrive – not just for today, but for generations to come. As part of this commitment, we expect our Suppliers to responsibly manage their impact on the environment and our communities by operating efficiently and minimizing adverse impacts while complying with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. We also encourage our suppliers to develop a sustainable procurement program for their own suppliers |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues” for the row “Suppliers” of 5.11.
5.11.7 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Applicable rows depend on answers to the column "Environmental issues covered" for the row "Suppliers" of 5.11.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Environmental issue | Commodity [Only applicable to Forests rows] | Action driven by supplier engagement | Type and details of engagement | Upstream value chain coverage | % of tier 1 suppliers by procurement spend covered by engagement | % of tier 1 supplier-related scope 3 emissions covered by engagement [Only applicable to Climate change rows] | % tier 1 suppliers with substantive impacts and/or dependencies related to this environmental issue covered by engagement [Only applicable to Forests and Water rows] | Number of tier 2+ suppliers engaged | Describe the engagement and explain the effect of your engagement on the selected environmental action | Engagement is helping your tier 1 suppliers meet an environmental requirement related to this environmental issue | Engagement is helping your tier 1 suppliers engage with their own suppliers on the selected action |
Climate change | N/A |
Adaptation to climate change [Climate, Forests, Water]
|
Capacity building - Provide training, support and best practices on how to measure GHG emissions [Climate only]
|
Tier 1 suppliers
|
Less than 1%
|
Unknown
|
N/A |
0
|
Our measure of success for these initiatives is achievement of our GHG reduction goal. We must pursue tangible actions to collaborate with suppliers in pursuit of making progress toward the GHG reduction goal. We strive to maximize the collection of gas within the landfill to minimize potential fugitive emissions and maintain landfill health. This part of the engagement includes working with suppliers that can provide landfill gas collection equipment, help us develop landfill gas to energy projects, provide products and services that help us divert materials from landfills that create methane while decomposing and invest in new technologies to improve our landfill emissions controls. As an example, in 2019 we increased the amount of landfill gas recovered from our landfills by 3.12%. One contributor to this progress was Morrow Renewables, a recognized leader among renewable natural gas developers. Morrow Renewables built and operates the upgrades to the landfill gas to energy project at Blue Ridge Landfill in Texas. Morrow partners with Republic on three renewable energy projects in Texas. In addition, we work together with a number of suppliers to develop engines, equipment and fuel that improve our fuel efficiency and fleet carbon footprint, thereby reducing the climate impact of our services. Initiatives include CNG engines, CNG fueling stations, RNG fuel supply and purchase, and electric vehicles. We have been ramping up our use of alternative fuel vehicles since 2016, working with project developers, RNG suppliers, and electric vehicle manufacturers. In 202 4 , approximately 20% of our fleet operated on alternative fuel. Through these activities we were able to reduce our use of diesel fuel, resulting in a reduction in GHG emissions of over 250,000 MTCO2e. Finally, our new building construction and retrofits adhere to the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. This includes using products and services that help us achieve energy reduction, water conservation measures and the use of sustainable materials and design principles that enhance comfort. |
No, this engagement is unrelated to meeting an environmental requirement
|
Unknown
|
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Plastics | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A | N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues” for the row “Smallholders” of 5.11.
Commodity | Type and details of smallholder engagement approach | Number of smallholders engaged | Effect of engagement and measures of success |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column 1 “Engaging with this stakeholder on environmental issues” for the rows “Customers”, “Investors and shareholders” or “Other value chain stakeholders” of 5.11.
5.11.9 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Applicable rows depend on answers to the column "Environmental issues covered" for the rows “Customers”, “Investors and shareholders” or “Other value chain stakeholders” of 5.11.
Environmental issue | Type of stakeholder | Type and details of engagement | % of stakeholder type engaged | % stakeholder-associated scope 3 emissions | Rationale for engaging these stakeholders and scope of engagement | Effect of engagement and measures of success |
Climate change |
Customers [Does not apply to Financial Services]
|
Education/Information sharing - Run an engagement campaign to educate stakeholders about the environmental impacts about your products, goods and/or services [Climate, Forests, Water]
|
51-75%
|
1-25%
|
As reported in our 2024 SASB response, the percentage of customers receiving recycling services by service type is: residential - about 75% small container - about 25% large container - about 25%. We selected customers who receive recycling services because of the significant impact that recycling has on emission avoidance and recycling education helps us achieve our circular economy goal. We have estimated the full lifecycle emissions impacts from our diversion activities. Emissions from recycled materials and compost are calculated using methodologies and emission factors from the U.S. EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM), version 15. We offer numerous sources of recycling education to our customers including informational flyers with their invoices, our mobile app, as well as our recycling education campaign, Recycling Simplified program (https://recyclingsimplified.com), is available to our customers and the broader community. These campaigns are designed to inform our customers and the general public about the value of recycling and how to recycle correctly. Education helps reduce contamination in the recycle stream which improves the sustainability of recycling as an offering. In addition to lifecycle GHG reductions, successful recycling improves the financial returns to both our company and the customer, while improving the quality of recovered materials that are sold to downstream re-processors. |
There are two measures of success for this initiative. One is a benefit for our customers and includes reduction of waste sent to landfills (pounds or tons). A second measure of success is our ability to return more recycled commodities to the economy. We have a goal related to Circular Economy, which is to increase recovery of key materials by 40% on a combined basis by 2030 (from a 2017 baseline). This public goal is achieved in part by educating customers on what materials to recycle. Education reduces contamination in the recycle stream which helps us recover more and provide higher quality commodities to re-processors. Recycling education provides benefits to both Republic, our customers and communities. Republic received and processed over 5 million metric tons of recycled material in our facilities in 2022. Every percentage of contamination represents increased cost to process, handle, re-process and dispose of non-recyclable material. Education can not only increase the amount of recyclables collected, but also decrease the amount of contamination. Financial benefits to our customers from recycling include a reduction in their trash hauling service and lower landfill disposal charges. These benefits lead to lower GHG emissions in a variety of ways – reduced transportation, reduced emissions from landfills and reduced need for virgin materials (plastic, cardboard, etc.). |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Climate change
|
Investors and shareholders
|
Education/Information sharing - Share information on environmental initiatives, progress and achievements [Climate, Forests, Water]
|
51-75%
|
100%
|
We seek to engage with holders of Republic Services stock, as they are owners of our company. By engaging with owners of more than 50% of outstanding shares, we have collectively engaged with majority ownership of the company. |
Our individual engagements with our shareholders allow us insight into their views on our corporate governance practices, our sustainability journey, our differentiated operating model, and our compensation program, among other topics. For more information, see page 38 of our 2025 proxy statement, https://investor.republicservices.com/static-files/11a307e8-016d-4265-b28e-be9fdec018f7. |
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Requesting member | Environmental issues the initiative relates to | Commodities the initiative relates to [Forests only] | Initiative category and type | Details of initiative | Expected benefits | Estimated timeframe for realization of benefits | Are you able to estimate the lifetime CO2e and/or water savings of this initiative? | Estimated lifetime CO2e savings | Estimated lifetime water savings (megaliters) | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Environmental initiatives implemented due to CDP Supply Chain member engagement | Primary reason for not implementing environmental initiatives | Explain why your organization has not implemented any environmental initiatives |
No, and we do not plan to within the next two years
|
Not an immediate strategic priority
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to column “Environmental initiatives implemented due to CDP Supply Chain member engagement” of 5.13.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Requesting member | Environmental issues the initiative relates to | Commodities the initiative relates to [Forests only] | Initiative ID | Initiative category and type | Details of initiative | Benefits achieved | Are you able to provide figures for emissions savings or water savings in the reporting year? | Estimated savings in the reporting year in metric tons of CO2e | Estimated water savings in the reporting year in megaliters | Please explain how success for this initiative is measured | Would you be happy for CDP Supply Chain members to highlight this work in their external communication? |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
6.1 requests data for multiple environmental issues. Administrators may have universally configured applicability at the start of the survey. If so, relevant data cells for the topic areas your company is reporting on are unlocked in the table below.
Environmental issue | Consolidation approach used | Provide the rationale for the choice of consolidation approach |
Climate change |
Operational control
|
Republic defines its GHG Inventory organizational boundaries using the Operational Control Approach. All buildings/facilities (including landfills), vehicles (including fleet also known as collection vehicles), and heavy equipment over which the business has operational control are included in the GHG Inventory as Scope 1 & 2 emissions. Operational control is assumed for buildings/facilities, vehicles, and heavy equipment where the business has the authority to introduce and implement operating policies. This criterion is consistent with the current accounting and reporting practice of many companies that report on emissions from facilities that they operate. It is expected that, except in very rare circumstances, if the company or one of its subsidiaries is the operator of a facility, it will have the full authority to introduce and implement its operating policies and thus has operational control. |
Forests |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Water |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Plastics |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Biodiversity |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “No” in response to 7.1.
Has there been a structural change? | Name of organization(s) acquired, divested from, or merged with | Details of structural change(s), including completion dates |
Yes, an acquisition,
Yes, a divestment
|
Miscellaneous small acquisitions and divestitures occurred throughout 2024 |
In 2024, Republic Services had acquisitions, consolidations, and divestitures from our portfolio. Due to the nature of growth in our industry, we frequently acquire and divest from assets. |
This question only applies if you select “No” in response to 7.1.
Change(s) in methodology, boundary, and/or reporting year definition? | Details of methodology, boundary, and/or reporting year definition change(s) |
Yes, a change in methodology
|
We have restated our annual emissions back to the baseline year (2017) to account for our acquisitions, divestitures, and methodology enhancements, aligning with our inventory management plan (IMP). Our methodology and boundary improvements include: • We improved the methodology used to calculate scope 3 category 1 Purchased Goods and Services; and •We improved the methodology used to calculate scope 3 category 5 Waste Generated in Operations. These revisions ensure that our goal to reduce scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 35% below our 2017 baseline by 2030, approved by the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) compares like-for-like assets across our reporting years. •We updated our methane GWP in alignment with new EPA guidance. |
Base year recalculation | Scope(s) recalculated | Base year emissions recalculation policy, including significance threshold | Past years’ recalculation |
Yes
|
Scope 1,
Scope 2, location-based,
Scope 2, market-based,
Scope 3
|
We regularly rebaseline our energy and emissions calculations, at a 1% significance threshold. |
Yes
|
Scope 2, location-based | Scope 2, market-based | Comment |
We are reporting a Scope 2, location-based figure
|
We are reporting a Scope 2, market-based figure
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.4.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Source of excluded emissions | Scope(s) or Scope 3 category(ies) | Relevance of Scope 1 emissions from this source | Relevance of location-based Scope 2 emissions from this source | Relevance of market-based Scope 2 emissions from this source | Relevance of Scope 3 emissions from this source | Date of completion of acquisition or merger [DD/MM/YYYY] | Estimated percentage of total Scope 1+2 emissions this excluded source represents | Estimated percentage of total Scope 3 emissions this excluded source represents | Explain why this source is excluded | Explain how you estimated the percentage of emissions this excluded source represents |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Scope | Base year end [DD/MM/YYYY] | Base year emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Methodological details |
Scope 1 |
|
17,022,808
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 2 (location-based) |
|
236,368
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 2 (market-based) |
|
233,866
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 1: Purchased goods and services |
|
288,400
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 2: Capital goods |
|
367,288
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2) |
|
525,878
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution |
|
336,605
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 5: Waste generated in operations |
|
86,177
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 6: Business travel |
|
23,309
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 7: Employee commuting |
|
181,175
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 8: Upstream leased assets |
|
4,938
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution |
|
No response provided
|
Impacts and emissions for any downstream transportation and distribution have been incorporated as appropriate into the Waste Generated in Operations and/or Upstream Transportation & Distribution scope 3 GHG categories. |
Scope 3 category 10: Processing of sold products |
|
No response provided
|
We are unable to separately estimate scope 3 emissions impacts from downstream processing of commodities we recover, process and sell. We have estimated the full lifecycle emissions impacts from our sold products (mainly recycled commodities) as negative, and therefore incompatible with current, normative GHG reporting. Lifecycle avoided emissions include the displacement of upstream mining, processing and transportation of materials that enter the waste stream, transportation and recovery/processing of commodities/compost by companies like Republic, as well as, downstream processing, transportation, and re-manufacturing where applicable. We calculate avoided emissions from recycled materials and compost we sell using methodologies and emission factors from the U.S. EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM), version 15, which can be found in C4.3b. We continue to evaluate and align with industry best practice reporting practices for this category. |
Scope 3 category 11: Use of sold products |
|
8,282
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is not the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3 category 12: End of life treatment of sold products |
|
No response provided
|
As Republic does not purchase its “raw materials” used to create its products sold (i.e. recycled materials and compost) but rather receives these raw material inputs through its primary services of waste management collection, the emissions impacts are not captured in our Purchased Goods and Services category. These raw material inputs would, instead, be quantified as a separate upstream activity. Due to the complexity of this upstream value chain, the emissions associated with any raw material inputs are incorporated into our “Processing of sold products” lifecycle calculation in Category 10, above, per the EPA WARM model. |
Scope 3 category 13: Downstream leased assets |
|
No response provided
|
Republic has not identified downstream leased assets in the completion of this questionnaire and has therefore determined that this Scope 3 category is not relevant to our business. All leased assets are included in the upstream leased assets category. |
Scope 3 category 14: Franchises |
|
No response provided
|
Not relevant to our operations, Republic does not have any franchises. |
Scope 3 category 15: Investments [not applicable for Financial Services sector] |
|
20,043
|
This base year is the first year that Republic began calculating and reporting a greenhouse gas inventory for emissions reductions. It is not the same base year as our current SBT GHG reduction goal. Our base year emissions are restated when we make adjustments due to methodology or boundary changes. |
Scope 3: Other (upstream) |
|
No response provided
|
Not relevant to our operations, all of Republic's Scope 3 emissions are in the defined categories. |
Scope 3: Other (downstream) |
|
No response provided
|
Not relevant to our operations, all of Republic's Scope 3 emissions are in the defined categories. |
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Year | Gross global Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e) | End date [DD/MM/YYYY] | Methodological details |
Reporting year |
13,608,508
|
N/A |
No response provided
|
Past year 1 |
14,622,514
|
|
Scope 1 emission activities include emissions from landfills, fleet and heavy equipment fuel usage, and our facilities. |
Past year 2 |
15,462,007
|
|
Scope 1 emission activities include emissions from landfills, fleet and heavy equipment fuel usage, and our facilities. |
Past year 3 |
15,499,169
|
|
Scope 1 emission activities include emissions from landfills, fleet and heavy equipment fuel usage, and our facilities. |
Past year 4 |
16,005,407
|
|
Scope 1 emission activities include emissions from landfills, fleet and heavy equipment fuel usage, and our facilities. |
Past year 5 |
16,643,080
|
|
Scope 1 emission activities include emissions from landfills, fleet and heavy equipment fuel usage, and our facilities. |
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Year | Gross global Scope 2, location-based emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Gross global Scope 2, market-based emissions (metric tons CO2e) (if applicable) | End date [DD/MM/YYYY] | Methodological details |
Reporting year |
180,660.471
|
185,205.459
|
N/A |
We use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Scope 2 guidance to measure our Scope 2 emissions and eGrid associated emissions factors. Our inputs come from our utility bill aggregation service and we use estimation and extrapolation for sites where utility data is unavailable. |
Past year 1 |
186,582.324
|
190,492.321
|
|
We use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Scope 2 guidance to measure our Scope 2 emissions and eGrid associated emissions factors. Our inputs come from our utility bill aggregation service and we use estimation and extrapolation for sites where utility data is unavailable. |
Past year 2 |
182,776.031
|
186,218.346
|
|
We use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Scope 2 guidance to measure our Scope 2 emissions and eGrid associated emissions factors. Our inputs come from our utility bill aggregation service and we use estimation and extrapolation for sites where utility data is unavailable. |
Past year 3 |
197,112.895
|
199,444.286
|
|
We use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Scope 2 guidance to measure our Scope 2 emissions and eGrid associated emissions factors. Our inputs come from our utility bill aggregation service and we use estimation and extrapolation for sites where utility data is unavailable. |
Past year 4 |
208,195.074
|
209,903.699
|
|
We use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Scope 2 guidance to measure our Scope 2 emissions and eGrid associated emissions factors. Our inputs come from our utility bill aggregation service and we use estimation and extrapolation for sites where utility data is unavailable. |
Past year 5 |
206,121.969
|
217,450.296
|
|
We use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Scope 2 guidance to measure our Scope 2 emissions and eGrid associated emissions factors. Our inputs come from our utility bill aggregation service and we use estimation and extrapolation for sites where utility data is unavailable. |
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Scope 3 category | Evaluation status | Emissions in reporting year (metric tons CO2e) | Emissions calculation methodology | Percentage of emissions calculated using data obtained from suppliers or value chain partners | Please explain |
Purchased goods and services |
Relevant, calculated
|
336,144.212
|
Spend-based method
|
1%
|
Outside of direct data collection from suppliers on their proportional emissions associated with delivery of purchased goods and services procured by Republic, the use of EEIO emissions factors offers an efficient and directional methodology to estimate the impacts associated with our spend in this category. |
Capital goods |
Relevant, calculated
|
481,835.711
|
Spend-based method
|
1%
|
Outside of direct data collection from suppliers on their proportional emissions associated with delivery of purchased goods and services procured by Republic, the use of EEIO emissions factors offers an efficient and directional methodology to estimate the impacts associated with our spend in this category. |
Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2) |
Relevant, calculated
|
432,991.726
|
Supplier-specific method
|
99.8%
|
Fuel and electricity data is supplied from utility companies. Emissions are then calculated for fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2) by totaling activity data for each Scope 1 fuel type and Scope 2 electricity consumption by country. These totals are multiplied by their corresponding upstream fuel and energy emission factors to determine emissions associated with this category. |
Upstream transportation and distribution |
Relevant, calculated
|
453,968.867
|
Supplier-specific method
|
100%
|
Republic maintains detailed cost data for third-party hauler and subcontract collection services that it uses to support its collection services. |
Waste generated in operations |
Relevant, calculated
|
107,953
|
Waste-type-specific method
|
0%
|
Republic Services has two main sources of waste generated from operations. We use a life-cycle assessment method to calculate emissions from leachate and an extrapolation methodology to aggregate company-wide emissions from other operational waste. For our MSW generated in operations, we excluded the percentage that is taken to Republic-owned or -operated landfills as that is included in our Scope 1 emissions inventory. |
Business travel |
Relevant, calculated
|
11,126.252
|
Supplier-specific method
|
100%
|
Annual data for air travel, rail travel, and rental car travel is provided by Republic's travel agency. Air travel data is broken out by each flight leg and the distances, which is used to calculate total short, medium and long-haul miles (Short flights (<300 mi), Med. flights (300-2300 mi), Long flights (>2300 mi). Republic's travel agency was able to provide miles by cabin class. UK DEFRA emissions factors with radiative forcing are used to calculate the air travel GHG emissions, based on distance threshold and cabin class. Rail travel data was provided in terms of distance traveled. U.S. EPA Emission Factors were used to calculate the emissions from the rail travel mileage. The rental car report in 2023 provided fuel volumes. U.S. EPA Emission Factors were used to calculate the emissions from the rental car fuel consumption. |
Employee commuting |
Relevant, calculated
|
149,363.216
|
Distance-based method
|
0%
|
Republic Services calculates employee commuting based on a US EPA assumption of 41 miles round trip per eligible employee driven in a passenger car. Republic has a hybrid work from home policy for many of our employees for the duration of the year, which we accounted for in our determination of number of employees commuting each day. We used the number of annual employee commuting days to calculate total mileage. We then applied the US EPA Table 10 Emission Factor to total mileage to determine the emissions. |
Upstream leased assets |
Relevant, calculated
|
3,386.353
|
Supplier-specific method
|
100%
|
Our upstream leased assets include data centers that have some predetermined agreements in place to avoid emissions. For example, our Switch data center is powered by 100% renewable energy. We apply an emissions factor of 0 for renewable energy. For non-renewable energy, we apply the applicable EPA eGrid factor based on facility location. Energy usage was provided by the data centers along with the details of their purchased renewable electricity. |
Downstream transportation and distribution |
Not relevant, explanation provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Impacts and emissions for any downstream transportation and distribution have been incorporated as appropriate into the Waste Generated in Operations and/or Upstream Transportation & Distribution scope 3 GHG categories. We have no downstream transportation and distribution impacts. |
Processing of sold products |
Not relevant, explanation provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
We are unable to separately estimate scope 3 emissions impacts from downstream processing of commodities we recover, process and sell. We have estimated the full lifecycle emissions impacts from our sold products (mainly recycled commodities) as negative, and therefore incompatible with current, normative GHG reporting. Lifecycle avoided emissions include the displacement of upstream mining, processing and transportation of materials that enter the waste stream, transportation and recovery/processing of commodities/compost by companies like Republic, as well as, downstream processing, transportation, and re-manufacturing where applicable. We continue to evaluate and align with industry best practice reporting practices for this category. |
Use of sold products |
Relevant, calculated
|
9,313.820
|
Methodology for direct use phase emissions, please specify - Specify: Total external flow of biogas from Republic landfill sites is used to quantify associated emissions for this category.
|
0%
|
Use of sold products emissions are associated with the combustion of biogas that is sold to third-party's, accounting for the anthropogenic emissions only. |
End of life treatment of sold products |
Not relevant, explanation provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
As Republic does not purchase its “raw materials” used to create its products sold (i.e. recycled materials and compost) but rather receives these raw material inputs through its primary services of solid waste collection, the upstream emissions occur outside of our boundary and are not captured in our Purchased Goods and Services category. Due to the complexity of this upstream value chain, we are not able to estimate the emissions associated with any raw material inputs, however, they are incorporated to the extent possible into our “Use of sold products” lifecycle calculation above, as per the EPA WARM model. |
Downstream leased assets |
Not relevant, explanation provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Republic has determined that this Scope 3 category is not relevant to our business. All leased assets are included in the upstream leased assets category. |
Franchises |
Not relevant, explanation provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Not relevant to our operations, Republic does not have any franchises |
Investments |
Relevant, calculated
|
26,798.500
|
Investment-specific method
|
0%
|
Conservative estimates of Republics potential investment emissions were quantified based on our applicable investment portfolio and associated EEIO factors applied to the investee organizations. The quantification approach aligns with GHG Protocol and PCAF guidance. |
Other (upstream) |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Not relevant to our operations, all of Republic's Scope 3 emissions are in the defined categories. |
Other (downstream) |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Not relevant to our operations, all of Republic's Scope 3 emissions are in the defined categories. |
This question only applies if you select “1 year” or “2 years” or “3 years” or “4 years” or “5 years” in response to “Number of past reporting years you will be providing Scope 3 emissions data for” in 1.4.
Year | End date [DD/MM/YYYY] | Scope 3: Purchased goods and services (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Capital goods (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Fuel and energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Upstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Waste generated in operations (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Business travel (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Employee commuting (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Upstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Downstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Processing of sold products (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Use of sold products (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: End of life treatment of sold products (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Downstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Franchises (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Investments (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Other (upstream) (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3: Other (downstream) (metric tons CO2e) | Comment |
Past year 1 |
|
368,850.188
|
489,948.933
|
446,231.606
|
401,505.230
|
105,230.636
|
8,715.151
|
149,579.711
|
6,306.134
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
8,985.900
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
25,319.008
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Past year 2 |
|
315,436.469
|
455,962.099
|
540,271.447
|
365,065.420
|
98,919.875
|
6,994.662
|
155,253.717
|
5,115.558
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
9,074.780
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
22,053.256
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Past year 3 |
|
233,084.151
|
415,283.207
|
540,735.130
|
426,439.793
|
107,155.524
|
9,629.668
|
148,061.480
|
3,971.498
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
13,620.530
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
24,995.822
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Past year 4 |
|
181,036.663
|
410,604.121
|
487,858.037
|
476,332.016
|
119,858.241
|
8,576.786
|
141,038.616
|
3,807.486
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
8,887.480
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
30,147.838
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Past year 5 |
|
254,894.862
|
409,856.223
|
501,161.517
|
457,428.981
|
118,825.062
|
20,416.310
|
175,100.788
|
5,397.119
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
8,273.020
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
20,777.130
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Scope | Verification/assurance status |
Scope 1 |
Third-party verification or assurance process in place
|
Scope 2 (location-based or market-based) |
Third-party verification or assurance process in place
|
Scope 3 |
Third-party verification or assurance process in place
|
This question only applies if you select “Third-party verification or assurance process in place” for Scope 1 emissions in response to 7.9.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Verification or assurance cycle in place | Status in the current reporting year | Type of verification or assurance | Attach the statement | Page/section reference | Relevant standard | Proportion of reported emissions verified (%) |
Annual process
|
Complete
|
Limited assurance
|
FY24 Assurance Statement
Page(s)
|
1-2 |
ISO14064-3
|
100%
|
This question only applies if you select “Third-party verification or assurance process in place” for Scope 2 emissions in response to 7.9.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Scope 2 approach | Verification or assurance cycle in place | Status in the current reporting year | Type of verification or assurance | Attach the statement | Page/section reference | Relevant standard | Proportion of reported emissions verified (%) |
Scope 2 location-based
|
Annual process
|
Complete
|
Limited assurance
|
FY24 Assurance Statement
Page(s)
|
1-2 |
ISO14064-3
|
100%
|
Scope 2 market-based
|
Annual process
|
Complete
|
Limited assurance
|
FY24 Assurance Statement
Page(s)
|
1-2 |
ISO14064-3
|
100%
|
This question only applies if you select “Third-party verification or assurance process in place” for Scope 3 emissions in response to 7.9.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Scope 3 category | Verification or assurance cycle in place | Status in the current reporting year | Type of verification or assurance | Attach the statement | Page/section reference | Relevant standard | Proportion of reported emissions verified (%) |
Scope 3: Purchased goods and services,
Scope 3: Capital goods,
Scope 3: Fuel and energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2),
Scope 3: Upstream transportation and distribution,
Scope 3: Waste generated in operations,
Scope 3: Business travel,
Scope 3: Employee commuting,
Scope 3: Upstream leased assets,
Scope 3: Investments,
Scope 3: Use of sold products
|
Annual process
|
Complete
|
Limited assurance
|
FY24 Assurance Statement
Page(s)
|
1-2 |
ISO14064-3
|
100%
|
This question only applies if you select “Increased”, “Decreased” or “Remained the same overall” in response to 7.10.
Reason | Change in emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Direction of change in emissions | Emissions value (percentage) | Please explain calculation |
Change in renewable energy consumption |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
For the several sites that consume energy from on-site renewables, there is no impact on year-over-year emissions. |
Other emissions reduction activities |
95,972
|
Decreased
|
7%
|
Efficiency improvements across the organization , including more efficient fleet routing. Our rebaselined fleet emissions in 2022 were 13,984,743metric tons of carbon. Therefor e we arrived at -7% through ((1,319,368 -1,223,396 )/ 1,319,368 )*100 = 7% (i.e. a 7% decrease in emissions) |
Divestment |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
We rebaselined our emissions and in doing so, the current and historic emissions included in our 2023 sustainability reporting are like-for-like. Year-over-year changes are noted in the relevant rows of this table. |
Acquisitions |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
We rebaselined our emissions and in doing so, the current and historic emissions included in our 2023 sustainability reporting are like-for-like. Year-over-year changes are noted in the relevant rows of this table. |
Mergers |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
We rebaselined our emissions and in doing so, the current and historic emissions included in our 2023 sustainability reporting are like-for-like. Year-over-year changes are noted in the relevant rows of this table. |
Change in output |
915,830
|
Decreased
|
7%
|
With our increased efforts to improve cover systems and biogas collection efficiency we saw a year-over-year decrease of 7% in our landfill emissions while we continue to take in more waste. We arrived at -7% through ((12,998,816-12,082,986)/ 12,998,816)*100 = -7% (i.e. a 7% decrease in emissions). We expect the continued expansion of biogas collection and the maximization of our collection efficiency to further reduce our landfill emissions which account for 75% of our scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.
|
Change in methodology |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
While we regularly refine our methodologies to align with industry best practice and the accuracy of the data available, we rebaselined our emissions and in doing so, the current and historic emissions included in our 2023 sustainability reporting are like-for-like. Year-over-year changes are noted in the relevant rows of this table. |
Change in boundary |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
No change in boundary other than the acquisitions noted above. We rebaselined our emissions and in doing so, the current and historic emissions included in our 2023 sustainability reporting are like-for-like. Year-over-year changes are noted in the relevant rows of this table. |
Change in physical operating conditions |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
We rebaselined our emissions and in doing so, the current and historic emissions included in our 2023 sustainability reporting are like-for-like. Year-over-year changes are noted in the relevant rows of this table. |
Unidentified |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
N/A |
Other |
0
|
No change
|
0%
|
N/A |
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.12.
CO2 emissions from biogenic carbon (metric tons CO2) | Comment |
6,901,294
|
There are five sources of biogenic carbon emissions that are relevant to Republic Services: CO2 from the combustion of landfill gas via flares, CO2 passing through on-site combustion devices, fugitive CO2 generated from the biological decomposition of waste in landfills, CO2 as a product of CH4 oxidation in the landfill cap, mobile combustion of biodiesel and biomethane. Biogenic emissions are treated separately from scope 1 in accordance with the GHG Protocol. Republic follows guidance from U.S. EPA on determining emissions of these sources of solid, gaseous, liquid and biomass fuels from: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (Oct. 30, 2009); Tables C1 and C2 at 56409 and 56410. Republic also follows guidance from U.S. EPA on revised emission factors for selected fuels from: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 79091 (Dec. 17, 2010).
Additionally, we calculate the biogenic emissions from our leachate, recycling and various fuel sources. Sequestered Carbon Landfills act as a carbon sink, permanently, biologically sequestering carbon from municipal solid waste and removing it from the carbon cycle. Since the Greenhouse Gas Protocol does not currently allow for the accounting of avoided emissions, this total is not represented in our inventory. In 2024, Republic sequestered 28.27 MMTCO2e, as calculated using a 2008 U.S. EPA waste characterization study. |
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.15.
Greenhouse gas | Scope 1 emissions (metric tons of CO2e) | GWP Reference |
CH4
|
11,876,529.380
|
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 – 100 year)
|
CO2
|
1,519,887.941
|
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 – 100 year)
|
N2O
|
2,702.593
|
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 – 100 year)
|
The Country/Area entries in Column 1 must match those listed in 1.7.
Country/area | Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, location-based (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, market-based (metric tons CO2e) |
United States of America
|
13,607,018.9
|
180,468.83
|
190,300.68
|
Canada
|
1,489.38
|
191.64
|
191.64
|
This question only applies if you select “By business division” in response to 7.17.
Business division | Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e) |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “By facility” in response to 7.17.
Facility | Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Latitude | Longitude |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “By activity” in response to 7.17.
Activity | Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e) |
Landfills |
11,874,971.380
|
Fleet (vehicles and heavy equipment) |
1,223,395.780
|
Buildings |
499,580.104
|
This question only applies if you select “Business division” in response to 7.20.
Business division | Scope 2, location-based (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, market-based (metric tons CO2e) |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “By facility” in response to 7.20.
Facility | Scope 2, location-based (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, market-based (metric tons CO2e) |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “By activity” in response to 7.20.
Activity | Scope 2, location-based (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, market-based (metric tons CO2e) |
Electricity |
180,660.470
|
185,205.459
|
Group of entities | Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, location-based emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, market-based emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Please explain |
Consolidated accounting group |
13,608,508.264
|
180,660.470
|
185,205.459
|
Republic Services reports as one consolidated entity. |
All other entities |
0
|
0
|
0
|
Republic Services reports as one consolidated entity. |
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.23.
Subsidiary name | Primary activity | Select the unique identifier you are able to provide for this subsidiary | ISIN code – bond | ISIN code – equity | CUSIP number | Ticker symbol | SEDOL code | LEI number | D-U-N-S number | Other unique identifier | Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, location-based emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2, market-based emissions (metric tons CO2e) | Comment |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Allocation challenges | Please explain what would help you overcome these challenges |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Do you plan to develop your capabilities to allocate emissions to your customers in the future? | Describe how you plan to develop your capabilities | Primary reason for no plans to develop your capabilities to allocate emissions to your customers | Explain why you do not plan to develop capabilities to allocate emissions to your customers |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Activity | Indicate whether your organization undertook this energy-related activity in the reporting year |
Consumption of fuel (excluding feedstocks) |
Yes
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired electricity |
Yes
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired heat |
Yes
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired steam |
No
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired cooling |
No
|
Generation of electricity, heat, steam, or cooling |
No
|
Activity | Heating value | MWh from renewable sources | MWh from non-renewable sources | Total (renewable and non-renewable) MWh |
Consumption of fuel (excluding feedstock) |
HHV (higher heating value)
|
1,423,765
|
6,970,380
|
8,394,145
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired electricity |
Unable to confirm heating value
|
0
|
471,694
|
471,694
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired heat |
Unable to confirm heating value
|
0
|
1,154,052
|
1,154,052
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired steam |
No response provided
Unable to confirm heating value
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Consumption of purchased or acquired cooling |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Consumption of self-generated non-fuel renewable energy |
Unable to confirm heating value
|
712
|
N/A |
712
|
Total energy consumption |
Unable to confirm heating value
|
1,424,477
|
8,596,126
|
10,020,603
|
Fuel Application | Indicate whether your organization undertakes this fuel application |
Consumption of fuel for the generation of electricity |
No
|
Consumption of fuel for the generation of heat |
Yes
|
Consumption of fuel for the generation of steam |
No
|
Consumption of fuel for the generation of cooling |
No
|
Consumption of fuel for co-generation or tri-generation |
No
|
This question only applies if you select “Consumption of fuel (excluding feedstock)” in 7.30.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Fuels (excluding feedstocks) | Heating value | Total fuel MWh consumed by the organization | MWh fuel consumed for self-generation of electricity | MWh fuel consumed for self-generation of heat | MWh fuel consumed for self-generation of steam | MWh fuel consumed for self-generation of cooling | MWh fuel consumed for self- cogeneration or self-trigeneration | Comment |
Sustainable biomass |
HHV
|
1,423,695
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Consumption of biodiesel and biomethane for fleet operations |
Other biomass |
HHV
|
0
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
None of this fuel type is consumed |
Other renewable fuels (e.g. renewable hydrogen) |
HHV
|
0
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
None of this fuel type is consumed |
Coal |
HHV
|
0
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
None of this fuel type is consumed |
Oil |
HHV
|
4,829,457
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Diesel, jet fuel, unleaded gasoline, and heavy equipment operations. |
Gas |
HHV
|
1,668,838
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Propane and natural gas used for fleet, heavy equipment, and facility operations. |
Other non-renewable fuels (e.g. non-renewable hydrogen) |
Unable to confirm heating value
|
0
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
None of this fuel type is consumed |
Total fuel |
HHV
|
7,921,990
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Total HHV of all fuel consumed |
This question only applies if you select “Generation of electricity, heat, steam, or cooling” in response to 7.30.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Energy Carrier | Total Gross generation (MWh) | Generation that is consumed by the organization (MWh) | Gross generation from renewable sources (MWh) | Generation from renewable sources that is consumed by the organization (MWh) |
Electricity |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Heat |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Steam |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Cooling |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
This question only applies if you select “We are reporting a Scope 2, market-based figure” in response to column "Scope 2, market-based" of 7.3, and select “Yes” in 7.30 in any of the “Consumption of purchased or acquired [electricity/heat/steam/cooling]” rows. This question does not apply to RE100 members.
Country/area | Sourcing method | Energy carrier | Low-carbon technology type | Low-carbon energy consumed via selected sourcing method in the reporting year (MWh) | Tracking instrument used | Country/area of origin (generation) of the low-carbon energy or energy attribute | Are you able to report the commissioning or re-powering year of the energy generation facility? | Commissioning year of the energy generation facility (e.g. date of first commercial operation or repowering) | Comment |
United States of America
|
Financial (virtual) power purchase agreement (VPPA)
|
Electricity
|
Solar
|
712
|
I-REC
|
United States of America
|
No
|
No response provided
|
One of Republic's colocation data centers, Switch, uses 100% renewable energy to power its facilities. Republic receives an annual sustainability certificate demonstrating the amount of Solar Renewable Energy Credits that Switch retired on behalf of Republic Services that year. Per Republic's sustainability certificate for 202 4 , Republic's 202 4 renewable energy credits were generated by Nevada solar farms during 202 4 . |
The Country/Area entries in Column 1 must match those listed in 1.7.
Country/area | Consumption of purchased electricity (MWh) | Consumption of self-generated electricity (MWh) | Is this electricity consumption excluded from your RE100 commitment?* | Consumption of purchased heat, steam, and cooling (MWh) | Consumption of self-generated heat, steam, and cooling (MWh) | Total heat/steam/cooling energy consumption (MWh) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Provide details of the electricity consumption excluded |
United States of America
|
468,069
|
0
|
No response provided
|
0
|
0
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
|
3,625
|
0
|
No response provided
|
0
|
0
|
No response provided
|
|
Intensity figure | Metric numerator (Gross global combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions, metric tons CO2e) | Metric denominator | Metric denominator: Unit total | Scope 2 figure used | % change from previous year | Direction of change | Reasons for change | Please explain |
0.00086
|
13,793,714
|
unit total revenue
|
16,032,000,000
|
Market-based
|
13.1%
|
Decreased
|
Other emissions reduction activities
|
Annual emissions have been restated to account for subsequent acquisitions, while revenue has not and represents what was reported on Form 10-K of the listed year. Therefore, annual emissions intensity reported here is not like-for-like and may not be a representative metric. See GRI 2-4 for more information regarding restatements. |
Description | Metric value | Metric numerator | Metric denominator (intensity metric only) | % change from previous year | Direction of change | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
|
This question only applies if you select “Absolute target” in response to 7.53.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Target Reference Number | Is this a science-based target? | Science Based Targets initiative official validation letter | Target ambition | Date target was set [DD/MM/YYYY] | Target coverage | Greenhouse gases covered by target | Scopes | Scope 2 accounting method | Scope 3 categories | End date of base year [DD/MM/YYYY] | Base year Scope 1 emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 2 emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 15: Investments emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Other (upstream) emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Other (downstream) emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Base year total Scope 3 emissions covered by target (metric tons CO2e) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Total base year emissions covered by target in all selected Scopes (metric tons CO2e) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Base year Scope 1 emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 1 | Base year Scope 2 emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 2 | Base year Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Category 15: Investments emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 15: Investments (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Other (upstream) emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Other (upstream) (metric tons CO2e) | Base year Scope 3, Other (downstream) emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Other (downstream) (metric tons CO2e) | Base year total Scope 3 emissions covered by target as % of total base year emissions in Scope 3 (in all Scope 3 categories) | Base year emissions covered by target in all selected Scopes as % of total base year emissions in all selected Scopes | End date of target [DD/MM/YYYY] | Targeted reduction from base year (%) | Total emissions at end date of target covered by target in all selected Scopes (metric tons CO2e) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Scope 1 emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 2 emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Category 15: Investments emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Other (upstream) emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Scope 3, Other (downstream) emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) | Total Scope 3 emissions in reporting year covered by target (metric tons CO2e) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Total emissions in reporting year covered by target in all selected scopes (metric tons CO2e) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Land-related emissions covered by target | % of target achieved relative to base year [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Target status in reporting year | Explain the reasons for the revision, replacement, or retirement of the target | Explain target coverage and identify any exclusions | Target objective | Plan for achieving target, and progress made to the end of the reporting year | Target derived using a sectoral decarbonization approach | List the emissions reduction initiatives which contributed most to achieving this target |
Abs 1
|
Yes, and this target has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative
|
[FY 2021] Press Release of SBT
Page(s)
|
Well-below 2°C aligned
|
|
Organization-wide
|
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
|
Scope 1,
Scope 2
|
Market-based
|
No response provided
|
|
17,022,809
|
233,867
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
100%
|
100%
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
100%
|
|
35%
|
No response provided
|
13,608,508
|
185,205
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No, it does not cover any land-related emissions (e.g. non-FLAG SBT)
|
No response provided
|
Underway
|
No response provided
|
We have adopted an aggressive target for reducing our operational GHG emissions, approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Goal: Reduce absolute total Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions 35% by 2030. Scope 1 emissions include emissions from landfills and fleet that are owned, leased, or operated by Republic. From the baseline year of 2017 to 2024, Republic achieved a 20% reduction in Scope 1 emissions. This results in a total Scope 1 and Scope 2 decrease of 20% since 2017. At the end of 2024, 62% of the time to complete our goal has elapsed, with 38% still remaining. |
Emissions reduction |
Please see our 2024 Sustainability Report, “Our Climate Transition Roadmap”. To reach our target of 35% GHG reductions in our Scope 1 emissions Republic is actively investing in methods to increase gas collection efficiency and innovative cover systems that will reduce the amount of fugitive methane. Republic is also investing in alternatives to landfills as demonstrated by our $66M investment in the Republic Services Polymer Center making us the nation's first integrated plastics recycling facility. This initiative will help reduce the amount of materials in landfills and lower our Scope 1 impact. We are taking a leadership position in electric technology innovation for our fleet which is a critical step toward reducing our environmental impact through lower fleet emissions. These initiatives as well as improved building and fleet electrification and alternative fuel usage, has been impactful as shown by the 15% reduction in emissions that we have achieved from our baseline year of 2017. |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Intensity target” in response to 7.53.
This question has components that are part of CDP's Essential Criteria. You can find links to CDP's Essential Criteria documentation in the Instructional Notes section of the flyout.
Target reference number | Is this a science-based target? | Science Based Targets initiative official validation letter | Target ambition | Date target was set [DD/MM/YYYY] | Target coverage | Greenhouse gases covered by target | Scopes | Scope 2 accounting method | Scope 3 categories | Intensity metric | End date of base year [DD/MM/YYYY] | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 1 (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 2 (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Category 15: Investments (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Other (upstream) (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for Scope 3, Other (downstream) (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in base year for total Scope 3 (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Intensity figure in base year for all selected Scopes (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | % of total base year emissions in Scope 1 covered by this Scope 1 intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 2 covered by this Scope 2 intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services covered by this Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods covered by this Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) covered by this Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution covered by this Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations covered by this Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel covered by this Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting covered by this Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets covered by this Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution covered by this Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products covered by this Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products covered by this Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products covered by this Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets covered by this Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises covered by this Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Category 15: Investments covered by this Scope 3, Category 15: Investments intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Other (upstream) covered by this Scope 3, Other (upstream) intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3, Other (downstream) covered by this Scope 3, Other (downstream) intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in Scope 3 (in all Scope 3 categories) covered by this total Scope 3 intensity figure | % of total base year emissions in all selected Scopes covered by this intensity figure | End date of target [DD/MM/YYYY] | Targeted reduction from base year (%) | Intensity figure at end date of target for all selected Scopes (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | % change anticipated in absolute Scope 1+2 emissions | % change anticipated in absolute Scope 3 emissions | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 1 (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 2 (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 1: Purchased goods and services (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 2: Capital goods (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 3: Fuel- and energy-related activities (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 5: Waste generated in operations (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 6: Business travel (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 7: Employee commuting (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 8: Upstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 10: Processing of sold products (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 11: Use of sold products (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 13: Downstream leased assets (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 14: Franchises (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Category 15: Investments (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Other (upstream) (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for Scope 3, Other (downstream) (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) | Intensity figure in reporting year for total Scope 3 (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Intensity figure in reporting year for all selected Scopes (metric tons CO2e per unit of activity) [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Land-related emissions covered by target | % of target achieved relative to base year [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Target status in reporting year | Explain the reasons for the revision, replacement, or retirement of the target | Explain target coverage and identify any exclusions | Target objective | Plan for achieving target, and progress made to the end of the reporting year | Target derived using a sectoral decarbonization approach | List the emissions reduction initiatives which contributed most to achieving this target |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “No target” in response to 7.53.
Primary reason | Five-year forecast | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Targets to increase or maintain low-carbon energy consumption or production” in response to 7.54.
Target reference number | Date target was set [DD/MM/YYYY] | Target coverage | Target type: energy carrier | Target type: activity | Target type: energy source | End date of base year [DD/MM/YYYY] | Consumption or production of selected energy carrier in base year (MWh) | % share of low-carbon or renewable energy in base year | End date of target [DD/MM/YYYY] | % share of low-carbon or renewable energy at end date of target | % share of low-carbon or renewable energy in reporting year | % of target achieved relative to base year [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Target status in reporting year | Explain the reasons for the revision, replacement, or retirement of the target | Is this target part of an emissions target? | Is this target part of an overarching initiative? | Science Based Targets initiative official validation letter | Explain target coverage and identify any exclusions | Target objective | Plan for achieving target, and progress made to the end of the reporting year | List the actions which contributed most to achieving this target |
Low 1
|
|
Organization-wide
|
Other, please specify - Specify: Biogas
|
Production
|
Renewable energy source(s) only
|
|
58,513
|
0%
|
|
100%
|
9.6%
|
No response provided
|
Underway
|
No response provided
|
Yes. Increasing beneficial reuse of biogas collected at landfills results in lower greenhouse gas emissions at landfills. These emissions contribute to the Scope 1 landfill emissions that are part of the SBT described above. Our goal is to increase biogas collected for beneficial reuse by 50% from a baseline of 2017 in the year 2030. |
Science Based Targets initiative
|
[FY 2021] Press Release of SBT
Page(s)
|
Overarching initiative: We have adopted an aggressive target for reducing our operational GHG emissions, approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and aligned with the UN “Climate Action” SDG 13.2 - reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Goal: Reduce absolute total Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions 35% by 2030. Scope 1 emissions include emissions from landfills and fleet that are owned, leased, or operated by Republic. Supporting goal: Our operating strategy for managing landfill gas (LFG) emissions is to maximize LFG collected at each landfill. By safely collecting the maximum amount, we minimize any LFG escaping as fugitive emissions, particularly high GWP methane. The collected LFG is either beneficially reused as renewable energy or thermally oxidized to CO2 in a flare. We have a distinct goal to increase biogas sent to beneficial reuse by 50% by 2030 (from a 2017 baseline), by growing our capacity of regenerative landfills. By diverting biogas to beneficial reuse, we avoid extraction and use of fossil fuels, displacing the need for environmentally damaging activities like fracking and oil sands prospecting. For the 7.54.1 calculation, we report % share in target year as 100%, indicating that we have fully achieved our 2030 renewable energy goal, described in this paragraph. Our % share in the reporting year represents a springboard as we prepare facilities for the transition to RNG, the most common application of LFG to energy under development. For additional information about our biogas goal (reported in standard cubic feet) please refer to our Sustainability Report at RepublicServices.com/Sustainability/Reporting. |
We use this target to work towards our Science-Based Target. |
As of the date of publication, Republic Services is involved in many landfill gas-to-energy projects, with additional RNG projects in our development pipeline. This represents the country's largest RNG portfolio build-out to date, and will convert landfill gas into pipeline-quality RNG that can be used for a variety of applications to displace gas from fossil fuels. The initiative is expected to generate substantial progress towards Republic's long-term sustainability goal to beneficially reuse 50% more biogas by 2030 |
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Other climate-related targets” or “Targets to reduce methane emissions” in response to 7.54.
Target reference number | Date target was set [DD/MM/YYYY] | Target coverage | Target type: absolute or intensity | Target type: category & Metric (target numerator if reporting an intensity target) | Target denominator (intensity targets only) | End date of base year [DD/MM/YYYY] | Figure or percentage in base year | End date of target [DD/MM/YYYY] | Figure or percentage at end of date of target | Figure or percentage in reporting year | % of target achieved relative to base year [autocalculated in CDP ORS] | Target status in reporting year | Explain the reasons for the revision, replacement, or retirement of the target | Is this target part of an emissions target? | Is this target part of an overarching initiative? | Science Based Targets initiative official validation letter | Please explain target coverage and identify any exclusions | Target objective | Plan for achieving target, and progress made to the end of the reporting year | List the actions which contributed most to achieving this target |
Oth 1
|
|
Organization-wide
|
Absolute
|
Waste management - metric tons of waste recycled
|
No response provided
|
|
2.4
|
|
3.4
|
2.4
|
No response provided
|
Underway
|
No response provided
|
Yes, recycling rather than landfilling will decrease our landfill emissions, supporting our SBTi-approved goal. |
Other, please specify - Specify: Science Based targets initiative - other
|
No response provided |
Target coverage is 100% of operations. |
To decrease our emissions while supporting customers in their emissions reduction goals. |
Our continued investments in recycling and circularity are designed to help communities meet their diversion goals and bolster the circular economy. We plan to continue to invest in recycling and advance this goal through that investment. |
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Net-zero target(s)” in response to 7.54.
Target reference number | Date target was set [DD/MM/YYYY] | Target coverage | Enter Targets linked to this net zero target, if applicable, in ranges Abs 1-100, Int 1-100, Por 1-100 (Financial Services Only), or Low 1-100 | End date of target for achieving net zero [DD/MM/YYYY] | Is this a science-based target? | Science Based Targets initiative official validation letter | Scopes | Greenhouse gases covered by target | Explain target coverage and identify any exclusions | Target objective | Do you intend to neutralize any residual emissions with permanent carbon removals at the end of the target? | Do you plan to mitigate emissions beyond your value chain? | Do you intend to purchase and cancel carbon credits for neutralization and/or beyond value chain mitigation? | Planned milestones and/or near-term investments for neutralization at the end of the target | Describe the actions to mitigate emissions beyond your value chain | Target status in reporting year | Explain the reasons for the revision, retirement, or replacement of the target | Process for reviewing target |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.55.
Stage of development | Number of initiatives | Total estimated annual CO2e savings in metric tonnes CO2e |
Under investigation |
0
|
0
|
To be implemented |
0
|
0
|
Implementation commenced |
0
|
0
|
Implemented |
1
|
13,574,971
|
Not to be implemented |
0
|
0
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.55.
Initiative category & Initiative type | Estimated annual CO2e savings (metric tonnes CO2e) | Scope(s) or Scope 3 category(ies) where emissions savings occur | Voluntary/Mandatory | Annual monetary savings (unit currency – as specified in 1.2) | Investment required (unit currency – as specified in 1.2) | Payback period | Estimated lifetime of the initiative | Comment |
Waste reduction and material circularity - Waste reduction
|
13,574,971
|
Scope 1
|
Voluntary
|
1,618,684,532
|
48,719,147
|
<1 year
|
16-20 years
|
Annual monetary savings is revenue generated from recycling and organics facilities in 2024. Investment varies by year, amount shown reflects 2024 capital investment. Emission reductions are calculated using the EPA WARM v16 model to determine the alternative disposal methods impact on material breakdown. We reviewed both diversion of recycled and organic material for this assessment. |
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.55.
Method | Comment |
Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards
|
Our facilities and operations are subject to a variety of federal, state and local requirements that regulate, among other things, the environment, public health, safety, zoning and land use. In order to comply with regulations such as EPA landfill gas collection standards, California SB 1383 and organics diversion mandates, and the California low carbon fuel standard we have invested in infrastructure to meet or exceed the regulatory standards. These laws and regulations provide governmental authorities with strict powers of enforcement, which include the ability to revoke or decline to renew any of our operating permits, obtain injunctions, or impose fines or penalties in the event of violations, including criminal penalties. |
Financial optimization calculations
|
In some cases, we exceed regulatory requirements/standards and/or undertake projects to drive environmental improvements that are not contemplated by regulatory agencies. Investments in these projects are driven by a positive return on investment that often includes other factors, such as impact on our brand or license to operate. |
This question only applies if you select “No” in response to 7.55.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
This question only applies if you select “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP Questionnaire”, or "Yes, I will provide data through the CDP x CO2 AI Product Ecosystem tool" in response to 7.73.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
This question only applies if you select “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP Questionnaire”, or “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP x CO2 AI Product Ecosystem tool” in response to 7.73.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Requesting member [See Guidance and Requirements] | Name of goods/service | Description of good/service | Type of product | Unique product identifier | Total emissions in kg CO2e per unit | ±% change from previous figure supplied | Date of previous figure supplied [DD/MM/YYYY] | Explanation of change | Methods used to estimate lifecycle emissions |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP Questionnaire”, or “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP x CO2 AI Product Ecosystem tool” in response to 7.73.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Requesting member [See Guidance and Requirements] | Name of good/service | Scope | Lifecycle stage | Emissions at the lifecycle stage in kg CO2e per unit | Lifecycle stage under your ownership or control | Type of data used | Data quality | If applicable, describe the verification/assurance of the product emissions data |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP Questionnaire”, or “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP x CO2 AI Product Ecosystem tool” in response to 7.73.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Name of good/service | Initiative ID | Description of initiative | Completed or planned | Emissions reductions in kg CO2e per unit |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP Questionnaire”, or “Yes, I will provide data through the CDP x CO2 AI Product Ecosystem tool” in response to 7.73.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.73.5.
This is a CDP Supply Chain question.
Requesting member | Name of good/service | Initiative ID |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.74.
Level of aggregation | Taxonomy used to classify product(s) or service(s) as low-carbon | Type of product(s) or service(s) | Description of product(s) or service(s) | Have you estimated the avoided emissions of this low-carbon product(s) or service(s) | Methodology used to calculate avoided emissions | Life cycle stage(s) covered for the low-carbon product(s) or services(s) | Functional unit used | Reference product/service or baseline scenario used | Life cycle stage(s) covered for the reference product/service or baseline scenario | Estimated avoided emissions (metric tons CO2e per functional unit) compared to reference product/service or baseline scenario | Explain your calculation of avoided emissions, including any assumptions | Revenue generated from low-carbon product(s) or service(s) as % of total revenue in the reporting year |
Group of products or services
|
Climate Bonds Taxonomy
|
Road - Compressed biogas engines [Transport OEMS, Transport Services]
|
Republic has been investing in compressed natural gas (CNG) collection vehicles for over 15 years. In 2024, about 20% of our fleet fuel consumption was natural gas, which is 100% sourced by RNG. We estimate RNG to produce 70% fewer emissions than diesel, the lowest carbon intensity of any commercially available fuel today, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Today, our use of RNG is a bridge fuel towards scaling of our electric vehicles. Use of these trucks to provide collection services to our customers can be classified as a low-carbon service offering because their use results in lower emissions for Republic as we deliver our service. |
Yes
|
Estimating and Reporting the Comparative Emissions Impacts of Products (WRI)
|
Use stage
|
Diesel Gallon Equivalents (DGE) |
Gallons of diesel used in our fleet. |
Use stage
|
277,096
|
To calculate avoided emissions, the actual amount of biomethane (RNG) fuel was converted to Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). The DGE of fuel was then calculated to metric tons of CO2e using the EPA emissions factor for diesel. The second step is to take the actual emissions from the RNG fuel and subtracting that value from the calculated diesel value. (RNG DGE * Diesel Emission Factor) - (RNG DGE * RNG Emission Factor) = Avoided Emissions from RNG use |
14%
|
Group of products or services
|
Climate Bonds Taxonomy
|
Other - Other, please specify - Specify: Landfill Diversion
|
Republic offers a number of products and services today that enable our customers to avoid emissions. These products include landfill gas for renewable energy; recycling of residential and commercial commodities, food waste and green waste; universal recycling (batteries, light bulbs, etc.); and electronic recycling (mobile devices, televisions, etc.). |
Yes
|
Estimating and Reporting the Comparative Emissions Impacts of Products (WRI)
|
End-of-life stage
|
Short Tons |
Short tons of material landfilled. |
End-of-life stage
|
13,574,971
|
Using the EPA WARM model we input the short tons of material that was recycled and composted and entered those tons as tons landfilled. The EPA WARM model provides emissions rates for mixed recyclables and mixed organics which were utilized as the alternative disposal scenario. The difference between landfilled short tons and recycled and composted short tons is the emissions avoided number. ((Short tons recycled + Short tons organics) * EPA landfill emission factor) - (Short tons recycled * EPA mixed recycled factor) + (Short tons organics * EPA mixed organics factor). |
10%
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” in response to 7.79.
Project type | Type of mitigation activity | Project description | Credits retired by your organization from this project in the reporting year (metric tons CO2e) | Purpose of retirement | Are you able to report the vintage of the credits at retirement? | Vintage of credits at retirement | Were these credits issued to or purchased by your organization? | Carbon-crediting program by which the credits were issued | Method the program uses to assess additionality for this project | Approach(es) by which the selected program requires this project to address reversal risk | Potential sources of leakage the selected program requires this project to have assessed | Provide details of other issues the selected program requires projects to address | Please explain |
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
Other environmental information included in your CDP response is verified and/or assured by a third party | Primary reason why other environmental information included in your CDP response is not verified and/or assured by a third party | Explain why other environmental information included in your CDP response is not verified and/or assured by a third party |
Yes
|
No response provided
|
No response provided
|
This question only applies if you select “Yes” or “Third-party verification/assurance is currently in progress” in response to column “Other environmental information included in your CDP response is verified by a third party” of 13.1.
Environmental issue for which data has been verified and/or assured | Disclosure module and data verified and/or assured | Verification/assurance standard | Further details of the third-party verification/assurance process | Attach verification/assurance evidence/report (optional) |
Climate change
|
Environmental performance – Climate change: Progress against targets
|
Climate change-related standards: ISO 14064-3
|
We have chosen to verify this additional data point as it is related to the annual verification of our organization-wide biogas collection goal. This goal is described in 7.54 and has direct impacts on emissions from landfill activities. |
FY24 Assurance Statement
Page(s)
|
Climate change
|
Environmental performance – Climate change: Waste data
|
Climate change-related standards: ISO 14064-3
|
We have chosen to verify our facility recycling tonnage as it is core to our industry and impacts our emissions inventory. Diversion tonnage metrics are reported in question 7.52 and emissions in Scope 3, Category 5. |
FY24 Assurance Statement
Page(s)
|
Additional information | Attachment (optional) |
No response provided
|
No response provided |
Job title | Corresponding job category |
|
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
|