Royal Schiphol Group

Schiphol Group
Quick Facts
Type	Public
sector	Aviation
Headquarters (Benelux Organization)	Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands
Year of Origin	1920
Emissions (All Scopes)	+100 Megatons of CO2 (2020)
Net Income	-€563 million (2020)(due to COVID-19 effects)
Key People	Dick Benschop (CEO) Robert Carsouw (CFO) Hanne Buis (Chief Projects & Assets Officer) Birgit Otto (Chief Operations Officer) Siebolt Bennema (Director Schiphol Projects) Wilma van Dijk (Director Safety, Security & Environment, Director Lelystad Airport) Ron Louwerse (Director RotterdamThe Hague Airport) Kjell Kloosterziel (Director Schiphol International) Louise Gunnung-Schepers(Chair of the Supervisory Board).
Subsidiaries	Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (majority stake) Rotterdam The Hague Airport (majority stake) Lelystad Airport (majority stake) Eindhoven Airport (majority stake) Brisbane (participation) JFK International Airport NY (participation)

Royal Schiphol Group, stylized as Schiphol Group, is a Dutch airport management company.

It was founded in 1920, when current home carier KLM operated its first civilian flights in Haarlemmermeer. This is now known as Schiphol Airport . Operating Schiphol is one of Royal Schiphol Group's main activities . Schiphol airport coveres about 227,304 air transport movements, 1.44 million tonnes of cargo and 20.9 million passengers in 2020 .

In 2016 Schiphol Group received the predicate Royal, as a gift to Schiphol airport for its 100-year anniversary

Company Structure

Board of Directors

The Managament Board, consisting of Dick Benschop (CEO), Robert Carsouw (CFO), Hanne Buis (Chief Projects & Assets Officer) and Birgit Otto (Chief Operations Officer) are responsible for the day-to-day operations and general state of affairs in Royal Schiphol Group and its subsidiaries. A multifaceted team of top-level managers supports the Management Board in their duties. The CEO's has a fixed salary of €443.604,00 (2020).The Supervisory Board has the possibility to increase this with a variable renumeration of 20%, depending on the CEO's performance on the Top Performance Indicators. .

The Royal Schiphol Group Supervisory Board is tasked with monitoring the management of Schiphol Group and the general state of affairs. Louise Gunnung-Schepers is chair of the Supervisory Board .

The President and CEO of Schiphol Group is primarily responsible for sustainability. The Management Board defines the sustainability vision and policy and is for that purpose assisted by the Supervisory Board's Safety, Sustainability & Stakeholders Committee. The sustainability programme manager is part of Schiphol Group's Strategy and Airport Planning department and reports directly to the President and CEO. .

Accountant

The external accountant of Royal Schiphol Group is KPMG (2020).

Operations

Royal Schiphol Group currently manages Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (majority stake), Rotterdam The Hague Airport (majority stake), Lelystad Airport (majority stake), Eindhoven Airport (majority stake), Groupe AdP (participation), Brisbane (participation), JFK International Airport NY (participation) . After agreeing to cross shareholding of 8% with Groupe AdP (owner of three Paris airports Charles de Gaulle, Orly and le Bourget) in 2008 Royal Schiphol Group became the world's largest airport company. Recently Groupe AdP and Royal Schiphol Group decided to end their cooperation agreement. It is not decided yet who will rebuy the 8% shareholdings, which must be done before 30 may 2023 .

Royal Schiphol Group has four owners: the State of the Netherlands (69,77%), municipality of Amsterdam (20,03%), municipality of Rotterdam (2,2%) and Groupe AdP (8,0%). . Groupe AdP is currently selling its 8,0% sharehlolding.

Schiphol Group´s key business partner is KLM.

In 2020 en 2021 Schiphol Group received a total of €117 million from the NOW 1, NOW 2, NOW 3, NOW 4, NOW 5 government grants (COVID-19 related) .

Paris Agreement to Today

Lelystad Airport

– With a minority share (20,03%) in Schiphol Airport the municipality of Amsterdam has the power to influence the operation of Lelystad Airport. In recent years multiple councillors of Amsterdam were secretly lobbying at the European Commission for expansion of Lelystad Airport, against the wishes and without knowledge of leading party GroenLinks .

– After the decision of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to open Lelystad Airport for commercial aviation, there have been many incidents of unclear decission making processes and budget reporting .

– An environmental impact report performed in 2017 contained calculation errors on environmental impacts and noise pollution of Lelystad airport .

(Bio) Fuel supply

– In December 2020 Schiphol welcomed the news that Neste bought a minority stake in Aircraft Fuel Supply (AFS), the owner and operator of the fuel storage company serving Schiphol Airport. Neste's biofuel production is linked to deforestation, forest fires, landgrabbing and human rights violations

– Half of Schiphol's fuels is supplied by the Ministry of Defence and the other half by Amsterdam Schiphol Pipeline (ASP), which is in hands of KLM, Shell, Total, BP, Statoil, Q8 petroleum and Navires Fuels (Morgan Stanley). The emissions that are caused by these 'bunkerfuels' are not attributed to the Netherlands and belongs to 'nobody'. If we would attribute these emmissions to the State of the Netherlands, it's emmissions would rise with almost 7% (in 2017 with 9 megaton). .

Financial support & working conditions

– The airport charges of Schiphol are artificially low and airport operations must therefore be financed by other business units, such a airport catering, office space rentals, parking fees and flight taxes. However, these are costs primarily paid by Dutch citizens as Dutch airport passengers; passengers of tranfer flights barely pay for any of these costs. Moreover, Schiphol is strongly investing in transfer flights (in the interest of business partner KLM). This is causing even more environmental damage, since a transfer passenger has to take-off and land twice. The take-off cycle causes the highest kerosene use, it produces more noise and causes emissions of fine particles, nitrogen and greenhouse gases. In addition, a transfer flight does not fly the shortest possible distance between two airports, but makes a detour. This also increases fuel consumption. As a consequence of these low airport charges, terms and conditions of employement are poor at key business partners on the airport

– Aviation companies receive 80% of there emission rights for free (decided by the European Commission), the part that they have to pay for is very cheap .

- In december 2020 it was revealed that Schiphol Group and KLM had ignored warnings from health and safety services concerning health risks for platform personnel for many years . Anonymous employees report remarkable many cases of early-onset lung cancer and increased risk of heart failure amongst platform employees.

Current Policies and Emissions

Emissions

In 2019 Greenpeace Netherlands and research partner CE Delft published a report on the emissions of Royal Schiphol Group, stating that it’s overall emissions (scope 1 – 3) was 13,6 Mton of CO2 emissions in 2018. . According to Royal Schiphol Group's own annual report, it is directly responsible for around 34,8 Kton CO2 emissions in 2018 caused by heating of airport buildings and use of electricity. However, Royal Schiphol Group has a supply chain responsibilty as its providing the infrastructure that makes aviation possible, such as refueling the aircrafts with kerosene. If one would include the CO2 emissions that are caused by the combustion of kerosene during take-off cycle, Schiphol Group’s emissions would add up to 13.6 Mton in 2018 .

However, this does not reflect the entire CO2 emissions of Schiphol Group as it only takes into account kerosene calculations from departing flights. Assuming that arriving flights cause the similar ammount of CO2 emissions, it would increase the emissions with a factor 2. Also not included in the calculation is the production of kersone, which adds 0,5 kg CO2 per kg of jet fuel .

Moreover, besides direct CO2 emissions, aviation also causes non CO2-effects. Theses non CO2-effects, such as persistent contrails, aviation induced cirrus and NOx derivatives contribute significantly more to global heating than aviation CO2 emissions. Studies conclude that the non CO2 effects cause three times more global warming than direct CO2 effects .

Taking the above into account it is presumable that the total CO2 emissions of Royal Schiphol Group are over 100 Mton.

Policies & initiatives

Top Performance Indicator on CO2 reduction

Royal Schiphol Group has eight Top Performances Indicators (TPI); one of these TPI’s is focussed on reducing Schiphol Group’s CO2 emissions. Although Schiphol Group reports extensively on its scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 CO2 emissions in its annual report, it uses a very narrow scope 3 in its own Top Performance Indicators (TPI). It does not include emissions from elecricity used by third parties, all road traffic to and from the airports and fuels related to aircraft handling and landing and take-off cycle. It also not includes CO2 emissions from the kerosene tanked in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, these cause the majority of Schiphol's CO2 emissions.

Moreover, Schiphol Group also doesn't report on CO2 emissions from international airports in which it has either a major shareholding or a management contract. It is also not included in its sustainability Top Performance Indicators (TPI) .

By using such a narrow scope 3 in its TPI, Schiphol Group is only committing itself to CO2 reduction in a very small part of their supply chain.

Nitrogen Action Programme

On 14 February 2020 Schiphol launched its Nitrogen Action Programme, following the recommendations of the Remkes Committee. This programma is mainly focussed on nitrogen reduction of transport to and from the airport (sustainable transportation), at the airport (100% wind powered airports and electric fleet) and in the air (differentiated airport charges, finance the development of sustainable fuels and sustainable taxiing) .

Climate resilience

Royal Schiphol Group acknowledges that the current pace of climate change has the potential to substantially disrupt their operations, therefore adopting several climate adaptation initiatives. Schiphol is therefore taking steps to limit the possible risk of rainwater flooding, such as rainwater drainage, below and above-groud water buffers and flood-risk management .

Zero-emissions zone

Schiphol Group aims to create a zero-emissions zone at Schiphol airport in collaboration with a nearby municipality. Moreover it also cooperates in studies for the Regional Energy Strategy such as a new solar field in the Schiphol region.. However, this is a fairly small solar field and it’s questionable whether this wil significantly contribute to zero-emission ambitions.

Bio-kerosene plant

In 2020, Schiphol Group continued to provide financial support to an ongoing project to develop a new bio-kerosene plant in the province of Groningen in collaboration with SkyNRG. The plant has the potential to deliver about 2% of the aircraft fuel consumed (100,000 metric tonnes per year) in the Netherlands from 2023 onwards . The use of bio-kerosone is however controversial, as its production often results in deforestation and exploitation of scarce agricultural land. This causes major environmental damage. .

Climate Plans

Schiphol Group aims to operate zero-emissions and zero-waste airports by 2030. The long-term goal is to be energy-positive by 2050. In its recent annual report it warned that, although COVID-19 had not altered their ambitions, Schiphol Group may needed to reassess the approach and timeframe outlined in Schiphol's Sustainability Roadmap .

It also aims to create sustainable aviation by using 14% sustainable aviation fuels by 2030 and reduce 49% CO2 emissions on landside activities. By 2050 the aviation sector needs to CO2 free .

The above stated commitments of Royal Schiphol Group are primarily focussed on reducing the emissions from airport operations only and currently does not include any performance indicators on scope 3 emissions, such as electricity used by third parties, all road traffic to and from the airports and fuels related to aircraft handling and landing and take-off cycle. The direct CO2 emissions from activities in the rest of the aviation chain (such as production of kerosine and airports) and non CO2 effects (such as contrails, aviation induced cirrus and NOx derivatives) are also not included in RSG's own reporting.

Schiphol Group’s 2030 ambitions on sustainable aviation fuels are also misleading, as e-fuels cause more environmental damage than regular kerosene. At the production of E-kerosene, more than half of the energy is lost in the process. This would not be a problem if there was enough production of renewable energy, but at this moment there is not enough wind and solar energy to provide the necessary e-kerosene for all Dutch aviation. Moreover, the production of biofuels in the Netherlands will only cover 2% of Dutch aviation demands by 2030. If the dependency on biofuels would increase, it would require import from across Europe, leaving those countries without any sustainable fuels. Furthermore, e-fuels will not reduce the non-CO2 effects that are far more harmful for climate change than regular CO2 effects. The only real short term solution (2050) is reduction of air transport movements and decreasing the amount of aviation kilometers .

Although it states that it aims to create a CO2 free aviation sector by 2050, Royal Schiphol Group has no clear or specific strategy om how to achieve this.

Moreover, in its annual report it emphasizes that “it is important that we create a level playing field so that airports are not disadvantaged by pursuing environmentally friendly operations”, thereby also transfering part of its responsibilties to decisionmaking institutes on regional and national level .

Conclusion

Royal Schiphol Group is not on it’s way to become Paris Proof. It is mainly focussed on reducing it’s scope 1 and 2 (and some scope 3) emissions by 49%, but neglects it’s responsibility in the supply chain. Schiphol Group’s reporting rules out most supply chain emissions (scope 3) and it’s performance indicators does not include any scope 3 emission in the supply chain. Any claims of a ‘CO2 free aviation sector’ by 2050 are therefore false promises and don’t match with Schiphol Group’s current ambitions.

Bedrijfsspecifieke Passage in 'de brief'

U heeft uw duurzaamheidsbeleid vastgelegd in Annual Report 2020 .

Wij constateren dat uw ambitie is om in 2030 14% duurzame brandstoffen te gebruiken en de CO2 uitstoot die vrijkomt bij landactiviteiten te verlagen met 49%. In 2050 streeft u naar een CO2 vrije luchtvaartindustrie.

Wij constateren dat u geen ambities heeft gesteld om de emissies uit uw hele waardeketen binnen de anderhalve graden te brengen. Bovendien blijk in uw plannen niet goed hoe u uw ambities gaat realiseren. Dat is een grote tekortkoming en dat maakt de ambitie niet geloofwaardig. Het is daarom duidelijk dat u daarmee niet binnen een gezond pad van anderhalve graden blijft

Daarmee draagt uw bedrijf bij aan gevaarlijke klimaatverandering en loopt u het materiële risico om mensenrechtenschendingen te veroorzaken.