Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
CSR · Corporate Social Responsibility · programme 03

Understand the carbon footprint

Run an educational workshop (e.g. the Climate Fresk).

Why this programme

An awareness workshop, played in teams, where people connect causes to consequences and measure what really matters. The orders of magnitude are those of your own business. Everyone comes away with an accurate picture, without guilt and without naivety.

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report)Our Common Future, 1987

What your teams experience

  1. The links: connect the causes and effects of climate change on an interactive mural.
  2. Orders of magnitude: estimate and rank the emissions of different activities.
  3. Our footprint: position the company and its main sources of emissions.
  4. The levers: each team ranks actions by impact and feasibility.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

A team that speaks the same language on climate, and a prioritised list of levers.

1.1°C

Global surface warming in 2011–2020 above 1850–1900, unequivocally caused by human activities.

IPCCClimate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, A.1, 2023

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. IPCC (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report [Core Writing Team, H. Lee & J. Romero (dir.)], 1-34. IPCC, Genève (rapport). 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001
  2. Sterman, J. D., & Sweeney, L. B. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3-4), 213-238. 10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5
  3. Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
  4. Wynes, S., Zhao, J., & Donner, S. D. (2020). How well do people understand the climate impact of individual actions? Climatic Change, 162(3), 1521-1534. 10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5
  5. Camilleri, A. R., Larrick, R. P., Hossain, S., & Patino-Echeverri, D. (2019). Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nature Climate Change, 9(1), 53-58. 10.1038/s41558-018-0354-z
  6. Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. PNAS, 107(37), 16054-16059. 10.1073/pnas.1001509107
  7. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 12-25. 10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-25
  8. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. PNAS, 106(44), 18452-18456. 10.1073/pnas.0908738106
  9. Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M., & Creutzig, F. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 093001. 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589
  10. WRI & WBCSD (2011). Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard (rapport). ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-scope-3-standard
The foundations shared by all our programmes (19 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
  2. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249440500054X
  3. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. 10.1080/13504620220145401
  4. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518. 10.1111/spc3.12265
  5. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494406000909
  6. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
  7. Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127-138. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
  8. Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307145
  9. Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., et al. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863-e873. www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00278-3/fulltext
  10. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. 10.1177/0149206311436079
  11. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 144. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144
  12. République tunisienne (2018). Loi n° 2018-35 du 11 juin 2018, relative à la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises. Journal officiel de la République tunisienne, n° 2018-049 (texte légal). www.legislation.tn/fr/detailtexte/Loi-num-2018-35-du-11-06-2018-jort-2018-049__2018049000351
  13. République tunisienne (2025). Contribution déterminée au niveau national (CDN 3.0), soumise à la CCNUCC (rapport). unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2026-04/Document%20CDN3.0%20-version%20Finale.pdf
  14. Commission européenne (2011). Responsabilité sociale des entreprises : une nouvelle stratégie de l'UE pour la période 2011-2014, COM(2011) 681 (rapport). www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en.pdf
  15. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  16. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  17. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus. JPSP, 64(2), 243-256. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243
  18. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450-451. 10.1038/075450a0
  19. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Understand the carbon footprint” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo