Master Template Actions
Company Assessments found: 161
You need edit permissions to apply this Master Template.
- No, does not meet any criteria
- Partial, meets some criteria
- Yes, meets all criteria
- Not currently assessed
- Not applicable
- Up from last year
- Down from last year
- Same as Last year
- Change from last year N/A
CA100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark Framework Assessments
The Disclosure Framework evaluates the adequacy of corporate disclosure in relation to key actions companies can take to align their businesses with the Climate Action 100+ and Paris Agreement goals. The assessments are conducted by the Transition Pathway Initiative Global Climate Transition Centre, InfluenceMap and World Benchmarking Alliance and reflect publicly disclosed information by companies as of 22nd June 2026 for Transition Pathway Initiative, 31 July 2026 for InfluenceMap, and 31 December 2025 for World Benchmarking Alliance. Due to changes in data providers and/or assessment methodologies, progress scores cannot be assessed for certain metrics. For more information, please review the full benchmark methodologies.
Assessed by The Transition Pathway Initiative unless otherwise indicated
A company cannot score ‘Yes’ on Metric 1.1.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Metric 1.1.a.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 1.1.b.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 2.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 2.1.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 2.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 2.1.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 2.2.b.
This Sub-indicator uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2050.
In the paper sector, where a 1.5°C consistent scenario is unavailable, the relevant companies are measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. All other sectors that have Carbon Performance sector methodologies are assessed against a 1.5°C scenario.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Sub-indicator 2.3.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 3.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 3.1.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 3.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 3.1.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 3.2.b.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
This Sub-indicator uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2035.
In the paper sector, where a 1.5°C consistent scenario is unavailable, the relevant companies are measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. All other sectors that have Carbon Performance sector methodologies are assessed against a 1.5°C scenario.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Sub-indicator 3.3.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 4.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 4.1.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 4.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 4.1.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 4.2.b.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Sub-indicator 4.3 uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2025.
In the paper sector, where a 1.5°C consistent scenario is unavailable, the relevant companies are measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. All other sectors that have Carbon Performance sector methodologies are assessed against a 1.5°C scenario.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Sub-indicator 4.3.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 2.2.a, and either Metric 3.2.a or 4.2.a.
For companies with targets meeting these Metrics, disclosures about actions to achieve these Scope 1 and 2 targets are assessed. To score 'Yes', the company's disclosed set of actions must: (1) specifically relate to its stated GHG reduction targets, rather than describe broader emissions-reduction efforts, (2) clearly address the main sources of its GHG emissions, and (3) lay out a concrete, company-specific set of measures. The strategy must be disclosed for both the long-term target and the short- or medium-term target.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 2.2.b, and either Metric 3.2.b or 4.2.b.
For companies assessed on Scope 3 emissions with targets meeting these Metrics, disclosures about actions to achieve these Scope 3 targets are assessed. To score 'Yes', the company's disclosed set of actions must: (1) specifically relate to its stated GHG reduction targets, rather than describe broader emissions-reduction efforts, (2) clearly address the main sources of its GHG emissions, and (3) lay out a concrete, company-specific set of measures. The strategy must be disclosed for both the long-term target and the short- or medium-term target.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions produced in a company's value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector; this affects assessment against Metric 5.1.b.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.a.
This Metric assesses whether the key actions in the company's decarbonisation strategy are quantified. Specifically, whether the contribution of each action is expressed as an approximate proportion of the overall Scope 1 and 2 GHG reduction target it will help deliver.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.b.
This Metric assesses whether the key actions in the company's Scope 3 decarbonisation strategy are quantified — specifically, whether the contribution of each action is expressed as an approximate proportion of the overall Scope 3 GHG reduction target it will help deliver.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.c or 5.1.d.
If a company explicitly states that it does not plan on using carbon offsetting and negative emissions technologies to meet its GHG reduction targets, it will not be assessed against this Metric, and will instead receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
If the company does plan to use offsets and/or negative emissions technologies, it should publicly disclose: the approximate proportion of the overall GHG target the offsets will account for, the type of offsets planned, and how planned offsets will be certified. If using negative emissions technologies, the company should disclose their quantity and type.
If offsetting is planned only for residual emissions, the company should still quantify/provide a range for the role these residual emissions play in its decarbonisation, and is still expected to meet the above criteria.
This Metric evaluates a company’s disclosures on its current deployment of climate solutions. Companies are required to define climate solutions associated with their revenues or products clearly and in detail.
Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
This Metric evaluates a company’s disclosures on its commitment to scaling up its deployment of climate solutions in prospective and quantitative terms.
Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Unabated carbon-intensive assets here refer to assets or products with a high carbon footprint relative to their output that do not use any carbon removal technologies.
To score on this Metric, the company’s commitment should apply to all of its capital expenditures.
Unabated carbon-intensive assets here refer to assets or products with a high carbon footprint relative to their output that do not use any carbon removal technologies.
A company that has clearly stated in its public disclosures that it has not allocated any capital expenditure towards unabated carbon-intensive assets or products will score ‘Yes’ on this Metric.
This Metric assesses a company’s transparency and commitment to climate solutions by evaluating their public disclosures of capital expenditures. This includes a clear definition of what is considered to be climate solutions, using a formal taxonomy or classification system in the disclosures.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will instead receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Transition Plan and Capital Allocation Alignment
For oil and gas focus companies, CTI’s Alignment Assessments analyse companies’ recent and potential capital expenditure (CapEx) for upstream oil and gas carbon-emitting assets relative to a range of energy transition scenarios.
Assessed by Carbon tracker
The assessment of whether a company commits to conducting its policy engagement activities in accordance with the goals of the Paris Agreement (previously Sub-indicator 7.1 in the Disclosure Framework assessed by the TPI Centre) are evaluated by InfluenceMap in 2026.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
The assessment of whether a company has reviewed its own and its trade associations' climate policy engagement positions/activities are evaluated by InfluenceMap in 2026.
Climate Policy Alignment
Real-World Climate Policy Engagement
A comprehensive assessment of a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations.
Companies receive an overall ‘Performance Band’ grade on a scale from A+ to F against this indicator, which maps to the traffic light scoring system used across the Net Zero Company Benchmark.
Direct Climate Policy Engagement (Organisation Score)
A measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct engagement is of science-aligned climate policy, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
The overall assessment indicates whether a company meets the criteria for this indicator. A company may improve its score year-on-year without meeting the criteria for the next threshold and therefore without a change in its assessment status.
Indirect Climate Policy Engagement via Industry Associations (Relationship Score)
A measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are of science-aligned climate policy, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
The overall assessment indicates whether a company meets the criteria for this indicator. A company may improve its score year-on-year without meeting the criteria for the next threshold and therefore without a change in its assessment status.
Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure
An assessment of the accuracy of the company's reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure
This Sub-indicator evaluates whether the company has published an accurate account of its corporate climate policy positions and engagement activities, as compared to InfluenceMap’s database, which independently tracks corporate climate policy engagement activities.
Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure
This Sub-indicator evaluates whether the company has published an accurate account of the climate policy positions and engagement activities of the industry associations of which it is a member, as compared to InfluenceMap’s database, which independently tracks corporate climate policy engagement activities.
Corporate Climate Policy Engagement Review
An assessment of the quality and robustness of a company's processes to identify, report on, and address specific cases of misalignment between its climate policy engagement activities (direct and indirect via industry associations) and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The overall assessment indicates whether a company meets the criteria for this indicator. A company may improve its score year-on-year without meeting the criteria for the next threshold and therefore without a change in its assessment status.
The company attributes responsibility for sustainability decision-making and oversight to the highest governance body (e.g. board, subset of the board, chief executive officer). The element is met if:
Climate change mitigation is embedded in the company’s sustainability strategy and the individual (or committee) with decision-making responsibility over this strategy operates at the highest level of governance (e.g. board, subset of the board, chief executive officer).
The company has a transition plan (or equivalent adherence to high-level transition planning characteristics and the individual (or committee) with decision-making responsibility over this plan operates at the highest level of governance (e.g. board, subset of the board, chief executive officer).
The company discloses what functions, teams or committees are responsible for the implementation of its sustainability plans, strategies or activities. It assigns this responsibility to chief executive officers (CEOs), chief financial officers (CFOs) and heads of business is accepted. Having responsibility assigned to functions/roles rather than individuals shows that the responsibility has been institutionalised and is therefore less vulnerable. Responsibility should be assigned to functions, teams or committees rather than individuals. However, a function may refer to a particular role which is held by one individual only. It is sufficient to list the function, teams and committees that are assigned responsibility; the allocation of responsibility between them need not be specified. It is insufficient to only refer to the function chairing a committee; all participating functions must be stated.
The company has at least 2 instances of expertise/competences related to climate change and the low-carbon transition represented among the members of the highest governance body. The instances are: Academic qualification: An understanding of the impacts, risks and implementable solutions acquired via a bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree, professional certification, diploma, etc. A purely energy-related background with no relationship to climate change and the low GHG emissions transition is not enough to qualify as expertise. Professional experience: Previous employment with an organisation or in a role related to climate change or the low GHG emissions transition. Recent/active membership of relevant organisations: Positions in organisations driving corporate knowledge and action on climate change and the low GHG emissions transition, e.g. positions in bodies such as the World Business Council For Sustainable Development (WBCSD), or relevant industry associations for the sector the company operates in, such as the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA).
Technical knowledge: Evidence of knowledge related to climate change and the low GHG emissions transition through recently published outputs written by the individual/committee, such as technical statements, industry reports, etc. The expertise does not all have to be held by one person; it can be distributed across different members of the board or highest governance body. The conditions for this element can also be met in instances where companies describe that the highest governance body has direct access to expertise, such as a specialised committee composed of external experts with a board member as the chairperson. In these cases, it must be specified what the scope of the committee is and how often it meets. General references to expertise or environmental, social and governance (ESG) competence is insufficient, as it may denote expertise with reporting rather than expertise on impacts.
The company must explicitly state that it links senior executives' annual or long-term remuneration to climate mitigation metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs), including metrics related to GHG emissions reductions, within its long-term incentive plan (likely to include equity in the company).
To score positively on this Metric, the company should:
- Explicitly state its commitment to Just Transition principles, either defined by itself or by an external score.
- Define what it means when referring to 'Just Transition'.
Simply acknowledging or supporting a Just Transition or external frameworks is not sufficient to score ‘Yes’ on this Metric.
To score positively on this Metric, companies should explicitly commit to specific forms of support, such as job retention, training, reskilling and access to job search programmes, or external frameworks with similar commitments.
The commitment should be company-wide, explicitly linked to decarbonisation and apply to current employees of the company.
Simply acknowledging the impact of decarbonisation on workers is not enough to score positively.
The Metric evaluates whether companies have a company-wide commitment to engage with and, where relevant, seek Free, Prior and Informed Consent from the communities that are affected by their decarbonisation actions.
It also requires companies to provide details on how they have implemented this commitment, such as who they have consulted with, what issues they have addressed, and what outcomes they have achieved.
Companies that only inform or acknowledge communities, or that do not specify affected communities among their stakeholders, will not score 'Yes' on this Metric.
To score on this Metric, the plan should be company-wide and related to the company’s decarbonisation efforts.
These plans can only be on an asset level (e.g., power plant or a mine) insofar as the company explicitly states that it will carry out this plan for all other relevant assets.
This Metric is only assessed if the company scored 'Yes' on Metric 9.2.a, indicating that it has disclosed a concrete plan to implement its Just Transition commitments.
This Metric is only assessed if the company scored 'Yes' on Metric 9.2.a, indicating that it has disclosed a concrete plan to implement its Just Transition commitments.
Sub-indicator 10.1 uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ historical carbon intensity.
Assessed by The Transition Pathway Initiative
This Metric is met if the company’s emission intensity has decreased in the most recent year of company reporting relative to the previous year.
If the company is assessed to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago, the company will score 'No' on this Metric.
Companies that are part of a sector where the TPI Centre’s
methodology is yet to be published will be scored as ‘Not Assessed’.
This Metric uses the Carbon Performance methodology to measure carbon intensities over the past three years, including the current year of data (or most recent year available) and three historic values to obtain the variation over the period
Carbon intensities are measured against a relevant sector trajectory needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C in 2050.
Historic sector benchmarks reflect the estimated decrease in carbon intensity needed for the sector at the start of the three-year period assessed. A company meets this Metric if either: (1) its carbon intensity has been declining faster than the sector's benchmark over the same three-year period, or (2) at the last year of disclosure, its carbon intensity is aligned with or below the sector's benchmarked carbon intensity for the current year. The company cannot score on this Metric if it is assessed to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago. Companies in a sector where the TPI Centre's methodology is yet to be published will be scored as 'Not Assessed'.
Sub-indicator 10.2 was previously assessed by The Transition Pathway Initiative and used a different methodology.
Where there have been changes to the data provider, metric language, or methodology, Year on Year progress may be marked as Not Applicable.
Assessed by World Benchmarking Alliance
Climate accounting and audit
This assessment, provided by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, evaluates whether a company’s financial statements (including the notes thereto), and the auditor’s report thereon, reflect the financial effects of climate-related risk and the global move onto a 2050 (or sooner) net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pathway and achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C.
In 2025 the International Accounting Standards Board published guidance on improving the disclosures required by existing reporting requirements. The Climate Accounting and Audit Assessment Scoring Guidance has been updated to reflect this guidance. This change is related to this update and does not represent a change in the company’s disclosures.
Climate-related matters may include the physical impacts of climate change and/or transition impacts from climate mitigation on the company’s market, sector, business environment, and drivers of its costs and revenues. It also includes the company’s own response, for example any emissions targets set and the company’s strategy for decarbonisation.
In addition to overall considerations, such as the company’s ability to continue as a going concern, examples of relevant assets and liabilities include (but are not limited to): property plant and equipment (PPE) assets; goodwill and other intangible assets; inventory; asset retirement or decommissioning obligations; deferred tax assets and liabilities; investments, including joint ventures and associates; and/or provisions and loss contingencies.
This Metric is assessed independently from Metric 1.a on how the company has considered climate matters. Accordingly, whether a company included the impacts of climate on the related assumptions and estimates is not part of the assessment for this Metric.
Examples of climate-related assumptions and estimates include (but are not limited to): projected interim and long-term commodity prices and volume assumptions used in forecasting revenues, for example oil, gas and coal prices; estimated CO2 prices used in forecasting costs; cash flow growth rates; and/or estimated remaining useful lives, particularly of climate-exposed assets and related obligations.
To be assessed as ’Yes’, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ for Metric 1.a. To be assessed as ‘Partial’ for this Metric, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ or ‘Partial’ for Metric 1.a.
Other reporting includes other sections of the annual report (or similar filing) and may also include separate reporting such as sustainability reports, TCFD reporting, analyst presentations, and the company’s website. This Metric focuses on the financial statements. The company’s other reporting on climate-related matters will be read as it provides the context for assessing the financial statements, but it is not assessed.
This Metric focuses on the auditor’s disclosure of Key or Critical Audit Matters (K/CAMs) as applicable under the relevant auditing standards. Discussions may either be in a separate climate-related K/CAM or those focussing on specific accounting topics. If the auditor considers the risk in relation to the financial reporting to not require reporting in the K/CAMs, this Metric may also be achieved through reporting of how climate was considered in assessing risk and determining the audit approach.
This Metric assesses the auditor’s consistency check. It is based on the requirement for the auditor to read certain ‘other information’ provided by the company outside of the financial statements for consistency with the audited financial statements. Information that comprises such ‘other information’ is specified under the relevant auditing standards. If Metric 1.c is assessed as ‘Yes’ this Metric will likely result in a ‘Yes’.
This Metric focuses on the use of assumptions and estimates that can be assessed as appropriate ‘best estimates’ relative to relevant price decks or published scenario assumptions that are aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner (‘aligned assumptions and estimates’), or the provision of quantitative sensitivity analysis(es) using such assumptions and estimates.
Currently, the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario and related price deck are used for this assessment, where applicable. However, additional updated reference scenarios may become available over time.
This Metric is independent of Metric 3.a, as the auditor is asked to take an independent role in assessing whether the assumptions and estimates used by the company (either directly or through sensitivity analysis(es)), are aligned with the goals of achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner), or provide its own sensitivity analysis(es) using reasonably aligned assumptions and estimates.
The Net Zero Company Benchmark assesses the performance of focus companies against the initiative’s three high-level goals: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving climate governance, and strengthening climate-related financial disclosures. It contains two types of complementary analyses drawing on public and self-disclosed data by companies: the Disclosure Framework and Alignment Assessments.
By accessing these assessments, you agree to be bound by the data usage terms and conditions. For more information on data collection and feedback, see the review and redress process.