ABOUT THE COMPANY ASSESSMENTS
The Net Zero Company Benchmark, updated in 2023, 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.
EXPLORE THE 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 and reflect publicly disclosed information by companies as of 29 May 2023.
A company cannot score a ‘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 TPI’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2050.
In the aluminum and paper sectors, where 1.5°C consistent scenarios are 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.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 3.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 3.1.
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.
This Sub-indicator uses TPI’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2035.
In the aluminum and paper sectors, where 1.5°C consistent scenarios are 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.
Sub-indicator 3.4 applies to a company’s medium-term target for its Scope 1 and 2 emissions (Metric 3.2.a) stated on an intensity basis.
If a company has also set a GHG reduction target for its Scope 3 emissions (i.e., meets the criteria of both Metrics 3.2.b and 3.2.a) on an intensity basis, this Sub-indicator applies to both the company’s Scope 1 and 2, and Scope 3 target. Companies that have only set a Scope 3 target (3.2.b) and no Scope 1 and 2 target (3.2.a) are assessed solely on their Scope 3 target (3.2.b).
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 4.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 4.1.
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.
Sub-indicator 4.3 uses TPI’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2025.
In the aluminum and paper sectors, where 1.5°C consistent scenarios are 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 Sub-indicators 2.1 and 3.1. For companies that have targets meeting Sub-indicators 2.3 and 3.1, any disclosures about specific actions to achieve these targets are assessed.
To score on this Metric, a company’s disclosures should relate to its GHG reduction targets, clearly address the main sources of its GHG emissions, and lay out a concrete set of measures to deliver its decarbonisation targets.
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 5.1.a.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.a. Where 5.1.a is met, this Metric assesses whether key actions disclosed in the company’s decarbonisation strategy have been quantified in terms of the approximate proportion of the overall GHG reduction target that they will account for.
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 5.1.b.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.b.
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.
Companies disclosing that offsets will only be considered for residual emissions are also expected to meet the criteria for scoring on this Metric.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.b.
Where 5.1.b is met, this Metric assesses which of the individual decarbonisation levers that the company has identified in Metric 5.1.b are technologically feasible under current economic conditions.
Where an Indicator is in Beta form, companies are not publicly assessed against it, and it is subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
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.
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.
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 needs to 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.
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.
The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) should be concrete and measurable, and should specifically focus on the company’s climate change-related performance. KPIs that measure broader ‘Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)’ or ‘sustainability’ targets or objectives, energy efficiency targets, CDP scores or the like do not meet the requirements for this Metric.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 8.2.a and on one of Sub-indicators 2.1, 3.1 or 4.1.
In addition, the CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements should be determined by the company’s performance against its disclosed company-wide emissions targets.
A company will not meet the requirements of this Metric if only ‘sustainability’ or ‘environment’ or ‘ESG’ is covered in relation to Board competency assessments. Further, the existence of a climate expert on the Board cannot be used as a proxy for having conducted a Board climate competency assessment.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 8.3.a. In addition, the company needs to disclose detail on what specific criteria have been used to assess the Board’s climate-related competencies.
Measures aimed at enhancing ‘sustainability’, ‘environment’, or ‘ESG’ competencies do not fulfill the requirements of this Metric.
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 seek 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 contribute to a positive 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.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 10.2.a. In addition, the company is required to:
- Explicitly include a 1.5°C scenario in its analysis; and
- Disclose a quantitative scenario explicitly covering the entire company (rather than a specific product, business line or geography); and
- Disclose key assumptions and variables used in its scenario analysis; and
- Report on key risks and opportunities that have been identified in the scenario analysis.
Given the expansion of credible 1.5°C scenarios in recent years, from 2023 onwards, companies will no longer be able to score on Metric 10.2.b using the IEA’s Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS), which was possible in previous Benchmark iterations.
Sub-indicator 11.1 uses TPI’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ historical carbon intensity.
This Metric uses TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies to measure companies’ carbon intensity over the past 3 years.
If the company is assessed by TPI to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago, the company will score a ‘No’ on this Metric.
The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.1.a.
This Metric is met if the company’s emission intensity has decreased over the last three years of company reporting, on an averaged basis.
If the company is assessed by TPI to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago, the company will score a ‘No’ on this Metric.
The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.1.b.
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 with low or no overshoot in 2050.
The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.1.c.
Companies that only report on a partial scope of their emissions are not eligible to score on this Metric.
Companies that only report on a subset of their emissions will not be able to score on this Metric. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.2.b.
To score on this Metric, companies should disclose the quantity, type, verification system of offsets and vintage (year of carbon credit origination) used in the last financial year.
Carbon offsets disclosed due to legal compliance are insufficient to score on this Metric.
Companies that explicitly state that they do not use offsets and have not done so in the last financial year may also score on this Metric.
Notes
The following new disclosure(s) are relevant to the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark, have been made after the May 29, 2023 cut-off date and are not reflected in the current version of the company assessment. The information is supplementary, unaudited and does not guarantee a scoring change in future iterations of the benchmark.
- 10-Aug-23 | In its 2023 TCFD report, AGL has reported progress against its Climate Transition Action Plan, which was released in September 2022. In August 2023, AGL and the Victorian State Government announced a Structured Transition Agreement (STA) for the planned closure of AGL’s last coal-fired power station, scheduled for 2035. This STA includes provisions for a just transition of the affected workforce and community.
This company’s v2.0 assessment has been changed from Y to N following launch due to an error correction. The company assesses whether its trade associations lobby in alignment with the Paris Agreement, but this does not constitute a clear and unequivocal commitment by the company to advocate for Paris-aligned lobbying in the trade associations of which it is a member. (Assessment of trade associations’ Paris-alignment is captured in Metric 7.2.b.)
Alignment Assessments complement the Disclosure Framework. They provide independent evaluations of the alignment and adequacy of company actions with the goals of Climate Action 100+ and the Paris Agreement. Alignment Assessments are provided by Carbon Tracker Initiative, InfluenceMap and the Rocky Mountain Institute.
These assessments, provided by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, evaluate 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. Download the methodology to learn more.
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’.
These alignment assessments, provided by Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), analyse electric utility companies’ announced retirement schedules for their legacy coal and natural gas-fired power generation capacity and new planned carbon-emitting assets relative to a range of climate change scenarios. The analyses give investors insights into the relative adequacy and alignment of company actions with the Paris Agreement goals. Download the methodology to learn more.
CTI’s assessments are analysed using modelling based on asset-level global coal generation data as of July 2023 and natural gas data as of February 2023. Public disclosure and asset ownership information is assessed as of 31st June 2023.
Scores indicate if the company’s coal unit phase-out plans match the following scenarios:
- Green: Full retirement of coal-fired generation fleet consistent with CTI’s interpretation of the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C) scenario.
Amber: Full retirement of coal-fired generation fleet, which is not consistent with CTI’s interpretation of the IEA’s NZE (1.5°C).
Red: Partial retirement of coal-fired generation fleet OR unannounced retirement/insufficient data on retirements.
Traffic light colours indicate if the company’s gas unit phase-out plans match the following scenarios:
- Green: Full retirement of unabated gas-fired generation fleet consistent with CTI’s interpretation of the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C).
- Amber: Full retirement of unabated gas-fired generation fleet, which is not consistent with CTI’s interpretation of the IEA’s NZE (1.5°C).
- Red: Partial retirement that is not consistent with CTI’s interpretation of the IEA’s NZE (1.5°C) or unannounced retirement/insufficient data on retirements.
A full phase-out of unabated gas units leaves open a role for other abatement technologies such gas-to-hydrogen conversion beyond 2050.
Traffic light colours indicate if the percentage of planned coal generation capacity is consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C (IEA Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario – NZE):
- Green: 100% NZE (1.5°C) consistent
- Amber: 75-99% NZE (1.5°C) consistent
- Red: 0-75% NZE (1.5°C) consistent
Traffic light colours indicate if the percentage of planned unabated gas generation capacity is consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C (IEA Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario – NZE):
- Red: 0-75% NZE (1.5°C) consistent
- Amber: 75-99% NZE (1.5°C) consistent
- Green: 100% NZE (1.5°C) consistent
This assumes that all unabated gas generation must be phased out (or abated) by 2050 under NZE. At present, CTI scales down IEA scenarios to regional grid level and therefore does not take local grid constraint issues into consideration.
These Alignment Assessments, provided by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), are made using the PACTA methodology and data provided by Asset Impact. They analyse electric utility companies’ planned capital expenditures (CapEx) and production capacity for the coming 5 years, relative to a range of climate change scenario pathways for the sector. These analyses give investors insights into the relative adequacy and alignment of company actions with the Paris Agreement goals. Download the methodology to learn more.
RMI’s assessments of electric utility companies evaluate their physical assets and forward-looking capacity plans based on status updates gathered in the 12 months up to 31 June 2023.
The company is substituting high-carbon electricity generation with low-carbon electricity generation.
InfluenceMap provides detailed analyses of corporate climate policy engagement and the alignment of company climate policy engagement actions (direct and indirect via their industry associations) with the goals of the Paris Agreement, as well as the quality, accuracy and completeness of corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement.
This data reflects InfluenceMap’s assessment as of the 1st August 2023. Refer to the InfluenceMap website for the most recent company assessments.
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.
A measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct engagement is of Paris Agreement-aligned climate policy, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
A measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are of Paris Agreement-aligned climate policy, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
An assessment of the accuracy of the company’s reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
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.
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.
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 goals of the Paris Agreement.