ABOUT THE COMPANY ASSESSMENTS
Focus companies have been assessed on each of the Net-Zero Company Benchmark’s 10 disclosure indicators and their related sub-indicators and metrics, which collectively reflect the overall engagement goals of Climate Action 100+. Capital allocation assessment indicators complement the disclosure indicators by providing further insights into the upstream oil and gas, electric utilities, and automotive sectors. These frameworks will evolve with future iterations.
Please note that by accessing these assessments you have agreed to be bound by the data usage terms and conditions. For more information on data collection and feedback, please see the review and redress process.
DISCLOSURE ASSESSMENT INDICATORS
Assessments of the company’s publicly disclosed information against each indicator, sub-indicator, and metric provide information on the company’s alignment with the Climate Action 100+ goals.
The disclosure assessment indicators reflect publicly disclosed information as of January 22, 2021.
The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), supported by its research and data partners the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE) and FTSE Russell, conducted the company disclosure research and analysis. InfluenceMap provided independent analysis of the company’s corporate climate lobbying practices (indicator 7).
The necessary time frame for companies to achieve net-zero GHG emissions differs depending on the sector.
Contingency: Metric 1.1b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless 1.1a is also ‘Yes’.
See Scope 3 Application for details.
Contingency: Metrics 2.2a and 2.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless sub-indicator 2.1 is also ‘Yes’. Sub-indicator 2.3 is not currently conditional on 2.1 or 2.2. Therefore, it is possible to have ‘No’ on 2.1 but ‘Yes’ on 2.3. Respectively, 2.1/2.2a/2.2b will be ‘Yes’ if 3.1/3.2a/3.2b are ‘Yes’ and are net-zero targets (i.e. net zero will be achieved in the medium term).
The intent is for the long-term target to be aligned with a trajectory to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot (equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net-zero emissions by 2050). If a company’s current emissions intensity is aligned with the assessment scenario used (or will be aligned in the short or medium term), it is assumed that the intensity will continue to be aligned in the long term.
This sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which applies the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA), a science-based method for companies to set GHG reduction targets necessary to stay within reference climate scenarios. Details related to this company’s Carbon Performance assessment conducted by TPI may be viewed here.
Contingency: Metrics 3.2a and 3.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless sub-indicator 3.1 is also ‘Yes’. Sub-indicator 3.3 is not currently conditional on 3.1 or 3.2. Therefore, it is possible to have ‘No’ on 3.1 but ‘Yes’ on 3.3. Respectively, 3.1/3.2a/3.2b will be ‘Yes’ if 4.1/4.2a/4.2b are ‘Yes’ and are net-zero targets (i.e. net zero will be achieved in the short term).
The intent is for the medium-term target to be aligned with a trajectory to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot (equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net-zero emissions by 2050). If a company’s current emissions intensity is aligned with the assessment scenario used (or will be aligned in the short term), it is assumed that the intensity will continue to be aligned in the medium term.
This sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which applies the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA), a science-based method for companies to set GHG reduction targets necessary to stay within reference climate scenarios. Details related to this company’s Carbon Performance assessment conducted by TPI may be viewed here.
Contingency: Metrics 4.2a and 4.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless sub-indicator 4.1 is also ‘Yes’. Sub-indicator 4.3 is not currently conditional on 4.1 or 4.2. Therefore, it is possible to have ‘No’ on 4.1 but ‘Yes’ on 4.3.
The intent is for the short-term target to be aligned with a trajectory to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot (equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net-zero emissions by 2050). If a company’s current emissions intensity is aligned with the assessment scenario used, it is assumed that the intensity will continue to be aligned in the short term.
This sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which applies the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA), a science-based method for companies to set GHG reduction targets necessary to stay within reference climate scenarios. Details related to this company’s Carbon Performance assessment conducted by TPI may be viewed here.
Contingency: Sub-indicator 5.1 is contingent on sub-indicators 2.1, 2.2 (long-term targets) and 3.1, 3.2 (medium-term targets) being ‘Yes’. Sub-indicator 5.1 is not conditional on 2.3 and/or 3.3 (net-zero alignment), i.e. 5.1 can be ‘Yes’ and 2.3/3.3 ‘No’.
The use of offsetting or carbon credits should be avoided and limited, if at all applied. Offsetting or ‘carbon dioxide removal’ should not be used by companies operating in sectors where viable decarbonisation technologies exist. For example, offsetting would not be considered credible if used to offset emissions for a coal-fired power plant because viable alternatives exist to coal-fired power plants.
Examples of key elements include: changing technology or product mix, supply chain measures, R&D spending, etc.
Currently sub-indicator 5.2 and related metrics only apply to focus companies headquartered in the European Union (E.U.).
The assessment will leverage the European Union’s Green Taxonomy criteria on ‘turnover’ (or revenues) for companies headquartered in the E.U. The criteria used to assess non-E.U. companies will be an ongoing area of development as part of broader discussions on the use of green revenue classification systems and regional taxonomies.
For focus list companies in the upstream oil and gas, electric utilities and automotive sectors, a supplementary assessment is available. See the Capital Allocation Assessment Indicators for further details on companies in these sectors.
Contingency: Metric 6.2a cannot be ‘Yes’ if either 6.1a or 6.1b are not ‘Yes’.
Contingency: Metric 7.3b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless metric 7.3a is also ‘Yes’. (i.e. 7.3.b should not be able to be ‘Yes’ unless 7.3.a is also ‘Yes’).
InfluenceMap provides detailed Paris-aligned analysis of corporate climate lobbying independently of the Climate Action 100+ Net-Zero Company Benchmark.
See the individual company profile here.
Explore InfluenceMap’s full ranking of Climate Action 100+ focus companies.
Contingency: Metric 8.2b is contingent on indicators 2.1 or 3.1 or 4.1 being ‘Yes’.
The company discloses evidence of board or board committee oversight of the management of climate change risks via at least one of the following:
- There is a C-suite executive or member of the executive committee that is explicitly responsible for climate change (not just sustainability performance) and that executive reports to the board or a board level committee, and/or;
- The CEO is responsible for climate change AND he/she reports to the board on climate change issues, and/or;
- There is a committee (not necessarily a board-level committee) responsible for climate change (not just sustainability performance) and that committee reports to the board or a board-level committee.
The company has named a position at the board level with responsibility for climate change, via one of the following:
- A board position with explicit responsibility for climate change, or;
- CEO is identified as responsible for climate change, if he/she sits on the board.
Sub-indicator 8.3 and its underlying metrics will not be assessed in the current cycle.
Contingency: Metric 10.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless metric 10.2a is also ‘Yes’.
Notes
*In the absence of a credible 1.5°C scenario, companies have been measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. Company assessments will be adjusted when a credible 1.5°C scenario becomes available.