ABOUT THE COMPANY ASSESSMENTS
The Net Zero Company Benchmark assesses the performance of focus companies against the Initiative’s three high-level goals: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving governance, and strengthening climate-related financial disclosures. The Benchmark contains two types of analyses, a Disclosure Framework and Alignment Assessments, which complement each other and provide insight into a company’s net zero emissions transition.
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 framework reflects publicly disclosed information as of 13th May 2022 and is assessed by the Transition Pathway Initiative. Download the disclosure framework methodology to learn more.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which applies the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.
When no explicit long term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.
For March and October 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the March 2021 release for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores may therefore not be directly comparable between Benchmark iterations.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.
When no explicit medium term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.
For March and October 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the March2021 assessment for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores may therefore be not directly comparable between Benchmark iterations.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s carbon performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.
When no explicit short term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.
For March and October 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the March 2021 assessment for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores may therefore not be directly comparable between Benchmark iterations.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Indicator 5 is sector neutral, assessing the key elements that should comprise any company decarbonisation strategy. See sector-specific expectations in the Climate Action 100+ Global Sector Strategies. Implementation approaches will be adapted regionally.
Offsets are now explicitly referred to in the methodology for Sub-indicator 5.1, which asks that any decarbonisation strategy “clearly identifies the set of actions the company will implement to achieve its decarbonisation targets (such as phasing out carbon intensive products or assets, developing or deploying low carbon technologies, decarbonising supply chains or using offsets).” Offsets will be an area for future development in the Net Zero Company Benchmark.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Examples of key elements include: changing technology or product mix, supply chain measures, R&D spending, etc.
Clarifications for meeting the requirements of Metric 5.1b have been added since the March 2021 iteration of the Net Zero Company Benchmark. In order to be assessed as “Yes” on this Metric in the March 2022 and October iterations, companies must quantify the approximate proportion of emissions reduction each action in their decarbonisation strategy will contribute to their overall greenhouse gas reduction target. Some year-on-year scoring changes are therefore anticipated. For more details, see the 2022 Disclosure Framework assessment methodology.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Currently Sub-indicator 5.2 and related Metrics only apply to focus companies headquartered on the European continent.
The assessment will leverage the European Union’s Green Taxonomy criteria on ‘turnover’ (or revenues) for companies headquartered in the European Economic Area or United Kingdom. The criteria used to assess non-European companies will be an ongoing area of development as part of broader discussions on the use of green revenue classification systems and regional taxonomies.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Clarifications have been added to Metric 6.1a to enable assessment of companies’ plans to phase out carbon intensive assets. Some year-on-year changes are therefore anticipated.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Clarifications have been added to Metric 6.1b to enable assessment of companies’ plans to phase out carbon intensive assets. Some year-on-year assessment changes are therefore anticipated.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Contingency: Metric 7.3b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 7.3a is also ‘Yes’.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
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.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Beta = data collected, but not publicly assessed. Subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
Contingency: Metric 10.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 10.2a is also ‘Yes’.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
Notes
Alignment Assessments (formerly called Capital Allocation Assessment Indicators) 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.
These assessments from Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) and the Climate Accounting and Audit Project (CAAP) evaluate whether a company’s financial statements and related disclosures, and the auditor’s report thereon, reflect the financial effects of climate risk and the global move onto a 2050 (or sooner) net zero greenhouse gas emissions pathway and the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C. The financial statements reviewed are as of 31 December 2021. Download CTI and CAAP’s Climate Accounting and Audit assessment methodology to learn more.
This assessment is provisional, meaning that information will be collected and publicly assessed as part of the October 2022 Benchmark Assessments, but the assessment framework will be subject to change in future iterations.
Green—At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on all Sub-indicators and Metrics that make up the indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on all Metrics that make up the Sub-indicator.
Amber— At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on at least one Metric that makes up the Indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on at least one Metric that makes up the Sub-indicator.
Red—At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘No’ on all Sub-indicators or Metrics that make up the indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a “No” for all Metrics that make up the Sub-indicator.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric is assessed independently from Metric 1a on how the company has considered climate matters. This Metric can be achieved by disclosing relevant climate-related quantitative inputs even if the company did not take climate into consideration for such inputs.
Examples of relevant assumptions and estimates include (but are not limited to): projected interim and long-term commodity prices used in forecasting revenues, for example oil, gas and coal prices; CO2 prices used in forecasting costs; cash flow growth rates; and/or estimated remaining useful lives, particularly of climate-exposed assets and related obligations.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This metric is contingent on Metric 1a. To be assessed as ’Yes’, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ for Metric 1a.
Other reporting includes other sections of the annual report (or similar filing) and may also include separate reporting such as sustainability reports, TCFD reports, analyst presentations, and the company’s website.
This Metric focuses on financial statements. The company’s other reporting on climate provides the context for evaluating the financial statements, but is not separately assessed.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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 on specific accounting topics. This Metric may also be achieved through reporting of how climate was considered in assessing risk and determining the audit approach.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric assesses the auditor’s consistency check. An inconsistency between the discussion of climate matters outside the financial statements and consideration in the financials could result in a material misstatement in reporting.
Information that comprises ‘other information’ is specified under the relevant auditing standards. If Metric 1c is assessed as ‘Yes’ this Metric will likely result in a ‘Yes’.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric focuses on the use of assumptions and estimates that are ‘best estimates’ of scenarios aligned with achieving net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner (‘aligned assumptions’), or the provision of a sensitivity analysis 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. This sets out a pathway to reach net zero emissions by mid-century and keep the global temperature rise to 1.5°C with a 50% probability. However, additional updated reference scenarios may become available over time.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric is independent of Metric 3a, as the auditor is asked to take an independent role in assessing the assumptions used by the company (either directly or through sensitivity analysis), or to indicate what reasonably-aligned assumptions would be and provide its own sensitivity analysis.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
These alignment assessments from the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) are made using the PACTA methodology and data provided by Asset Resolution. They analyse aviation companies’ passenger airline services and associated emissions intensities relative to selected climate change scenarios. The assessments give investors insights on the relative alignment of the company’s services with the Paris Agreement goals. Results are provided for both 2019 and 2022, in order to provide a pre-Covid19 pandemic baseline for passenger airline activity. Download RMI’s aviation assessment methodology to learn more.
Green—The company’s emissions intensity is aligned or close to being aligned with the 2030 scenario target taken from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero by 2050 Scenario (NZE) ( >15% reduction required).
Amber—The company’s emissions intensity is a moderate distance to being aligned and is on the pathway to meet the 2030 scenario target taken from the NZE (15-30% reduction required).
Red—The company’s emissions intensity is a significant distance (>30% reduction required) to being aligned and is not yet on the pathway to meet the 2030 scenario target taken from the NZE.
Aviation emissions intensity figures displayed are calculated for passenger air travel, based on 2019 company-level aircraft and flight data. The 2019 data is taken from the March 2022 Benchmark release and was originally provided by the 2 Degrees Investing Initiative.
Asset-based company level data for the aviation sector is based on the fuel consumption performance and the annual flight distances (based on real flight data) for the individual aircraft that form part of a company’s fleet. This data is used to calculate the emissions for each aircraft in an operator’s fleet, normalised to the passenger kilometres travelled and with a global average value used for seat occupation. The number of passengers carried is calculated using a global average value for flight seat occupation.
The weighted average results for all the operational aircraft in a company’s fleet are then calculated, with the weighting based on the annual passenger kilometres of each aircraft.
The greater the distance between the company’s current emissions intensity and the B2DS target for 2030, the greater the challenge for the company to align itself with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
This assessment evaluates the CO2 emissions per revenue passenger kilometre of each airline company in 2019 when compared to a target emissions intensity for passenger aviation in 2030 taken from the IEA’s B2DS.
B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.
The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.
B2DS Significant distance
Aviation emissions intensity figures displayed are calculated for passenger air travel, based on Q2 2022 company-level aircraft and flight data.
Asset-based company level data for the aviation sector is based on the fuel consumption performance and the annual flight distances (based on real flight data) for the individual aircraft that form part of a company’s fleet. This data is used to calculate the emissions for each aircraft in an operator’s fleet, normalised to the passenger kilometres travelled. The number of passengers carried is calculated using a global average value for flight seat occupation.
The weighted average results for all the operational aircraft in a company’s fleet are then calculated, with the weighting based on the annual passenger kilometres of each aircraft.
The greater the distance between the company’s current emissions intensity and the B2DS target for 2030, the greater the challenge for the company to align itself with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
This assessment evaluates the CO2 emissions per revenue passenger kilometre of each airline company in Q2 2022 when compared to a target emissions intensity for passenger aviation in 2030 taken from the IEA’s B2DS.
B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.
The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.
B2DS Significant distance
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 Paris Agreement goals. These scores reflect InfluenceMap’s assessment as of the 1st September 2022. Up-to-date scores, which are refreshed on a continual basis, can be found here. Download InfluenceMap’s climate policy engagement assessment methodology to learn more.
Organisation and Relationship Scores
- Green—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is above 75%. This indicates broad alignment with the Paris Agreement.
- Amber—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is between 50-74%. This indicates mixed engagement on climate policy.
- Red—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is below 50%. This indicates increasingly significant misalignment with the Paris Agreement as the percentage nears zero. Scores below 25% indicate material and significant opposition.
- Grey (Not applicable)—The company’s Organisation Score is not applicable when its Engagement Intensity score is below 5%. The company’s Relationship Score is not applicable when it does not maintain significant links to industry associations actively influencing climate policy (as per InfluenceMap’s current database).
Engagement Intensity Score
- Above 25% indicates increasingly active and strategic policy engagement as the percentage nears 100%, with the highest Climate Action 100+ companies currently scoring around 60%.
- Above 12% indicates active policy engagement.
- Between 5-12% indicates a moderate level of climate policy engagement.
- Below 5% indicates low-level engagement with climate policy.
Organisation Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct engagement is with climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
The level of company support for (or opposition to) Paris-aligned climate policy.
50%
Relationship Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are towards climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
This calculation accommodates an assessment of the strength of the relationship between a company and an industry association, for example a stronger weighting will be attributed where a company has a representative on the board of an industry association.
The level of a company’s industry associations’ support for (or opposition to) Paris-aligned climate policy.
36%
Engagement Intensity (expressed as a percentage score from 0 to 100) is a measure of the level of policy engagement by the company, whether positive or negative.
The level of a company’s direct climate policy engagement (positive or negative).
Notes
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 framework reflects publicly disclosed information as of December 31, 2021 and is assessed by the Transition Pathway Initiative. Download the disclosure framework methodology to learn more.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.
When no explicit long term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.
For 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the 2021 release for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores are therefore not directly comparable between years.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s carbon performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.
When no explicit medium term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.
For 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the 2021 release for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores are therefore not directly comparable between years.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s carbon performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.
When no explicit short term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.
For 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the 2021 release for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores are therefore not directly comparable between years.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Indicator 5 is sector neutral, assessing the key elements that should comprise any company decarbonisation strategy. Sector-specific expectations can be found in the Climate Action 100+ Global Sector Strategies. Implementation approaches will be adapted regionally.
Offsets are now explicitly referred to in the methodology for Sub-indicator 5.1, which asks that any decarbonisation strategy “clearly identifies the set of actions the company will implement to achieve its decarbonisation targets (such as phasing out carbon intensive products or assets, developing or deploying low carbon technologies, decarbonising supply chains or using offsets).”
Offsets will be an area for future development in the Net Zero Company Benchmark.
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
Examples of key elements include: changing technology or product mix, supply chain measures, R&D spending, etc.
Clarifications for meeting the requirements of Metric 5.1b have been added since the March 2021 iteration of the Net Zero Company Benchmark. In order to be assessed as “Yes” on this Metric in the March 2022 iteration, companies must quantify the approximate proportion of emissions reduction each action in their decarbonisation strategy will contribute to their overall greenhouse gas reduction target. Some year-on-year scoring changes are therefore anticipated. For more details, see the 2022 Disclosure Framework assessment methodology.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Currently Sub-indicator 5.2 and related Metrics only apply to focus companies headquartered on the European continent.
The assessment will leverage the European Union’s Green Taxonomy criteria on ‘turnover’ (or revenues) for companies headquartered on the European continent. The criteria used to assess non-European companies will be an ongoing area of development as part of broader discussions on the use of green revenue classification systems and regional taxonomies.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Clarifications have been added to Metric 6.1a to enable assessment of companies’ plans to phase out carbon intensive assets. Some year-on-year changes are therefore anticipated.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Clarifications have been added to Metric 6.1b to enable assessment of companies’ plans to phase out carbon intensive assets. Some year-on-year assessment changes are therefore anticipated.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Contingency: Metric 7.3b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 7.3a is also ‘Yes’.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
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.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Beta = data collected, but not publicly assessed. Subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Contingency: Metric 10.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 10.2a is also ‘Yes’.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Notes
Alignment Assessments (formerly called Capital Allocation Assessment Indicators) 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.
These assessments from Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) and the Climate Accounting and Audit Project (CAAP) evaluate whether a company’s financial statements and related disclosures, and the auditor’s report thereon, reflect the financial effects of climate risk and the global move onto a 2050 (or sooner) net zero greenhouse gas emissions pathway and the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C. This assessment is provisional, meaning that information will be collected and publicly assessed as part of the March 2022 Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark, but the assessment framework will be subject to change in future iterations.
The financial statements reviewed are as of 31 December 2020.
Download CTI and CAAP’s Climate Accounting and Audit assessment methodology to learn more.
Green—At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on all Sub-indicators and Metrics that make up the indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on all Metrics that make up the Sub-indicator.
Amber— At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on at least one Metric that makes up the Indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on at least one Metric that makes up the Sub-indicator.
Red—At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘No’ on all Sub-indicators or Metrics that make up the indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a “No” for all Metrics that make up the Sub-indicator.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric is assessed independently from Metric 1a on how the company has considered climate matters. This Metric can be achieved by disclosing relevant climate-related quantitative inputs even if the company did not take climate into consideration for such inputs.
Examples of relevant assumptions and estimates include (but are not limited to): projected interim and long-term commodity prices used in forecasting revenues, for example oil, gas and coal prices; CO2 prices used in forecasting costs; cash flow growth rates; and/or estimated remaining useful lives, particularly of climate-exposed assets and related obligations.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This metric is contingent on Metric 1a. To be assessed as ’Yes’, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ for Metric 1a.
Other reporting includes other sections of the annual report (or similar filing) and may also include separate reporting such as sustainability reports, TCFD reports, analyst presentations, and the company’s website.
This Metric focuses on financial statements. The company’s other reporting on climate provides the context for evaluating the financial statements, but is not separately assessed.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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 on specific accounting topics. This Metric may also be achieved through reporting of how climate was considered in assessing risk and determining the audit approach.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric assesses the auditor’s consistency check. An inconsistency between the discussion of climate matters outside the financial statements and consideration in the financials could result in a material misstatement in reporting.
Information that comprises ‘other information’ is specified under the relevant auditing standards. If Metric 1c is assessed as ‘Yes’ this Metric will likely result in a ‘Yes’.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric focuses on the use of assumptions and estimates that are ‘best estimates’ of scenarios aligned with achieving net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner (‘aligned assumptions’), or the provision of a sensitivity analysis 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. This sets out a pathway to reach net zero emissions by mid-century and keep the global temperature rise to 1.5°C with a 50% probability. However, additional updated reference scenarios may become available over time.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
This Metric is independent of Metric 3a, as the auditor is asked to take an independent role in assessing the assumptions used by the company (either directly or through sensitivity analysis), or to indicate what reasonably-aligned assumptions would be and provide its own sensitivity analysis.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
These alignment assessments from the 2 Degrees Investing Initiative (2DII) are made using the PACTA methodology and data provided by Asset Resolution. They analyse aviation companies’ passenger airline services and associated emissions intensities relative to selected climate change scenarios. The assessments give investors insights on the relative alignment of the company’s services with the Paris Agreement goals. Results are provided for both 2019 and 2021, in order to provide a pre-Covid19 pandemic baseline for passenger airline activity. Download 2DII’s assessment methodology to learn more.
Green—The company’s emissions intensity is aligned or close to being aligned with the 2030 scenario target taken from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS) (+ or – 15%).
Amber—The company’s emissions intensity is a moderate distance to being aligned and is on the pathway to meet the 2030 scenario target taken from the B2DS (15-30% reduction required).
Red—The company’s emissions intensity is a significant distance (>30% reduction required) to being aligned and is not yet on the pathway to meet the 2030 scenario target taken from the B2DS.
Aviation emissions intensity figures displayed are calculated for passenger air travel, based on 2019 company-level aircraft and flight data.
Asset-backed company level data for the aviation sector is based on the fuel consumption performance and the annual flight distances (based on real flight data) for the individual aircraft that form part of a company’s fleet. This data is used to calculate the emissions for each aircraft in an operator’s fleet, normalised to the passenger kilometres travelled and with a global average value used for seat occupation. The number of passengers carried is calculated using a global average value for flight seat occupation.
The weighted average results for all the operational aircraft in a company’s fleet are then calculated, with the weighting based on the annual passenger kilometres of each aircraft.
The greater the distance between the company’s current emissions intensity and the B2DS target for 2030, the greater the challenge for the company to align itself with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
This assessment evaluates the CO2 emissions per revenue passenger kilometre of each airline company in 2019 when compared to a target emissions intensity for passenger aviation in 2030 taken from the IEA’s B2DS.
B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.
The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.
Significant distance
Aviation emissions intensity figures displayed are calculated for passenger air travel, based on 2021 company-level aircraft and flight data.
Asset-backed company level data for the aviation sector is based on the fuel consumption performance and the annual flight distances (based on real flight data) for the individual aircraft that form part of a company’s fleet. This data is used to calculate the emissions for each aircraft in an operator’s fleet, normalised to the passenger kilometres travelled. The number of passengers carried is calculated using a global average value for flight seat occupation.
The weighted average results for all the operational aircraft in a company’s fleet are then calculated, with the weighting based on the annual passenger kilometres of each aircraft.
The greater the distance between the company’s current emissions intensity and the B2DS target for 2030, the greater the challenge for the company to align itself with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
This assessment evaluates the CO2 emissions per revenue passenger kilometre of each airline company in 2021 when compared to a target emissions intensity for passenger aviation in 2030 taken from the IEA’s B2DS.
B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.
The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.
Significant distance
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 Paris Agreement goals. These scores reflect InfluenceMap’s assessment as of 24 January 2022.Up-to-date scores, which are refreshed on a continual basis, can be found here. Download InfluenceMap’s climate policy engagement assessment methodology to learn more.
Organisation and Relationship Scores
- Green—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is above 75%. This indicates broad alignment with the Paris Agreement.
- Amber—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is between 50-74%. This indicates mixed engagement on climate policy.
- Red—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is below 50%. This indicates increasingly significant misalignment with the Paris Agreement as the percentage nears zero. Scores below 25% indicate material and significant opposition.
- Grey (Not applicable)—The company’s Organisation Score is not applicable when its Engagement Intensity score is below 5%. The company’s Relationship Score is not applicable when it does not maintain significant links to industry associations actively influencing climate policy (as per InfluenceMap’s current database).
Engagement Intensity Score
- Above 25% indicates increasingly active and strategic policy engagement as the percentage nears 100%, with the highest Climate Action 100+ companies currently scoring around 60%.
- Above 12% indicates active policy engagement.
- Between 5-12% indicates a moderate level of climate policy engagement.
- Below 5% indicates low-level engagement with climate policy.
Organisation Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct engagement is with climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
See scoring rules above for more details.
The level of company support for (or opposition to) Paris-aligned climate policy.
44%
Relationship Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are towards climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
This calculation accommodates an assessment of the strength of the relationship between a company and an industry association, for example a stronger weighting will be attributed where a company has a representative on the board of an industry association.
See scoring rules above for more details.
The level of a company’s industry associations’ support for (or opposition to) Paris-aligned climate policy.
37%
Engagement Intensity (expressed as a percentage score from 0 to 100) is a measure of the level of policy engagement by the company, whether positive or negative.
See scoring rules above for more details.
The level of a company’s direct climate policy engagement (positive or negative).
Notes
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).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
See Scope 3 Application for details.
NOT APPLICABLE
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NOT APPLICABLE
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Examples of key elements include: changing technology or product mix, supply chain measures, R&D spending, etc.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
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.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
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.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
Sub-indicator 8.3 and its underlying metrics will not be assessed in the current cycle.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
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.