COMPANY ASSESSMENT

Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco)

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.

1.1
The company has set an ambition to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has made a qualitative net zero GHG emissions ambition statement that explicitly includes at least 95% of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company’s net zero GHG emissions ambition covers the most relevant Scope 3 GHG emissions categories for the company’s sector, where applicable.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

2.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2036 and 2050 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
2.2
The long-term (2036 to 2050) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
2.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

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

3.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2026 and 2035 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
3.2
The medium-term (2026 to 2035) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
3.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

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

4.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions up to 2025 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
4.2
The short-term (up to 2025) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
4.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

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.

5.1
The company has a decarbonisation strategy that explains how it intends to meet its long and medium-term GHG reduction targets.

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
a
The company identifies the set of actions it intends to take to achieve its GHG reduction targets over the targeted timeframe. These measures clearly refer to the main sources of its GHG emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company quantifies key elements of this strategy with respect to the major sources of its emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable.

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
5.2
The company’s decarbonisation strategy (target delivery) specifies the role of ‘green revenues’ from low carbon products and services.

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
a
The company already generates ‘green revenues’ and discloses their share in overall sales.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has set a target to increase the share of ‘green revenues’ in its overall sales OR discloses the ‘green revenue’ share that is above sector average.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

6.1
The company is working to decarbonise its capital expenditures.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with its long-term GHG reduction target OR to phase out planned expenditure in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.

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
b
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius AND to phase out investment in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.

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
6.2
The company discloses the methodology used to determine the Paris alignment of its future capital expenditures.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company discloses the methodology and criteria it uses to assess the alignment of its capital expenditure plans with its decarbonisation goals, including key assumptions and key performance indicators (KPIs).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The methodology quantifies key outcomes, including the percentage share of its capital expenditures that is invested in carbon intensive assets or products, and the year in which capital expenditures in such assets will peak.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

7.1
The company has a Paris Agreement-aligned climate lobbying position and all of its direct lobbying activities are aligned with this.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment/position statement to conduct all of its lobbying in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company lists its climate-related lobbying activities, e.g. meetings, policy submissions, etc.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
7.2
The company has Paris Agreement-aligned lobbying expectations for its trade associations, and it discloses its trade association memberships.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment to ensure that the trade associations the company is a member of lobby in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company discloses its trade associations memberships.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
7.3
The company has a process to ensure its trade associations lobby in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company conducts and publishes a review of its trade associations’ climate positions/alignment with the Paris Agreement.

Contingency: Metric 7.3b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 7.3a is also ‘Yes’.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company explains what actions it took as a result of this review.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

8.1
The company’s board has clear oversight of climate change.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a

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. 

 

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b

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
8.2
The company’s executive remuneration scheme incorporates climate change performance elements.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements specifically incorporate climate change performance as a KPI determining performance-linked compensation (reference to ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainability performance’ are insufficient).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements incorporate progress towards achieving the company’s GHG reduction targets as a KPI determining performance linked compensation (requires meeting relevant target indicators 2, 3, and/or 4).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
8.3
The board has sufficient capabilities/competencies to assess and manage climate related risks and opportunities. [Beta]

Beta = data collected, but not publicly assessed. Subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.

NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has assessed its board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and discloses the results of the assessment.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company provides details on the criteria it uses to assess the board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and/or the measures it is taking to enhance these competencies.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

9.1
Acknowledgement
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has made a formal statement recognising the social impacts of their climate change strategy—the Just Transition—as a relevant issue for its business.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has explicitly referenced the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and/or the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO’s) Just Transition Guidelines).
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.2
Commitment: The company has committed to Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has published a policy committing it to decarbonise in line with Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has committed to retain, retrain, redeploy and/or compensate workers affected by decarbonisation.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.3
Engagement: The company engages with its stakeholders on Just Transition.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company, in partnership with its workers, unions, communities and suppliers has developed a Just Transition Plan.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.4
Action: The company commits to a decarbonisation strategy in line with Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company supports low-carbon initiatives (e.g. regeneration, access to clean and affordable energy, site repurposing) in regions affected by decarbonisation.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company ensures that its decarbonisation efforts and new projects are developed in consultation with and seek the consent of affected communities.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
c
The company takes action to support financially vulnerable customers that are adversely affected by the company’s decarbonisation strategy.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

10.1
The company has committed to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align its disclosures with the TCFD recommendations OR it is listed as a supporter on the TCFD website.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company explicitly sign-posts TCFD aligned disclosures in its annual reporting or publishes them in a TCFD report.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
10.2
The company employs climate-scenario planning to test its strategic and operational resilience.

Contingency: Metric 10.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 10.2a is also ‘Yes’.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has conducted a climate-related scenario analysis including quantitative elements and disclosed its results.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The quantitative scenario analysis explicitly includes a 1.5° Celsius scenario, covers the entire company, discloses key assumptions and variables used, and reports on the key risks and opportunities identified.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

Notes

The following new disclosure(s) are relevant to the Climate Action 100+ NetZero Company Benchmark, have been made after the May 13, 2022 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. 

  • 6.15.2022: Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) sustainability report details its next steps towards operational netzero ambition: (i) goal to reduce Upstream carbon intensity by at least 15% by 2035, against 2018 baseline; (ii) greenhouse gas emission initiatives aim to reduce or mitigate more than 50 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually by 2035; (iii) goal to capture, utilize or store 11 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually by 2035; (iv) company aims to produce 11 million metric tons per year of blue ammonia, a carrier of blue hydrogen, by 2030, supporting emissions reduction in hard-to-decarbonize sectors; (v) renewables investment aims to generate 12GW of solar and wind power by 2030.  

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.

See scoring rules

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.

Climate Accounting and Audit (Overall Score)
1
The audited financial statements and notes thereto incorporate material climate-related matters.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The financial statements demonstrate how material climate-related matters are incorporated.

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
b
The financial statements disclose the quantitative climate-related assumptions and estimates.

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
c
The financial statements are consistent with the company’s other reporting.

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
2
The audit report demonstrates that the auditor considered the effects of material climate-related matters in its audit.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The audit report identifies how the auditor has assessed the material impacts of climate-related matters.

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
b
The audit report identifies inconsistencies between the financial statements and ‘other information’.

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
3
The audited financial statements and notes thereto incorporate the material impacts of the global drive to net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 (or sooner) which for the purpose of this assessment is considered to be equivalent to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The financial statements use, or disclose a sensitivity to, assumptions and estimates that are aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner).

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
b
The audit report identifies that the assumptions and estimates that the company used were aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner) or provides a sensitivity analysis on the potential implications.

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 Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) analyse upstream oil and gas companies’ potential capital expenditures (CAPEX) for unsanctioned carbon-emitting assets relative to a range of climate change scenarios. Unsanctioned projects are at a pre-final investment decision (pre-FID) stage, meaning they sit before the full project-related CAPEX commitment has been made. The project can therefore be paused or scrapped without incurring full project-related costs. The analyses give investors insights on the relative adequacy and alignment of company actions with the Paris Agreement goals.

These assessments reflect companies’ publicly disclosed information and impairment prices in annual reports up until 30 June 2022 and with oil and gas CAPEX model data from Rystad Energy as of May 2022. Download CTI’s oil and gas assessment methodology to learn more.

See scoring rules

COMPANY’S RECENT ACTIONS

  • Green—Yes, all the company’s upstream oil and gas CAPEX projects in the most recent full year were consistent with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS).
  • Red—No, not all of the company’s upstream oil and gas CAPEX projects in the most recent full year were consistent with B2DS.

CAPEX ANALYSIS

  • Green—0% of the company’s potential future unsanctioned CAPEX is inconsistent with the IEA’s B2DS.
  • Amber—1-25% of the company’s potential future unsanctioned CAPEX is inconsistent with B2DS.
  • Red—More than 25% of the company’s potential future unsanctioned CAPEX is inconsistent with B2DS.

IMPAIRMENT PRICE ASSESSMENT

  • Green—The company’s commodity price forecasts are flat or decreasing and the maximum price in those forecasts is below the average for Climate Action 100+ focus companies.
  • Amber—The company’s commodity price forecasts are flat or convex and the maximum price in those forecasts is above the average for Climate Action 100+ focus companies.
  • Red—The company’s commodity price forecasts are flat or increasing and the maximum price in those forecasts is above the average for Climate Action 100+ focus companies.  Alternatively, there is not enough information disclosed on the company’s commodity price forecasts.

NET ZERO ANALYSIS

  • Green—The company’s production level decline in the 2030s relative to a 2021 baseline is 0-10%.
  • Amber—The company’s production level decline in the 2030s relative to a 2021 baseline is 11-25%.
  • Red—The company’s production level decline in the 2030s relative to a 2021 baseline is 26-100%.
1
COMPANY'S RECENT ACTIONS: In the most recent full year (2020), were all the company’s upstream oil and gas CAPEX projects consistent with the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS)?

Companies that sanctioned CAPEX opportunities inconsistent with B2DS in the most recent full year are more likely to create stranded upstream assets.

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.

YES
2
CAPEX ANALYSIS: What percentage of the company's potential future (2021-2030) unsanctioned oil and gas CAPEX is inconsistent with the IEA's B2DS?

The higher the percentage of CAPEX opportunities inconsistent with B2DS, the more exposed the company is to invest in and create stranded upstream assets.

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.

52%
3
IMPAIRMENT PRICE ASSESSMENT: (1) Are the company's commodity price forecasts increasing, decreasing, flat or convex? and (2) what is the maximum price in the company’s commodity price forecast? (shown in 2020 real terms Brent equivalent US$ prices).

Companies with more aggressive commodity price assumptions (e.g., forecasting prolonged periods of rising future oil and gas prices and high maximum prices) are more likely to sanction projects at risk of becoming stranded in a carbon emissions constrained world.

This assessment analyses the company’s commodity price outlook to identify what commodity risks have been priced into its upstream asset base. The impairment price is a proxy for management’s internal commodity price assumptions used for strategic planning.

Not Disclosed
4
NET ZERO ANALYSIS: What is the company’s oil and gas production level in the 2030s (against a 2021 baseline) assuming no new oil and gas projects are sanctioned as stated by the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE)?

The larger the decline in the company’s current oil and gas production in a world transitioning to meet the higher-end goal of the Paris Agreement, the larger the strategic challenge for the company to replace earnings and cash flow generation.

This assessment analyses the company’s production and operational exposure in a world aligned with the IEA’s NZE, i.e., where no new oil and gas projects should be sanctioned.

NZE is an accelerated decarbonisation pathway, equivalent to 1.5°C of global warming in this century with a 50% probability and little overshoot (i.e., early emissions reductions and limited reliance on post-2050 negative emissions). As the name suggests, net zero emissions is reached by 2050.

-16%

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.

See scoring rules

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 (0-100%)

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.

44%
Relationship Score (0-100%)

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.

33%
Engagement Intensity Score (0-100%)

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).

9%

Notes

Saudi Aramco is headquartered in Saudi Arabia where InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap platform can currently only make a provisional assessment of corporate climate policy engagement activities. Also, Saudi Aramco is a listed company with more than 50% of its shares owned by the state. State-owned enterprises may utilise climate policy engagement channels that are not available to fully investor-owned entities. These engagement channels are not covered by the LobbyMap system. For more information, see Saudi Aramco’s full LobbyMap profile.

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.

1.1
The company has set an ambition to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has made a qualitative net zero GHG emissions ambition statement that explicitly includes at least 95% of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company’s net zero GHG emissions ambition covers the most relevant Scope 3 GHG emissions categories for the company’s sector, where applicable.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

2.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2036 and 2050 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
2.2
The long-term (2036 to 2050) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
2.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

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

3.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2026 and 2035 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
3.2
The medium-term (2026 to 2035) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
3.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

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

4.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions up to 2025 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
4.2
The short-term (up to 2025) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
4.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

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.

5.1
The company has a decarbonisation strategy that explains how it intends to meet its long and medium-term GHG reduction targets.

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
a
The company identifies the set of actions it intends to take to achieve its GHG reduction targets over the targeted timeframe. These measures clearly refer to the main sources of its GHG emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company quantifies key elements of this strategy with respect to the major sources of its emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable.

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
5.2
The company’s decarbonisation strategy (target delivery) specifies the role of ‘green revenues’ from low carbon products and services.

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
a
The company already generates ‘green revenues’ and discloses their share in overall sales.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has set a target to increase the share of ‘green revenues’ in its overall sales OR discloses the ‘green revenue’ share that is above sector average.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

6.1
The company is working to decarbonise its capital expenditures.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with its long-term GHG reduction target OR to phase out planned expenditure in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.

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
b
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius AND to phase out investment in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.

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
6.2
The company discloses the methodology used to determine the Paris alignment of its future capital expenditures.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company discloses the methodology and criteria it uses to assess the alignment of its capital expenditure plans with its decarbonisation goals, including key assumptions and key performance indicators (KPIs).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The methodology quantifies key outcomes, including the percentage share of its capital expenditures that is invested in carbon intensive assets or products, and the year in which capital expenditures in such assets will peak.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

7.1
The company has a Paris Agreement-aligned climate lobbying position and all of its direct lobbying activities are aligned with this.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment/position statement to conduct all of its lobbying in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company lists its climate-related lobbying activities, e.g. meetings, policy submissions, etc.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
7.2
The company has Paris Agreement-aligned lobbying expectations for its trade associations, and it discloses its trade association memberships.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment to ensure that the trade associations the company is a member of lobby in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company discloses its trade associations memberships.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
7.3
The company has a process to ensure its trade associations lobby in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company conducts and publishes a review of its trade associations’ climate positions/alignment with the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company explains what actions it took as a result of this review.

Contingency: Metric 7.3b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 7.3a is also ‘Yes’.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

8.1
The company’s board has clear oversight of climate change.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a

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. 

 

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b

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
8.2
The company’s executive remuneration scheme incorporates climate change performance elements.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements specifically incorporate climate change performance as a KPI determining performance-linked compensation (reference to ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainability performance’ are insufficient).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements incorporate progress towards achieving the company’s GHG reduction targets as a KPI determining performance linked compensation (requires meeting relevant target indicators 2, 3, and/or 4).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
8.3
The board has sufficient capabilities/competencies to assess and manage climate related risks and opportunities. [Beta]

Beta = data collected, but not publicly assessed. Subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.

NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has assessed its board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and discloses the results of the assessment.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company provides details on the criteria it uses to assess the board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and/or the measures it is taking to enhance these competencies.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

9.1
Acknowledgement
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has made a formal statement recognising the social impacts of their climate change strategy—the Just Transition—as a relevant issue for its business.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has explicitly referenced the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and/or the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO’s) Just Transition Guidelines).
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.2
Commitment: The company has committed to Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has published a policy committing it to decarbonise in line with Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has committed to retain, retrain, redeploy and/or compensate workers affected by decarbonisation.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.3
Engagement: The company engages with its stakeholders on Just Transition.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company, in partnership with its workers, unions, communities and suppliers has developed a Just Transition Plan.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.4
Action: The company commits to a decarbonisation strategy in line with Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company supports low-carbon initiatives (e.g. regeneration, access to clean and affordable energy, site repurposing) in regions affected by decarbonisation.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company ensures that its decarbonisation efforts and new projects are developed in consultation with and seek the consent of affected communities.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
c
The company takes action to support financially vulnerable customers that are adversely affected by the company’s decarbonisation strategy.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

10.1
The company has committed to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align its disclosures with the TCFD recommendations OR it is listed as a supporter on the TCFD website.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company explicitly sign-posts TCFD aligned disclosures in its annual reporting or publishes them in a TCFD report.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
10.2
The company employs climate-scenario planning to test its strategic and operational resilience.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has conducted a climate-related scenario analysis including quantitative elements and disclosed its results.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The quantitative scenario analysis explicitly includes a 1.5° Celsius scenario, covers the entire company, discloses key assumptions and variables used, and reports on the key risks and opportunities identified.

Contingency: Metric 10.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 10.2a is also ‘Yes’.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

Notes

The following new disclosure(s) are relevant to the Climate Action 100+ Net-Zero Company Benchmark and have been made after the December 31st 2021 cut-off for Benchmark assessments 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. 

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.

See scoring rules

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.

Climate Accounting and Audit (Overall Score)
1
The audited financial statements and notes thereto incorporate material climate-related matters.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The financial statements demonstrate how material climate-related matters are incorporated.

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
b
The financial statements disclose the quantitative climate-related assumptions and estimates.

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
c
The financial statements are consistent with the company’s other reporting.

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
2
The audit report demonstrates that the auditor considered the effects of material climate-related matters in its audit.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The audit report identifies how the auditor has assessed the material impacts of climate-related matters.

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
b
The audit report identifies inconsistencies between the financial statements and ‘other information’.

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
3
The audited financial statements and notes thereto incorporate the material impacts of the global drive to net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 (or sooner) which for the purpose of this assessment is considered to be equivalent to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The financial statements use, or disclose a sensitivity to, assumptions and estimates that are aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner).

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
b
The audit report identifies that the assumptions and estimates that the company used were aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner) or provides a sensitivity analysis on the potential implications.

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 Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) analyse upstream oil and gas companies’ potential capital expenditures (CAPEX) for unsanctioned carbon-emitting assets relative to a range of climate change scenarios. Unsanctioned projects are at a pre-final investment decision (pre-FID) stage, meaning they sit before the full project-related CAPEX commitment has been made. The project can therefore be paused or scrapped without incurring full project-related costs. The analyses give investors insights on the relative adequacy and alignment of company actions with the Paris Agreement goals.

These assessments reflect companies’ publicly disclosed information and impairment prices in annual reports up until 30 June 2021 and with oil and gas CAPEX model data from Rystad Energy as of March 2021.

Download CTI’s oil and gas assessment methodology to learn more.

See scoring rules

1. COMPANY’S RECENT ACTIONS

  • Green—Yes, all the company’s upstream oil and gas CAPEX projects in the most recent full year were consistent with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS).
  • Red—No, not all of the company’s upstream oil and gas CAPEX projects in the most recent full year were consistent with B2DS.

2. CAPEX ANALYSIS

  • Green—0% of the company’s potential future unsanctioned CAPEX is inconsistent with the IEA’s B2DS.
  • Amber—1-25% of the company’s potential future unsanctioned CAPEX is inconsistent with B2DS.
  • Red—More than 25% of the company’s potential future unsanctioned CAPEX is inconsistent with B2DS.

3. IMPAIRMENT PRICE ASSESSMENT

  • Green—The company’s commodity price forecasts are flat or decreasing and the maximum price in those forecasts is below the average for Climate Action 100+ focus companies.
  • Amber—The company’s commodity price forecasts are flat or convex and the maximum price in those forecasts is above the average for Climate Action 100+ focus companies.
  • Red—The company’s commodity price forecasts are flat or increasing and the maximum price in those forecasts is above the average for Climate Action 100+ focus companies.  Alternatively, there is not enough information disclosed on the company’s commodity price forecasts.

3. NET ZERO ANALYSIS

  • Green—The company’s production level decline in the 2030s relative to a 2021 baseline is 0-10%.
  • Amber—The company’s production level decline in the 2030s relative to a 2021 baseline is 11-25%.
  • Red—The company’s production level decline in the 2030s relative to a 2021 baseline is 26-100%.
1
COMPANY'S RECENT ACTIONS: In the most recent full year (2020), were all the company’s upstream oil and gas CAPEX projects consistent with the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS)?

Companies that sanctioned CAPEX opportunities inconsistent with B2DS in the most recent full year are more likely to create stranded upstream assets. 

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.

No
2
CAPEX ANALYSIS: What percentage of the company's potential future (2021-2030) unsanctioned oil and gas CAPEX is inconsistent with the IEA's B2DS?

The higher the percentage of CAPEX opportunities inconsistent with B2DS, the more exposed the company is to invest in and create stranded upstream assets. 

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.

57%
3
IMPAIRMENT PRICE ASSESSMENT: (1) Are the company's commodity price forecasts increasing, decreasing, flat or convex? and (2) what is the maximum price in the company’s commodity price forecast? (shown in 2020 real terms Brent equivalent US$ prices).

Companies with more aggressive commodity price assumptions (e.g., forecasting prolonged periods of rising future oil and gas prices and high maximum prices) are more likely to sanction projects at risk of becoming stranded in a carbon emissions constrained world. 

This assessment analyses the company’s commodity price outlook to identify what commodity risks have been priced into its upstream asset base. The impairment price is a proxy for management’s internal commodity price assumptions used for strategic planning.

Not Disclosed
4
NET ZERO ANALYSIS: What is the company’s oil and gas production level in the 2030s (against a 2021 baseline) assuming no new oil and gas projects are sanctioned as stated by the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE)?

The larger the decline in the company’s current oil and gas production in a world transitioning to meet the higher-end goal of the Paris Agreement, the larger the strategic challenge for the company to replace earnings and cash flow generation.

This assessment analyses the company’s production and operational exposure in a world aligned with the IEA’s NZE, i.e., where no new oil and gas projects should be sanctioned.

NZE is an accelerated decarbonisation pathway, equivalent to 1.5°C of global warming in this century with a 50% probability and little overshoot (i.e., early emissions reductions and limited reliance on post-2050 negative emissions). As the name suggests, net zero emissions is reached by 2050.

14%

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.

See scoring rules

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 (0-100%)

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.

45%
Relationship Score (0-100%)

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.

42%
Engagement Intensity Score (0-100%)

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).

10%

Notes

Saudi Aramco is headquartered in Saudi Arabia where InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap platform can currently only make a provisional assessment of corporate climate policy engagement activities. Also, Saudi Aramco is a listed company with more than 50% of its shares owned by the state. State-owned enterprises may utilise climate policy engagement channels that are not available to fully investor-owned entities. These engagement channels are not covered by the LobbyMap system.

1.1
The company has set an ambition to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner.
a
The company has made a qualitative net-zero GHG emissions ambition statement that explicitly includes at least 95% of scope 1 and 2 emissions.
b
The company’s net-zero GHG emissions ambition covers the most relevant scope 3 GHG emissions categories for the company’s sector, where applicable.

2.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2036 and 2050 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
2.2
The long-term (2036 to 2050) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions.
b
If the company has set a scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any scope 3 target.
2.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company's latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.*

3.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2026 and 2035 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
3.2
The medium-term (2026 to 2035) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions.
b
If the company has set a scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any scope 3 target.
3.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company's latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.*

4.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions up to 2025 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
4.2
The short-term (up to 2025) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions.
b
If the company has set a scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any scope 3 target.
4.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company's latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.*

5.1
The company has a decarbonisation strategy to meet its long and medium-term GHG reduction targets.
a
The company identifies the set of actions it intends to take to achieve its GHG reduction targets over the targeted time frame. These measures clearly refer to the main sources of its GHG emissions, including scope 3 emissions where applicable.
b
The company quantifies key elements of this strategy with respect to the major sources of its emissions, including scope 3 emissions where applicable.
5.2
The company’s decarbonisation strategy includes a commitment to ‘green revenues’ from low carbon products and services.
a
The company already generates ‘green revenues’ and discloses their share in overall sales.
b
The company has set a target to increase the share of ‘green revenues’ in its overall sales OR discloses the ‘green revenue’ share that is above sector average.

6.1
The company is working to decarbonise its future capital expenditures.
a
The company explicitly commits to align future capital expenditures with its long-term GHG reduction target(s).
b
The company explicitly commits to align future capital expenditures with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius.
6.2
The company discloses the methodology used to determine the Paris alignment of its future capital expenditures.
a
The company discloses the methodology it uses to align its future capital expenditures with its decarbonisation goals, including key assumptions and key performance indicators (KPIs).
b
The methodology quantifies key outcomes, including the share of its future capital expenditures that are aligned with a 1.5° Celsius scenario, and the year in which capital expenditures in carbon intensive assets will peak.

7.1
The company has a Paris-Agreement-aligned climate lobbying position and all of its direct lobbying activities are aligned with this.
a
The company has a specific commitment/position statement to conduct all of its lobbying in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
b
The company lists its climate-related lobbying activities, e.g., meetings, policy submissions, etc.
7.2
The company has Paris-Agreement-aligned lobbying expectations for its trade associations, and it discloses its trade association memberships.
a
The company has a specific commitment to ensure that the trade associations the company is a member of lobby in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
b
The company discloses its trade associations memberships.
7.3
The company has a process to ensure its trade associations lobby in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
a
The company conducts and publishes a review of its trade associations’ climate positions/alignment with the Paris Agreement.
b
The company explains what actions it took as a result of this review.

8.1
The company’s board has clear oversight of climate change.
a

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.

 

b

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.

 

8.2
The company’s executive remuneration scheme incorporates climate change performance elements.
a
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements specifically incorporate climate change performance as a KPI determining performance-linked compensation (reference to ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainability performance’ are insufficient).
b
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements incorporate progress towards achieving the company’s GHG reduction targets as a KPI determining performance linked compensation (requires meeting relevant target indicators 2, 3, and/or 4).
8.3
The board has sufficient capabilities/competencies to assess and manage climate related risks and opportunities.
a
The company has assessed its board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and discloses the results of the assessment.
b
The company provides details on the criteria it uses to assess the board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and/or the measures it is taking to enhance these competencies.

10.1
The company has committed to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
a
The company explicitly commits to align its disclosures with the TCFD recommendations OR it is listed as a supporter on the TCFD website.
b
The company explicitly sign-posts TCFD aligned disclosures in its annual reporting or publishes them in a TCFD report.
10.2
The company employs climate-scenario planning to test its strategic and operational resilience.
a
The company has conducted a climate-related scenario analysis including quantitative elements and disclosed its results.
b
The quantitative scenario analysis explicitly includes a 1.5° Celsius scenario, covers the entire company, discloses key assumptions and variables used, and reports on the key risks and opportunities identified.

Notes

Notes