- No, does not meet any criteria
- Partial, meets some criteria
- Yes, meets all criteria
- Not currently assessed
- Not applicable
- Up from last year
- Down from last year
- Same as Last year
- Change from last year N/A
Disclosure Framework Assessment
The Disclosure Framework evaluates the adequacy of corporate disclosure in relation to key actions companies can take to align their businesses with the Climate Action 100+ and Paris Agreement goals. The assessments are conducted by the Transition Pathway Initiative Global Climate Transition Centre and reflect publicly disclosed information by companies as of 23rd June 2025
Assessed by The Transition Pathway Initiative
The company has set an ambition to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner.
A company cannot score ‘Yes’ on Metric 1.1.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Metric 1.1.a.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 1.1.b.
The company has set a long-term target for reducing its GHG emissions in the period between 2036 and 2050.
The company’s long-term (2036 to 2050) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 2.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 2.1.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 2.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 2.1.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 2.2.b.
The company’s last disclosed carbon intensity OR its short-term or medium-term targeted carbon intensity OR the company’s expected carbon intensity derived from its long-term GHG reduction target is aligned with or below the relevant sector trajectory needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot in 2050. This is equivalent to IPCC’s Special Report on the 1.5°C pathway P1 or the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario.
This Sub-indicator uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2050.
In the paper sector, where a 1.5°C consistent scenario is unavailable, the relevant companies are measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. All other sectors that have Carbon Performance sector methodologies are assessed against a 1.5°C scenario.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Sub-indicator 2.3.
The company has set a medium-term target for reducing its GHG emissions in the period between 2029 and 2035.
The company’s medium-term (2029 to 2035) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 3.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 3.1.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 3.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 3.1.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 3.2.b.
The company’s last disclosed carbon intensity OR its short-term targeted carbon intensity target OR the company’s expected carbon intensity derived from its medium-term GHG reduction target is aligned with or below the relevant sector trajectory needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot in 2035. This is equivalent to IPCC’s Special Report on the 1.5°C pathway P1 or the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario.
This Sub-indicator uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2035.
In the paper sector, where a 1.5°C consistent scenario is unavailable, the relevant companies are measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. All other sectors that have Carbon Performance sector methodologies are assessed against a 1.5°C scenario.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Sub-indicator 3.3.
The company discloses its medium-term absolute GHG reduction targets.
Metric 3.4.a is a Beta indicator in 2025 as it was modified since the previous iteration.
This Metric applies to a company’s medium-term target for its Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 3.4.b.
Where an Indicator is in Beta form, companies are not publicly assessed against it, and it is subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
Metric 3.4.b is a Beta indicator in 2025 as it was modified since the previous iteration.
This Metric applies to a company’s medium-term target for its Scope 3 emissions.
Where an Indicator is in Beta form, companies are not publicly assessed against it, and it is subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
The company has set a short-term target for reducing its GHG emissions in the period up to 2028.
The company’s short-term (up to 2028) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where assessed).
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 4.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 4.1.
A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 4.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 4.1.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 4.2.b.
The company’s last disclosed carbon intensity OR the company’s expected carbon intensity derived from its short-term GHG reduction target is aligned with or below the trajectory for its respective sector to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot in 2028. This is equivalent to IPCC’s Special Report on the 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario.
Sub-indicator 4.3 uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ carbon intensities in 2025.
In the paper sector, where a 1.5°C consistent scenario is unavailable, the relevant companies are measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. All other sectors that have Carbon Performance sector methodologies are assessed against a 1.5°C scenario.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Sub-indicator 4.3.
The company has a decarbonisation strategy that explains how it intends to meet its medium- and long-term GHG reduction targets.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metrics 2.2.a and 3.2.a. For companies that have targets meeting these Metrics, any disclosures about specific actions to achieve these targets are assessed.
To score on this Metric, a company’s disclosures should relate to its GHG reduction targets, clearly address the main sources of its GHG emissions, and lay out a concrete set of measures to deliver its decarbonisation targets.
The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 5.1.a.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.a.
This Metric evaluates a company’s disclosures on its commitment to scaling up its deployment of climate solutions in prospective and quantitative terms.
Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.b.
If a company explicitly states that it does not plan on using carbon offsetting and negative emissions technologies to meet its GHG reduction targets, it will not be assessed against this Metric, and will instead receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
Companies disclosing that offsets will only be considered for residual emissions are also expected to meet the criteria for scoring on this Metric.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.b.
Where 5.1.b is met, this Metric assesses which of the individual decarbonisation levers that the company has identified in Metric 5.1.b are technologically feasible under current economic conditions.
The company’s decarbonisation strategy specifies the role of climate solutions (i.e., technologies and products that will enable the economy to decarbonise).
This Metric evaluates a company’s disclosures on its current deployment of climate solutions. Companies are required to define climate solutions associated with their revenues or products clearly and in detail.
Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
This Metric evaluates a company’s disclosures on its commitment to scaling up its deployment of climate solutions in prospective and quantitative terms.
Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
The company is working to decarbonise its capital expenditures.
Unabated carbon-intensive assets here refer to assets or products with a high carbon footprint relative to their output that do not use any carbon removal technologies.
To score on this Metric, the company’s commitment should apply to all of its capital expenditures.
Unabated carbon-intensive assets here refer to assets or products with a high carbon footprint relative to their output that do not use any carbon removal technologies.
A company that has clearly stated in its public disclosures that it has not allocated any capital expenditure towards unabated carbon-intensive assets or products will score ‘Yes’ on this Metric.
The company explains how it intends to invest in climate solutions (i.e., technologies and products that will enable the economy to decarbonise).
This Metric assesses a company’s transparency and commitment to climate solutions by evaluating their public disclosures of capital expenditures. This includes a clear definition of what is considered to be climate solutions, using a formal taxonomy or classification system in the disclosures.
Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will instead receive a 'Not Applicable' label.
The company commits to conducting its policy engagement activities in accordance with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Assessed by The Transition Pathway Initiative
The company reviews its own and its trade associations’ climate policy engagement positions/activities.
The assessment of whether a company has reviewed its own and its trade associations’ climate policy engagement positions/activities (previously Sub-indicator 7.2 in the Disclosure Framework
assessed by the TPI Centre) are evaluated by InfluenceMap in 2025.
Assessments within this Sub-Indicator will no longer have an impact on the overall assessment of Indicator 7.
Assessed by Influence map
Climate Policy Engagement
InfluenceMap provides detailed analyses of corporate climate policy engagement and the alignment of company climate policy engagement actions (direct and indirect via their industry associations) with the goals of the Paris Agreement, as well as the quality, accuracy and completeness of corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement.
Real-World Climate Policy Engagement
A comprehensive assessment of a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations.
Companies receive an overall ‘Performance Band’ grade on a scale from A+ to F against this indicator, which maps to the traffic light scoring system used across the Net Zero Company Benchmark.
Direct Climate Policy Engagement (Organisation Score)
A measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct engagement is of science-aligned climate policy, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
Indirect Climate Policy Engagement via Industry Associations (Relationship Score)
A measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are of sciencet-aligned climate policy, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.
Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure
An assessment of the accuracy of the company's reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure
This Sub-indicator evaluates whether the company has published an accurate account of its corporate climate policy positions and engagement activities, as compared to InfluenceMap’s database, which independently tracks corporate climate policy engagement activities.
Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure
This Sub-indicator evaluates whether the company has published an accurate account of the climate policy positions and engagement activities of the industry associations of which it is a member, as compared to InfluenceMap’s database, which independently tracks corporate climate policy engagement activities.
Review Score
An assessment of the quality and robustness of a company's processes to identify, report on, and address specific cases of misalignment between its climate policy engagement activities (direct and indirect via industry associations) and the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The company’s Board has clear oversight of climate change.
For the purposes of this Metric, ‘Board oversight’ can take multiple forms.
Reference to board responsibility for ‘sustainability’ or ‘environment’ more broadly is not sufficient. Clear mention of climate change is required.
A company will not meet the requirements of this Metric by proxy of having a committee responsible for climate change.
For German, Polish and Norwegian companies only, where it is unlikely for the CEO sit on the Supervisory Board, companies whose CEO is individually responsible for climate change and sits on the Executive Board will be assessed to meet this Metric.
The company’s executive remuneration scheme incorporates climate change performance elements.
The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) should be concrete and measurable, and should specifically focus on the company’s climate change-related performance. KPIs that measure broader ‘Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)’ or ‘sustainability’ targets or objectives, energy efficiency targets, CDP scores or the like do not meet the requirements for this Metric.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 8.2.a and on one of Sub-indicators 2.1, 3.1 or 4.1.
In addition, the CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements should be determined by the company’s performance against its disclosed company-wide emissions targets.
The Board has sufficient capabilities/competencies to assess and manage climate-related risks and opportunities.
A company will not meet the requirements of this Metric if only ‘sustainability’ or ‘environment’ or ‘ESG’ is covered in relation to Board competency assessments. Further, the existence of a climate expert on the Board cannot be used as a proxy for having conducted a Board climate competency assessment.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 8.3.a. In addition, the company should to disclose detail on what specific criteria have been used to assess the Board’s climate-related competencies.
Measures aimed at enhancing ‘sustainability’, ‘environment’, or ‘ESG’ competencies do not fulfill the requirements of this Metric.
The company has committed to the principles of a Just Transition.
To score positively on this Metric, the company should:
- Explicitly state its commitment to Just Transition principles, either defined by itself or by an external score.
- Define what it means when referring to 'Just Transition'.
Simply acknowledging or supporting a Just Transition or external frameworks is not sufficient to score ‘Yes’ on this Metric.
To score positively on this Metric, companies should explicitly commit to specific forms of support, such as job retention, training, reskilling and access to job search programmes, or external frameworks with similar commitments.
The commitment should be company-wide, explicitly linked to decarbonisation and apply to current employees of the company.
Simply acknowledging the impact of decarbonisation on workers is not enough to score positively.
The Metric evaluates whether companies have a company-wide commitment to engage with and, where relevant, seek Free, Prior and Informed Consent from the communities that are affected by their decarbonisation actions.
It also requires companies to provide details on how they have implemented this commitment, such as who they have consulted with, what issues they have addressed, and what outcomes they have achieved.
Companies that only inform or acknowledge communities, or that do not specify affected communities among their stakeholders, will not score 'Yes' on this Metric.
The company has disclosed how it is planning for and monitoring progress towards a Just Transition.
To score on this Metric, the plan should be company-wide and related to the company’s decarbonisation efforts.
These plans can only be on an asset level (e.g., power plant or a mine) insofar as the company explicitly states that it will carry out this plan for all other relevant assets.
This Metric is only assessed if the company scored 'Yes' on Metric 9.2.a, indicating that it has disclosed a concrete plan to implement its Just Transition commitments.
This Metric is only assessed if the company scored 'Yes' on Metric 9.2.a, indicating that it has disclosed a concrete plan to implement its Just Transition commitments.
The company has publicly committed to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) or the International Sustainability Standards Board’s IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures.
The company employs climate-scenario planning to test its strategic and operational resilience.
Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 10.2.a. In addition, the company is required to:
- Explicitly include a 1.5°C scenario in its analysis; and
- Disclose a quantitative scenario explicitly covering the entire company (rather than a specific product, business line or geography); and
- Disclose key assumptions and variables used in its scenario analysis; and
- Report on key risks and opportunities that have been identified in the scenario analysis.
Given the expansion of credible 1.5°C scenarios in recent years, from 2023 onwards, companies are no longer be able to score on Metric 10.2.b using the IEA's Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS), which was possible in previous Benchmark iterations.
The company’s historical emissions intensity is decreasing.
Sub-indicator 11.1 uses the TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology to measure companies’ historical carbon intensity.
This Metric is met if the company’s emission intensity has decreased in the past year relative to the previous year.
If the company is assessed to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago, the company will score 'No' on this Metric.
Companies that are part of a sector where the TPI Centre’s
methodology is yet to be published will be scored as ‘Not Assessed’.
This Metric is met if the company’s emission intensity has decreased over the last three years of company reporting, on an averaged basis.
If the company is assessed by TPI to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago, the company will score a 'No' on this Metric.
Companies that are part of a sector where the TPI Centre’s
methodology is yet to be published will be scored as ‘Not Assessed’.
Carbon intensities are measured against a relevant sector trajectory needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot in 2050.
Companies that are part of a sector where the TPI Centre’s methodology is yet to be published will be scored as ‘Not Assessed’.
[Beta] The company’s absolute historical emissions are decreasing.
Sub-indicator 11.2 remains a Beta indicator in 2025 as it was modified since the previous iteration.
Where an Indicator is in Beta form, companies are not publicly assessed against it, and it is subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
This is a new Metric for 2025 and in Beta form.
Where an Indicator is in Beta form, companies are not publicly assessed against it, and it is subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
This is a new Metric for 2025 and in Beta form.
Where an Indicator is in Beta form, companies are not publicly assessed against it, and it is subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.
The company discloses the factors that have led to changes in its historical emissions trajectory.
Companies that only report on a partial scope of their emissions are not eligible to score on this Metric.
Companies that only report on a subset of their emissions will not be able to score on this Metric.
The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.3.b.
To score on this Metric, companies should disclose the quantity, type, verification system of offsets and vintage (year of carbon credit origination) used in the last financial year.
Carbon offsets disclosed due to legal compliance are insufficient to score on this Metric.
Companies that explicitly state that they do not use offsets and have not done so in the last financial year will be marked as ‘Not Assessed’ on this Metric.
Climate accounting and audit assessments
This assessment, provided by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, evaluates whether a company’s financial statements (including the notes thereto), and the auditor’s report thereon, reflect the financial effects of climate-related risk and the global move onto a 2050 (or sooner) net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pathway and achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C.
Assessed by Carbon Tracker
The audited financial statements (including the notes thereto) incorporate material climate-related matters.
Climate-related matters may include the physical impacts of climate change and/or transition impacts from climate mitigation on the company’s market, sector, business environment, and drivers of its costs and revenues. It also includes the company’s own response, for example any emissions targets set and the company’s strategy for decarbonisation.
In addition to overall considerations, such as the company’s ability to continue as a going concern, examples of relevant assets and liabilities include (but are not limited to): property plant and equipment (PPE) assets; goodwill and other intangible assets; inventory; asset retirement or decommissioning obligations; deferred tax assets and liabilities; investments, including joint ventures and associates; and/or provisions and loss contingencies.
This Metric is assessed independently from Metric 1.a on how the company has considered climate matters. Accordingly, whether a company included the impacts of climate on the related assumptions and estimates is not part of the assessment for this Metric.
Examples of climate-related assumptions and estimates include (but are not limited to): projected interim and long-term commodity prices and volume assumptions used in forecasting revenues, for example oil, gas and coal prices; estimated CO2 prices used in forecasting costs; cash flow growth rates; and/or estimated remaining useful lives, particularly of climate-exposed assets and related obligations.
To be assessed as ’Yes’, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ for Metric 1.a. To be assessed as ‘Partial’ for this Metric, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ or ‘Partial’ for Metric 1.a.
Other reporting includes other sections of the annual report (or similar filing) and may also include separate reporting such as sustainability reports, TCFD reporting, analyst presentations, and the company’s website. This Metric focuses on the financial statements. The company’s other reporting on climate-related matters will be read as it provides the context for assessing the financial statements, but it is not assessed.
The audit report demonstrates that the auditor considered the effects of material climate-related matters in its audit.
This Metric focuses on the auditor’s disclosure of Key or Critical Audit Matters (K/CAMs) as applicable under the relevant auditing standards. Discussions may either be in a separate climate-related K/CAM or those focussing on specific accounting topics. If the auditor considers the risk in relation to the financial reporting to not require reporting in the K/CAMs, this Metric may also be achieved through reporting of how climate was considered in assessing risk and determining the audit approach.
This Metric assesses the auditor’s consistency check. It is based on the requirement for the auditor to read certain ‘other information’ provided by the company outside of the financial statements for consistency with the audited financial statements. Information that comprises such ‘other information’ is specified under the relevant auditing standards. If Metric 1.c is assessed as ‘Yes’ this Metric will likely result in a ‘Yes’.
The audited financial statements (including the notes thereto) incorporate the material impacts of the global drive to net zero 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.
This Metric focuses on the use of assumptions and estimates that can be assessed as appropriate ‘best estimates’ relative to relevant price decks or published scenario assumptions that are aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner (‘aligned assumptions and estimates’), or the provision of quantitative sensitivity analysis(es) using such assumptions and estimates.
Currently, the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario and related price deck are used for this assessment, where applicable. However, additional updated reference scenarios may become available over time.
This Metric is independent of Metric 3.a, as the auditor is asked to take an independent role in assessing whether the assumptions and estimates used by the company (either directly or through sensitivity analysis(es)), are aligned with the goals of achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner), or provide its own sensitivity analysis(es) using reasonably aligned assumptions and estimates.