Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024

The 2024 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor finds that while corporate climate targets are gradually improving, they remain largely insufficient to align with a 1.5°C pathway. The median 2030 emission reduction commitment for the 51 assessed companies is only 30-33% of full value chain emissions, falling short of the 43-48% required globally. The report highlights a critical lack of depth in scope 3 targets and warns that proposed flexibility mechanisms, such as the VCMI beta Scope 3 Flexibility Claim, could effectively nullify these commitments. It also identifies an over-reliance on 'false solutions' like bioenergy, carbon capture, and land-based carbon dioxide removals (CDR), particularly in the agrifood and fashion sectors. The authors argue for a transition from voluntary initiatives to formal accountability through mandatory regulation and accredited verification.

• The median absolute emission reduction commitment for 51 major companies' 2030 targets is 30% of full value chain emissions, potentially increasing to 33% if intensity targets translate to absolute reductions. This is insufficient compared to the IPCC's requirement to decrease global GHG and CO2 emissions by approximately 43% and 48% respectively between 2019 and 2030.
• The VCMI beta Scope 3 Flexibility Claim, which would allow companies to use carbon credits for up to 50% of annual scope 3 emissions to bridge target gaps, could render current targets meaningless. In a test of 14 companies, 11 would be entitled to increase or plateau their scope 3 emissions between 2019 and 2030 under this mechanism.
• The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) shows leniency in its validation practices. Issues include the use of outdated validations, a lack of transparency regarding underlying data and methods, and the use of 'insetting' (land sequestration CDR) in the FLAG sector, which may obscure a lack of actual emission reductions.
• Only four of the 20 companies in the focus sectors (Enel, Danone, Iberdrola, and Volvo Group) have emission reduction plans with reasonable integrity. In the fashion sector, none of the five assessed companies present convincing plans, with some encouraging suppliers to switch to biomass or natural gas.
• Many companies rely on bioenergy as a decarbonization tool, but the report argues it is not a credible solution due to negative impacts on ecosystems and the fact that it is not emissions-free. This is particularly prevalent in the fashion sector's supply chain.
• Agrifood companies frequently use 'insetting' (land sequestration CDR within the value chain) to meet targets. This practice can hide a lack of progress in reducing critical emissions from livestock methane and nitrous oxide from fertilizers.
• Companies' reliance on carbon dioxide removals (CDR) for net-zero targets is often unrealistic, sometimes reaching 50% of 2019 emissions. This over-reliance on scarce, high-quality CDR and non-permanent land sequestration risks delaying necessary emission reductions.
• There is a trend of companies moving away from unsubstantiated carbon neutrality claims. Examples include Nestlé, Danone, Nike, Stellantis, and Volvo Group. Additionally, the EU adopted a ban on climate-neutral advertising for products and services in 2024.
• The report recommends a shift from voluntary initiatives to formal accountability, including mandatory regulation, accredited verification, and legal liability for validators, to avoid conflicts of interest where companies influence the standards they are measured against.

APA

Day, T., Hans, F., Mooldijk, S., Smit, S., Woollands, S., de Grandpré, J., Salsabila, N. P., Fraser, E., Kuramochi, T., & Warnecke, C. (2024). Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CCRM2024.pdf

Chicago

Day, Thomas, Frederic Hans, Silke Mooldijk, Sybrig Smit, Santiago Woollands, Juliette de Grandpré, Nabila Putri Salsabila, et al. Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024. Carbon Market Watch, 2024. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CCRM2024.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Day |first1=Thomas |last2=Hans |first2=Frederic |last3=Mooldijk |first3=Silke |last4=Smit |first4=Sybrig |last5=Woollands |first5=Santiago |last6=de Grandpré |first6=Juliette |last7=Salsabila |first7=Nabila Putri |last8=Fraser |first8=Eve |last9=Kuramochi |first9=Takeshi |display-authors=etal |title=Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024 |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=April 2024 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CCRM2024.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{day2024corporate, author = {Day, Thomas and Hans, Frederic and Mooldijk, Silke and Smit, Sybrig and Woollands, Santiago and de Grandpré, Juliette and Salsabila, Nabila Putri and Fraser, Eve and Kuramochi, Takeshi and Warnecke, Carsten}, title = {{Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2024}, month = apr, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CCRM2024.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }