Benchmark CA100: an improved but still flawed methodology

Reclaim Finance evaluates the revised Climate Action 100+ benchmark, noting that while it now incorporates IEA Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenarios and requires disclosure of capital expenditures on carbon-intensive assets, it remains flawed. Key limitations include an over-reliance on disclosure over alignment, a lack of prioritization among indicators, and insufficient requirements for absolute emission reductions and scope 3 emissions in certain sectors.

• The updated Climate Action 100+ benchmark methodology includes several improvements to increase robustness, such as the addition of an eleventh disclosure indicator regarding historical greenhouse gas emission decreases and a shift toward basing the benchmark on the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario, which projects a stop to new coal-fired power plants, LNG terminals, and fossil fuel production projects.
• The revised benchmark now requires companies to provide more detail on their use of negative emission technologies and carbon offsets within the decarbonization strategy indicator, and it mandates the disclosure of capital expenditures related to carbon-intensive products or assets.
• A significant limitation of the tool is its disproportionate focus on disclosure over alignment; it utilizes eleven disclosure indicators compared to only three alignment indicators, the latter of which do not cover all sectors and fail to assess the quality of the information published.
• The methodology is criticized for its handling of emissions metrics, specifically for relying primarily on intensity metrics rather than absolute metrics for emission reduction targets and for failing to apply scope 3 emissions to certain sectors, including air transport and steel.
• The benchmark is viewed as insufficient for ensuring full company alignment with climate objectives because it treats all disclosure indicators as equal regardless of their importance to the transition and allows carbon offsetting for short- and medium-term targets instead of reserving it for residual emissions.

APA

Martin, L. (2023). Benchmark CA100: an improved but still flawed methodology. Reclaim Finance. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/en/2023/05/19/benchmark-ca100-an-improved-but-still-flawed-methodology/

Chicago

Martin, Léo. Benchmark CA100: an improved but still flawed methodology. Reclaim Finance, 2023. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/en/2023/05/19/benchmark-ca100-an-improved-but-still-flawed-methodology/.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Martin |first1=Léo |title=Benchmark CA100: an improved but still flawed methodology |publisher=Reclaim Finance |date=19 May 2023 |url=https://reclaimfinance.org/site/en/2023/05/19/benchmark-ca100-an-improved-but-still-flawed-methodology/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{martin2023benchmark, author = {Martin, Léo}, title = {{Benchmark CA100: an improved but still flawed methodology}}, publisher = {Reclaim Finance}, year = {2023}, month = may, url = {https://reclaimfinance.org/site/en/2023/05/19/benchmark-ca100-an-improved-but-still-flawed-methodology/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }