Climate Accountability Scorecard

The report provides a detailed scoring guide and evaluation of eight fossil fuel companies—Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell—on their disclosure of climate-related risks. Using a scale from 'Egregious' to 'Advanced', the Union of Concerned Scientists assesses how these companies report on regulatory changes, physical climate impacts, market shifts, and internal governance. The findings indicate that while some companies provide detailed analysis of regulatory risks, most fail to adequately link physical risks to climate change or provide specific details on climate-related corporate governance.

• The scoring guide for climate risk disclosure evaluates companies across four categories: Regulatory Risks, Physical Risks, Market and Other Risks and Opportunities, and Corporate Governance, with scores ranging from -2 (Egregious) to +2 (Advanced).
• ConocoPhillips achieved the highest overall score among the evaluated companies, receiving a 'Good' rating of +3 for fully disclosing climate risks.
• Most evaluated companies, including Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, CONSOL Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell, received an overall 'Fair' score, ranging from -2 to -1.
• Peabody Energy received the lowest overall rating of 'Poor' with a score of -3.
• Many companies were rated 'Poor' in their disclosure of physical risks because they acknowledged weather-related hazards but failed to identify climate change as a contributing factor.
• Several companies were penalized in the 'Market and Other Risks' category for failing to disclose specific climate liability lawsuits in which they were named as defendants, specifically BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.
• Corporate governance disclosures were generally rated as 'Poor' across most companies for providing only generic statements about environmental stewardship rather than specific climate-related governance structures.
• ConocoPhillips provided the most detailed physical risk disclosure, specifying potential impacts such as production capacity reduction due to storm severity, rising sea levels, and temperature extremes in Arctic regions.

APA

Union of Concerned Scientists (2018). Climate Accountability Scorecard. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018-appendix-climate-risk-disclosure.pdf

Chicago

Union of Concerned Scientists. Climate Accountability Scorecard. 2018. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018-appendix-climate-risk-disclosure.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=Climate Accountability Scorecard |date=October 2018 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018-appendix-climate-risk-disclosure.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2018climate, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{Climate Accountability Scorecard}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2018}, month = oct, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018-appendix-climate-risk-disclosure.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }