Climate Accountability Scorecard

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) developed a methodology to assess eight major investor-owned oil, gas, and coal companies on their climate responsibility. The assessment uses 28 metrics across four broad areas: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting effective climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. Companies are scored on a five-point scale from 'advanced' to 'egregious' based on publicly available data from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018.

• The study focuses on eight investor-owned fossil fuel companies whose products have contributed approximately 14 percent of global energy-related carbon dioxide and methane emissions. These include the five leading oil and gas companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and ConocoPhillips) and three leading US-based coal companies (Peabody Energy, CONSOL Energy, and Arch Coal).
• The methodology evaluates companies across four primary areas of assessment: renouncing disinformation on climate science and policy (10 metrics), planning for a world free from carbon pollution (7 metrics), supporting fair and effective climate policies (7 metrics), and fully disclosing climate risks (4 metrics).
• To assess indirect disinformation, the UCS identifies seven US industry groups and trade associations with documented roles in spreading climate disinformation and opposing US climate policy: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), American Petroleum Institute (API), National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Mining Association (NMA), US Chamber of Commerce (US Chamber), and Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
• The scoring system generally employs a five-point scale where 'Advanced' (+2) represents best practices, 'Good' (+1) meets emerging societal expectations, 'Fair' (0) is neutral, 'Poor' (-1) falls short of expectations, and 'Egregious' (-2) is acting very irresponsibly.
• In the area of planning for a carbon-free world, the UCS established a contingent scoring requirement: companies must have a positive score in both the overall planning section and the 'company-wide commitments and targets' subsection to be scored on the execution of those plans. The document notes that no companies met this standard for the 2018 update.

APA

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

Chicago

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

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=Climate Accountability Scorecard |date=October 2018 |url=https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018-appendix-methodology.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.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018-appendix-methodology.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }