Search Climate Insights Directory

Ember's response to the ERAA 2025 consultation highlights significant discrepancies between ENTSO-E's proposed commodity prices and market futures, noting that fossil fuel prices are underestimated while CO2 prices are overestimated. The document argues that the ERAA underestimates battery storage and demand flexibility potential, fails to account for battery CAPEX reductions, and underestimates wind and solar capacities in several European countries compared to National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and industry forecasts.

The report finds that the dairy and coffee sectors are failing to address methane emissions, with 18 out of 20 analyzed companies scoring less than 50% on a comprehensive performance scale. While some companies acknowledge the climate impact of methane, there is a widespread reluctance to reduce dairy production, and most lack specific methane targets or transparent reporting practices.

The report finds that most large dairy and coffee companies lack credible methane targets and transparency, with 18 of 20 companies scoring less than half of the available points in a comprehensive assessment. While some dairy companies show slight progress, coffee house companies performed poorly, and only one company, Danone, possesses both a methane-specific target and a detailed action plan.

The report finds a positive trend in European pension funds' commitment to sustainable investing, with significant growth in the adoption of mitigation targets and climate risk management. However, a persistent gap remains between these commitments and actual real-economy impact, as pension funds rarely invest directly in projects and often hold fragmented indirect ownership. The analysis highlights that larger funds, those in net-zero coalitions, and funds in countries with strong regulatory frameworks—such as the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and France—are leading the transition. Key challenges include the gap between asset ownership and management, the difficulty of transitioning passive investments, and limited capital flow to emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs).

The 2024 Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard reveals that the energy portfolios of 21 analyzed private equity firms are responsible for 1.17 gigatons of annual CO2 equivalent emissions. As of July 2024, 66 percent of these portfolios remain invested in fossil fuels, primarily in upstream fossil fuels, LNG terminals, and coal plants. The report argues that these investments expose firms and their investors—including public sector pension funds—to significant financial risks such as asset stranding, citing the bankruptcy of at least 60 U.S. coal companies between 2012 and 2022. The firms are evaluated against standards including science-based targets, fossil fuel disclosure, energy transition plans, environmental justice, and lobbying transparency.

The evaluation finds that while the GCF has a prominent position in climate finance and a diverse set of instruments, its energy sector approach lacks a clearly articulated strategy and suffers from a mismatch between its stated and actual risk appetite. The portfolio is heavily skewed toward international accredited entities (IAEs) and focuses primarily on renewable energy generation, while underfinancing energy efficiency and emerging technologies like green hydrogen and large-scale storage. Results management is described as underdeveloped, with inconsistent metrics for measuring paradigm shifts and a lack of specific emissions reduction targets for the energy sector. The report recommends that the GCF clarify its role in the global energy transition, increase support for enabling environments and regulatory frameworks, and better align its risk appetite with transformational innovation.

The independent evaluation finds that while the GCF Investment Framework effectively translates strategic goals into portfolio targets and project criteria, it suffers from operational complexities and a lack of alignment with results and risk management frameworks. Key issues include the high resource burden on Direct Access Entities (DAEs) compared to International Accredited Entities (IAEs), subjective interpretations of investment criteria like 'country ownership', and a disconnect between ex-ante investment decisions and ex-post results monitoring. The report recommends simplifying the Investment Criteria Scorecard (ICS), improving the predictability of funding for recipient countries, and explicitly integrating risk-reward assessments into the framework.

This report by Ember analyzes the alignment between the ten-year grid development plans of European Transmission System Operators (TSOs) and national energy policy targets for 2030. It highlights a risk that transmission grids may become physical barriers to the energy transition if infrastructure planning is based on under-ambitious renewable energy scenarios.

The report evaluates nine voluntary carbon neutrality standards and initiatives (VCNSIs) using the CARE (Coverage, Assurance, Responsiveness, and Engagement) methodology. While performing relatively well in Coverage and Assurance, the analysis reveals significant gaps in Responsiveness and Engagement. Key issues include the inconsistent inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, a lack of stringent mitigation targets aligned with 1.5°C pathways, and limited board diversity. The report recommends shifting from static 'neutrality' labels to dynamic progress-monitoring systems and suggests the creation of an oversight body to harmonize standards and prevent greenwashing.

The report analyzes the landscape of voluntary standards and initiatives for carbon management (VSICMs), categorizing them into four types: GHG inventories, carbon offsets, disclosure platforms, and carbon-neutrality certifications. It details the corporate carbon management cycle—from leadership decisions and inventorying to mitigation and offsetting—and identifies key drivers for adoption, including regulations, investment strategies, and consumer pressure. The document benchmarks 35 leading VSICMs and highlights challenges such as a lack of harmonization and the risk of greenwashing.

The report analyzes producer inclusion across executive, legislative, judicial, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) governance in six agricultural VSSSOs: African Organisation for Standardisation, Better Cotton, Fairtrade International, Rainforest Alliance, Trustea, and VietFarm. It finds that while some organizations reserve seats for producers, there is a widespread lack of voting and veto power, limited transparency in executive decisions, and a significant gap in producer representation within grievance and M&E processes. The document recommends that VSSSOs formally reserve seats for producers, support producer-led networks, and increase the transparency of governance and grievance decisions.

The report evaluates the methodologies of four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera) to determine if they deliver on claims of increasing market transparency and integrity. Using the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative (CCQI) as a benchmark, the analysis finds that Calyx employs the most stringent approach, while BeZero and Sylvera are rated as adequate. Renoster's data-centric, algorithmic approach is deemed incomparable to the others. Key findings highlight significant differences in how agencies treat additionality as a limiting factor, the inclusion of leakage in overall scores, and the transparency of their rating justifications. The report recommends greater alignment with financial rating standards, mandatory inclusion of leakage in final scores, and increased public disclosure of project-specific frameworks.

The report evaluates Meta, TikTok, Twitter/X, YouTube, and Pinterest using a 21-point assessment system focused on policy content, transparency, advertising, privacy, and enforcement. Pinterest is identified as the industry leader, while Twitter/X is ranked lowest. The analysis highlights systemic failures across most platforms, including a lack of universal definitions for climate misinformation, poor enforcement of existing rules, and a failure to address greenwashing.

The document argues that voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) can act as partners in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by providing granular data and 'best practice' case studies for government reporting. While governments require high-level aggregated data for Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs), VSSs offer detailed monitoring that can fill data gaps, particularly in the Global South. An analysis of 13 VSSs showed high coverage of criteria related to SDG 8 (77.81%) and SDG 6 (72.82%), and moderate coverage for SDGs 15, 2, and 12. The brief provides guidelines for governments to engage VSS stakeholders and incorporate their findings into VNR sections such as 'Institutional mechanisms' and 'Progress on goals and targets'. Case studies from Uganda, India, and Tanzania illustrate how VSSs contribute to specific targets, such as improving land tenure for women in Uganda and reducing child labour through school infrastructure in Tanzania.

The report examines the intersection of voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically focusing on how VSS data can alleviate government reporting burdens in Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). Through benchmarking 13 VSSs against five SDGs (2, 6, 8, 12, and 15) and providing practical reporting examples for Uganda, India, and Tanzania, the document demonstrates that VSSs can provide granular, on-the-ground data and 'best practice' case studies that complement state-centric reporting. It concludes with generic guidelines for governments to improve coordination with VSS bodies to advance the 2030 Agenda.

The document argues that financial service providers (FSPs) often avoid agricultural investments in developing countries due to perceived risks, but that VSSs can mitigate these risks by requiring sustainable practices and better governance. While VSSs show high coverage of legal compliance, soil and water conservation, and labour rights, they lack sufficient criteria regarding economic viability, transparency, and climate adaptation. The brief provides recommendations for FSPs, VSS providers, and governments to better align sustainability standards with financial requirements to close the investment gap.

The report evaluates corporate climate alignment using the CCIF, finding that while mitigation efforts (such as GHG reporting and renewable energy procurement) are common, there is a critical lack of detailed climate adaptation planning. Analysis of 483 debt issuers reveals that no company performed well across all three CCIF objectives, and only 14% have an adaptation and resilience plan. Sector-level data shows utilities as the highest performers in reporting and transition, while healthcare and automotive sectors suffer from significant data gaps. Case studies of companies in China, India, South Korea, and Singapore highlight the use of internal carbon pricing and science-based targets, but emphasize the need for better Scope 3 emissions tracking and quantitative physical risk assessments.

WWF-Singapore's 2022 baseline assessment of 41 banks reveals that while over half recognize E&S risks in the seafood sector, only 20% have disclosed specific sector policies. The average score across 34 sub-indicators was 17%, with European banks showing the most robust policies and Asian and North American banks lagging. The report finds that expectations for wild-catch production are the most developed, while aquaculture and downstream requirements are lacking. WWF recommends that banks align policies with UNEP FI Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Initiative guidance, integrate seafood risks into broader thematic policies, and develop targeted 'blue' financial products.

The report finds that while Indonesian banks show high compliance with national sustainability reporting mandates (POJK 51/2017) and are increasing their green portfolios, they lack the capacity and frameworks to implement detailed climate-related financial disclosures. Benchmarking against TCFD reveals significant gaps in governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics, with no surveyed bank fully aligned. Climate-related impacts are not yet integrated into formal financial statements or risk assessments like the ICAAP, though there is a growing trend toward adopting green taxonomies.

The analysis finds that a vast majority of non-state entities fail to meet the minimum criteria for net zero targets established by the UN HLEG. While the number of pledges from cities, regions, and companies has increased over the past year, many remain as mere aspirations without detailed transition plans, interim targets, or transparent reporting mechanisms. Specifically, only a minority of companies include full value chain emissions (Scope 3) in their targets, and over half of cities with net zero pledges lack any reporting mechanism to track progress.