Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds a systemic lack of methane accountability among top US and European supermarkets, with none of the 20 largest retailers setting specific methane reduction targets despite the significant impact of animal agriculture on global heating.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024 finds that the median absolute emissions reduction commitment for 51 assessed companies is only 30% by 2030, falling short of the 43%-48% reduction required by the IPCC. The report criticizes the heavy reliance on 'questionable solutions' such as carbon offsets, insetting, and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to mask a lack of genuine decarbonization. It specifically highlights a 'Scope 3 loophole' in the VCMI framework that could allow companies to use credits for up to 50% of their annual Scope 3 emissions. The document advocates for 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) and calls for the European Union to ban all compensation claims and for the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to prohibit the use of carbon credits to meet targets.

The report finds that major polyester producers in India and China have deepened their reliance on Russian oil, while most fashion brands have failed to sever these links or provide transparency regarding their supply chains. It argues that the industry's shift toward recycled polyester from PET bottles is a 'false solution' that fails to address microplastic pollution or the underlying fossil fuel dependency.

ClientEarth has filed a complaint with the OECD against Cargill, arguing that the company's due diligence fails to address deforestation and human rights abuses in Brazil. The document details specific allegations regarding the Cerrado, Amazon, and Atlantic Forest biomes, and calls for the full disclosure and implementation of effective environmental and human rights policies.

ClientEarth has filed a complaint with the US National Contact Point (NCP) of the OECD against Cargill, arguing that the company's due diligence processes violate OECD Guidelines. The complaint focuses on Cargill's soy supply chain in Brazil, specifically alleging failures to monitor deforestation in the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest, a lack of traceability for indirectly sourced soy, and a failure to address indirect land-use change. Additionally, the complaint highlights risks of human rights violations against Indigenous peoples and quilombolas. ClientEarth is seeking the full disclosure of Cargill's due diligence policies and the implementation of more effective procedures aligned with OECD-FAO and UN guidance.

ClientEarth has filed a complaint with the US National Contact Point for the OECD, alleging that Cargill fails to conduct adequate due diligence to prevent deforestation and human rights abuses in its Brazilian soy supply chains. The complaint highlights specific failures regarding the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes, indirectly sourced soy, non-owned soy handled at Cargill ports, and indirect land use change. ClientEarth seeks full disclosure of Cargill's policies and the adoption of effective due diligence measures aligned with OECD-FAO and UN guidance.

The document analyzes the 2023 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) findings for 24 global corporations, concluding that their net-zero targets are largely exaggerated and misleading. It highlights systemic issues such as over-reliance on low-quality carbon offsets, the exclusion of indirect emissions from carbon neutrality claims, and a lack of short-term ambition. To protect consumers, the brief recommends a complete prohibition of 'neutrality' claims in the EU, proactive enforcement by public regulators, and a shift toward a 'contribution claim' model for financing climate projects.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies collectively emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of all anthropogenic global methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. The authors highlight a significant lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report total emissions across their value chain (Scope 3). The document calls for binding government targets for agricultural emissions and a systemic shift toward agroecological systems to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The document argues that financial institutions must use their leverage to force soy traders to adopt strict no-deforestation commitments, including clear cut-off dates and full traceability, to mitigate climate and biodiversity risks.

The report analyzes the links between 'Big Polluters' and three major net-zero initiatives: the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero. It argues that these initiatives are compromised by leaders and advisors with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, allowing companies to 'greenwash' their business models while continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion. The document highlights specific instances where financial institutions and corporate executives within these bodies have a history of funding fossil fuels or opposing environmental justice, thereby questioning the credibility of the standards and guidelines these bodies produce.

The report evaluates 33 major European retailers on their aquaculture procurement practices. It finds a systemic failure to address ecological and social challenges, with 76% of retailers falling into a 'red zone' of insufficient action. Key failures include a lack of targets to eliminate wild-catch fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) from feed, inadequate fish welfare monitoring, and poor transparency regarding the origin of products. While some UK and French retailers show slight progress, retailers in Spain, Austria, and Switzerland performed particularly poorly.

The document outlines the role of major soy traders in driving deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado, critiquing current sustainability policies and certification schemes as insufficient. It recommends that financial institutions make financing contingent on traders adopting a January 2020 cut-off date, full traceability, and robust monitoring, with a timeline for suspending or ceasing services for non-compliance by 2023 and 2024.

The report finds that French supermarkets are largely failing to address the unsustainable nature of 'fed aquaculture,' which relies heavily on wild-caught fish meal and fish oil (FMFO). While some retailers like Auchan, Carrefour, and Système U acknowledge the issue, few have firm commitments to eliminate FMFO. The study highlights a systemic lack of transparency in labeling and supply chains, and criticizes the industry's reliance on certifications (such as ASC and MSC) that do not guarantee the absence of wild-fish inputs or ensure animal welfare. It specifically identifies major producers like Mowi and Lerøy as key suppliers to French retail, noting their links to problematic sourcing in Peru and West Africa.

The briefing examines the environmental and social impacts of Mowi, the world's largest salmon producer and a key supplier to Sainsbury's. It highlights the unsustainable use of wild-caught fish in aquafeed, high fish mortality rates, frequent escapes, and the use of antibiotics and chemicals, arguing that these practices contradict Sainsbury's sustainability claims.

The Changing Markets Foundation's investigation into ten of the world's most plastic-polluting companies revealed a global trend of corporations undermining legislative solutions to the plastic crisis. The foundation specifically identifies Perfetti van Melle as one of the least ambitious and transparent companies, noting its failure to disclose its annual plastic footprint or support legislative measures. The letter urges Perfetti van Melle to adopt specific recommendations, including supporting global deposit return systems, disclosing its full plastic footprint, and committing to measurable reductions in single-use plastics.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'playbook' of distraction, delay, and diversion to protect profits while appearing to address the plastic crisis. It analyzes the voluntary commitments of ten major polluters, finding them largely lacking in transparency and accountability. The document highlights how companies use trade associations and fake environmental groups to lobby against mandatory collection and reuse laws, even while publicly supporting some initiatives. It concludes that voluntary actions have failed and calls for mandatory legislation, including deposit return systems and taxes on virgin plastics.

The report evaluates fossil fuel companies using a scoring guide that measures corporate political disclosure, engagement with Congress, and support for climate policies. It finds a wide disparity in performance, with some companies like ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil receiving 'Good' scores for their policy frameworks, while others like CONSOL Energy and Arch Coal are rated 'Egregious' or 'Poor' due to their opposition to the Paris Agreement or lack of political transparency.

The Union of Concerned Scientists' 2018 Climate Accountability Scorecard Appendix C evaluates fossil fuel companies based on their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, use of internal carbon pricing, and transparency in reporting. The assessment finds that most companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Peabody Energy, have insufficient plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. While some companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell have implemented internal carbon prices of $40 per tonne, the report highlights a general lack of comprehensive, company-wide net-zero targets and detailed disclosure of low-carbon research and development investments.

The report provides a scoring framework and detailed evaluations for eight fossil fuel companies—Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell—regarding their public statements on climate science, trade association affiliations, governance policies, and responses to shareholder resolutions. It identifies a systemic failure among these companies to implement policies preventing the spread of climate disinformation, with most receiving 'Poor' or 'Egregious' scores. The document also catalogues historical and recent disinformation activities by trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that while Chevron improved its emissions and political spending disclosures, it continues to misrepresent climate science, maintain leadership roles in trade groups that spread disinformation, and lacks a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its operations or products.