Search Climate Insights Directory

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that while ExxonMobil improved its scores in some areas—such as leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and supporting a federal carbon tax—it continues to misrepresent climate science and maintain leadership roles in trade groups that spread disinformation. The company lacks a company-wide net-zero emissions target and has actively blocked climate-related shareholder resolutions.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Peabody Energy's climate actions from July 2016 to June 2018, finding that while the company follows best practices in political spending disclosure, it remains 'egregious' in its lack of emissions reduction targets and its support for the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. The company is criticized for downplaying climate science in public statements and maintaining leadership roles in trade associations that spread climate disinformation.

The 2018 Climate Accountability Scorecard evaluates eight major oil, gas, and coal companies, finding that while some have made minor improvements due to shareholder and legal pressure, their overall actions remain insufficient to align with the Paris climate agreement. The report highlights continued reliance on trade associations that spread disinformation and a systemic failure to set company-wide net-zero emissions targets.

The 2018 Climate Accountability Scorecard evaluates Royal Dutch Shell's response to climate change, noting that while the company acknowledges climate science and supports the Paris Agreement in principle, it lacks a concrete net-zero action plan and maintains ties to industry groups that spread climate disinformation.

The report evaluates the global viscose industry's transition to sustainable production, highlighting a divide between 'front-runner' brands adopting closed-loop standards and 'laggards'—including several luxury and low-cost retailers—who lack transparency. It specifically analyzes the commitments of major producers Lenzing and Aditya Birla Group, and the emerging Collaboration for Sustainable Development of Viscose in China, while arguing that current certifications like the EU Ecolabel and OEKO-TEX STeP are insufficient compared to EU Best Available Techniques (BAT) standards.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated ConocoPhillips across four metrics from July 2016 to June 2018. While the company showed improvements in climate risk disclosure and planning for carbon pollution, it received an 'Egregious' score for renouncing disinformation due to its continued leadership roles in trade associations that spread climate disinformation and its use of language that misrepresents climate science.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated BP on 30 metrics, finding that while the company acknowledges climate science and supports a carbon price, it fails to distance itself from trade associations that spread disinformation and lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan.

The report evaluates the climate policy engagement of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. It uses a scoring system to measure their support for federal carbon reduction policies, their responses to the EPA Clean Power Plan and Methane Rule, and their participation in climate-supportive business alliances. Findings range from 'Good' scores for companies like BP, which supports carbon pricing and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, to 'Poor' or 'Egregious' scores for companies like Peabody Energy, which the report claims used climate science disinformation to oppose the Clean Power Plan.

The document argues that the rapid growth of generative AI is driving a significant increase in electricity demand, which threatens climate goals by incentivising the continued use of fossil fuels and diverting clean energy resources. It highlights a lack of transparency in corporate emissions reporting, where 'market-based' accounting masks actual grid impacts, and warns that 'moonshot' technology promises like nuclear fusion may act as mitigation deterrence. Specific examples include data centre growth in Ireland and Malaysia, and the rising emissions profiles of companies like Microsoft and Google.

In 2022, Global Witness documented at least 177 killings of land and environmental defenders, bringing the total since 2012 to 1,910. Latin America remains the most dangerous region, accounting for 88% of 2022 deaths, with Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico as the most lethal countries. The report highlights a critical pattern of violence in the Amazon, where 22% of global killings occurred, often linked to illegal mining and agribusiness. Indigenous peoples are disproportionately targeted, representing over one-third of the victims. Beyond lethal attacks, the report details the increasing use of criminalization and harassment to silence activists, particularly in Asia and Africa. It calls for stronger corporate accountability, specifically urging the European Union to implement the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) to hold companies responsible for human rights abuses in their global supply chains.

The case study finds that the BCS — The Chartered Institute for IT has no direct listed investments or prestige event sponsorships linked to the arms or fossil fuel industries. However, it notes a lack of transparency regarding corporate members and criticizes a previous environmental policy for questioning the scientific consensus on CO2 emissions as the primary driver of climate change. While the institute maintains some green IT initiatives, the current status of its formal environmental policy remains unclear following its removal from the website in 2018.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Chevron on 30 metrics, finding the company's performance ranged from 'fair' to 'egregious'. While Chevron provides detailed analysis of regulatory risks and maintains transparent political spending policies, it is criticized for its affiliations with trade associations that spread climate disinformation, its opposition to climate-related shareholder resolutions, and a lack of specific company-wide targets for emissions reductions aligned with the Paris Agreement.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Royal Dutch Shell across four metrics: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. While Shell was praised for acknowledging climate science and leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), it was criticized for maintaining ties to trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that spread disinformation. The report also notes that Shell lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan aligned with specific temperature goals and provides poor disclosure of physical climate risks.