Search Climate Insights Directory

The analysis of Ford, General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota, and Volkswagen reveals a general failure to set credible decarbonisation targets or address key transitions. Most companies lack ambition in emission reductions, and current battery electric vehicle sales trajectories are insufficient for 1.5°C alignment. While some progress exists in near-zero steel and aluminium procurement by Ford and General Motors, other critical areas like battery production emissions remain neglected.

The report finds that the five largest incumbent light-duty vehicle manufacturers are making inadequate progress in transitioning to electric mobility. Most assessed companies have 2030 emission reduction targets that are critically insufficient and long-term net-zero pledges that lack concrete substantiation. While some companies have committed to procuring near-zero emission steel and aluminium, other critical transitions, such as reducing battery production emissions and improving electric vehicle efficiency, are largely neglected. The analysis highlights a significant gap between corporate pledges and the 1.5°C-compatible pathways required for the passenger transport sector.

The report finds that emission targets in the tech sector are losing meaning as actual emissions rise and accounting frameworks remain inconsistent. While some companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple are implementing promising renewable energy and supply chain strategies, these are not yet industry standards. The document warns that 1.5 °C-aligned validations may mislead stakeholders by ignoring rising emissions and recommends transition-specific targets, robust electricity accounting standards, and government regulation of energy consumption growth.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025 finds that major agrifood companies often rely on undefined land-based carbon dioxide removals (CDR) to meet emission targets, which obscures a lack of structural action on key transitions. While most companies commit to halting deforestation, they generally lack strong commitments to shifting toward plant-based proteins or reducing synthetic fertilizer use. The report highlights significant integrity gaps, particularly for JBS, and calls for standard setters like the SBTi and GHG Protocol to require separate targets for emission reductions and removals.

The report finds that while some fashion companies have improved their GHG emission reduction targets, these commitments often lack credibility due to a failure to implement systemic transitions. Key issues include a reliance on 'false solutions' like biomass and fossil gas instead of electrification, limited transparency regarding supply chain energy, and a persistent adherence to fast fashion business models that prioritise volume over value. While H&M Group is noted for its transparency in disclosing supply chain energy balances, the sector generally lacks the prescriptive guidance and regulatory interventions needed to curb overproduction and scale low-GHG fibres.

The report finds that the tech sector is facing a "climate strategy crisis" as soaring energy demands from AI and the use of outdated market-based accounting methodologies undermine the integrity of corporate climate targets. While some companies like Google and Microsoft are pioneering 24/7 hourly renewable electricity matching, others like Amazon and Meta advocate for looser accounting rules through the Emissions First Partnership. The analysis reveals that absolute location-based emissions for all five companies increased from 2019 to 2023, and critical transitions—such as decarbonising third-party data centres and hardware supply chains—remain largely neglected or poorly reported.

The report finds that Shell's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, with 2030 production targets and LNG capacities significantly overshooting IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) levels. Shell's diversification into sustainable energy remains marginal, and the company has recently reduced its decarbonization targets for product carbon intensity.

The report argues that TotalEnergies' investment and production strategies prioritize oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over climate solutions, leading to a significant overshoot of the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario.

The report finds that ExxonMobil's strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over sustainable energy, with 2030 production targets significantly exceeding NZE levels and a lack of investment in renewable power.

The report finds that Chevron's strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over sustainable energy. Its projected 2030 production levels and LNG capacity exceed NZE requirements, while its diversification efforts are described as marginal and focused on unsustainable energies like bioenergy and fossil-fuel-based hydrogen.

The report argues that Occidental Petroleum's (Oxy) climate strategy is misaligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It finds that Oxy's net-zero targets are inadequate, focusing primarily on scope 1 and 2 emissions while ignoring the vast majority of its carbon footprint in scope 3. The analysis highlights a heavy overreliance on unproven direct air capture (DAC) technology, which the report claims is used as a 'licence to pollute' and a mechanism to prolong oil and gas extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The report further asserts that Oxy's 'net-zero oil' claims are scientifically invalid and that its lobbying efforts for government subsidies for carbon removals contradict its public climate commitments.

The report finds that Eni's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to projected 2030 production levels that significantly exceed NZE requirements. While Eni is diversifying into renewables and bioenergy, these remain marginal compared to its fossil fuel core, and its decarbonization plan relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.

The report finds that Equinor's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, with 2023 investments in oil and gas being 6.2 times higher than those in renewables. The analysis indicates that Equinor's 2030 production targets will be 61% higher than levels required for NZE alignment, and the company continues to develop 'climate bombs' in the Barents Sea and Vaca Muerta. Furthermore, Equinor is expanding its gas power capacity by 80% by 2030 and lacks a specific target for scope 3 emissions, which constitute 96% of its total emissions.

Reclaim Finance finds that Shell's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to production levels and LNG capacities that significantly exceed NZE requirements by 2030. The report notes that Shell has reduced its carbon intensity targets and relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offsets, while its renewable energy growth remains marginal compared to its fossil fuel output.

The methodology focuses on indicators with a 2030 horizon to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal. It evaluates companies across five main dimensions: current energy production (using a fossil fuel equivalence method to compare renewables and fossil fuels), cash-flow allocation (analyzing CAPEX for exploration versus low-carbon solutions), fossil fuel strategy (assessing upstream expansion and production overshoot relative to the IEA Net Zero Emissions scenario), diversification strategy (projecting 2030 energy mixes), and emission targets (calculating carbon intensity excess and reliance on CCUS and offsets). The analysis covers 6 European companies (BP, Eni, Equinor, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies), 2 US companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil), and 4 National Oil Companies (ADNOC, Petrobras, QatarEnergy, Saudi Aramco).

The report argues that while ENGIE has ambitious renewable energy targets, its overall climate plan is not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory due to continued investments in fossil gas infrastructure, long-term LNG contracts for fracked US gas, and a reliance on immature technologies like CCUS and large-scale renewable gas. It highlights a lack of precise intermediate absolute emission targets and insufficient methane reporting as key governance failures.

The report finds that ADNOC's climate strategy is not aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, characterized by significant oil and gas expansion and insufficient transparency. ADNOC has the highest absolute short-term expansion overshooting the IEA NZE scenario worldwide, with 8,343 mmboe from fields with Final Investment Decisions (FID) after 2021. The company plans to increase crude oil production capacity by 25% between 2020 and 2027 and intends to expand its LNG capacity through new terminals in the UAE, India, and the Netherlands. Low-carbon investments represent only 10% of its 2023-27 CAPEX, and renewables are projected to make up less than 7% of its energy mix by 2030. Furthermore, ADNOC lacks scope 3 emission targets and does not provide detailed financial statements or production forecasts for 2030, hindering a full assessment of its transition risks.

The briefing finds that Saudi Aramco's climate strategy lacks transparency and is misaligned with 1.5°C pathways. The company plans to increase oil and gas production capacity through 2030, resulting in production levels significantly above the IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario. Investment remains heavily skewed toward upstream fossil fuel activities, with renewables expected to constitute less than 1% of its energy mix by 2030. Furthermore, the company does not disclose scope 3 emissions or targets, making a full GHG trajectory projection impossible.

The report finds that TotalEnergies' 2030 oil and gas production targets and carbon intensity are significantly higher than those required by the IEA's 1.5°C-aligned Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario. It highlights a substantial investment gap, noting that in 2022, the company invested more than three dollars in oil and gas for every dollar invested in its Integrated Gas, Renewables and Power division, while distributing over four dollars to shareholders for every dollar invested in that same division. The analysis concludes that the company's reliance on carbon capture and offsets, combined with continued expansion into unconventional resources like Arctic and ultra-deep water, poses a material risk to its ability to meet decarbonization targets.

Reclaim Finance argues that Equinor's energy transition plan, submitted for a 'Say on Climate' vote on May 11, 2022, fails to align with the 1.5°C warming limit. The organization claims the company will exceed its carbon budget by 25.6% by 2050 and will have consumed 69.1% of its remaining carbon budget by 2030 due to a continued reliance on oil field production and development.