Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates several major fossil fuel companies—including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and CONSOL Energy—on their accountability regarding climate change. It uses a scoring system to measure the accuracy of their public statements, their governance policies to prevent disinformation, and their responses to shareholder resolutions. The findings indicate a wide disparity in corporate behavior, with some companies like Shell and BP acknowledging the need for emissions reductions, while others like ExxonMobil and Chevron are flagged for misrepresenting science or actively blocking shareholder efforts to address climate risks.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated eight major fossil fuel companies—Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, CONSOL Energy, and Arch Coal—across four key areas of climate responsibility. The analysis found that all eight companies maintain memberships in trade associations that spread climate disinformation and none have developed a company-wide plan to align their business models with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. While BP and Shell were noted for affirming climate science in direct communications, and BP and ConocoPhillips scored 'good' on general political spending oversight, the report concludes that the industry as a whole fails to take appropriate responsibility for the climate impacts of its products.

The report finds that ten major European personal care retailers are failing to take responsibility for resource efficiency, with none reporting targets or measurements for the overall resource impact of their product assortments. While a Wuppertal Institute study suggests a 20 per cent reduction in resource use is possible through existing alternatives like concentrated detergents and compressed deodorants, retailers generally lack time-bound objectives for recycled packaging or waste reduction. The report ranks Kruidvat as the best performer among the studied group, while Douglas scored zero on resource efficiency questions. It recommends that retailers stop selling resource-inefficient products, set binding reduction targets, and demand transparency from suppliers to inform consumers at the point of sale.