Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details how Shell and TotalEnergies integrate themselves across the VCM value chain—from project development and trading to influencing governance—to maintain fossil fuel production while claiming progress toward net-zero. It highlights systemic issues with the integrity of the credits they use, specifically in forestry and cookstove projects, and notes that neither company has a decarbonisation plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.

AstraZeneca has transitioned over 80% of its global fleet of more than 22,000 vehicles to zero-emission models, with 37 markets now fully electrified. By prioritizing battery electric vehicles (BEVs) over hybrids from 2022 and implementing a market-by-market assessment, the company reduced its fleet emissions from 92.5 kTCO₂e in 2015 to 15.9 kTCO₂e in 2025. The strategy combined top-down targets, embedded in senior managers' objectives, with bottom-up change management, including training and funding for home charging, to overcome operational concerns among the sales force.

The analysis finds that if approximately 2,430 large companies (consuming over 100 GWh/year) adopted the RAcc model, the resulting demand would cover about 66% of global commercial and industrial electricity consumption and avoid 5.5 billion tCO2e annually. The report identifies a tipping point where adoption by the top 20% of these companies (~539 organizations) would exceed existing global renewable energy supply, necessitating the construction of new renewable generation capacity.

The report finds that military climate strategies across 26 nations are largely unambitious, with most emissions uncovered by targets and progress relying on civilian grid decarbonisation or reduced activity rather than military technological innovation. While some success was seen in stationary base emissions in neutral countries like Ireland and Switzerland, core mobile emissions and supply-chain emissions remain largely unaddressed and are likely to rise due to increased global military spending.

Netflix is implementing a three-step 'optimize, electrify and decarbonize' strategy to reduce the environmental impact of its productions, which account for over half of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions. The company is upgrading facilities like Longcross Studios in the U.K. with energy-efficient insulation, LED lighting, and renewable electricity, while replacing diesel generators on location with grid tie-ins, batteries, and hydrogen power units. These efforts, combined with the use of solar-powered trailers and electric vehicles, have led to significant fuel reductions in specific productions, such as The Witcher and The Boroughs, and serve as pilots for wider industry adoption of clean mobile power.

The document is an open letter from energy systems researchers supporting the modernization of the GHGP scope 2 market-based method (MBM). The authors argue that the current MBM allows companies to claim zero emissions without a physical relationship between generation and demand, thereby failing as a legitimate value chain inventory and providing minimal real-world emissions impact. They advocate for the adoption of hourly matching, deliverability, and incrementality criteria to steer procurement toward new clean energy projects and technologies like energy storage and clean firm generation. While supporting the proposed updates, the signatories suggest strengthening them with an explicit age-based incrementality requirement to close gaps where legacy clean generators operate as merchant participants.

The NewClimate Institute reviews the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2.0, noting that while it provides a mature framework for value chain emissions and short-term action, its high flexibility may hinder the comparability of corporate climate strategies and fail to sufficiently reward the most ambitious leadership.

The document argues that current annual matching for scope 2 emissions often overestimates renewable electricity use and fails to incentivise the deployment of new renewables. It proposes 'hourly matching' (or 24/7 reporting), where electricity consumption is matched with renewable generation in the same hour. While 100% hourly matching can be costly, the briefing suggests that targeting a range of 80-90% can maintain emission reduction benefits while reducing costs. The document notes that hourly matching is becoming more viable, with 45 operational projects across five continents and tariffs available for 73% of global electricity demand. It advocates for a phased implementation strategy to allow for necessary data and grid infrastructure upgrades.

The report argues that subnational governments are critical to the global transition away from fossil fuels because extraction facilities, workforces, and communities are located within their jurisdictions. It recommends that these governments diversify local economies, develop time-bound and financed transition roadmaps, and reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions from existing operations. The document emphasizes that emissions reductions should complement rather than replace the transition away from production. It also advocates for multilevel policy alignment and international cooperation through alliances such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance and the Powering Past Coal Alliance.

The document outlines a granular, asset-level process for financial institutions (FIs) to map a company's transition footprint. This process involves five key steps: assessing double materiality to prioritize business lines, gathering detailed asset-level data, identifying retrofit and retirement timelines, selecting appropriate transition benchmarks (such as NDCs or peer data), and evaluating the resulting transition exposure. The guide emphasizes that moving beyond high-level emissions disclosures to asset-specific analysis allows FIs to identify carbon lock-in, policy misalignment, and opportunities for early retirement of high-emissions assets.

The report investigates whether corporate use of carbon credits substitutes or complements internal emission reductions. A review of existing literature shows mixed results: while several studies find a positive correlation between carbon credit use and internal emission reductions, a peer-reviewed study by Stolz and Probst (2025) finds no significant correlation and provides qualitative evidence of 'mitigation deterrence' in some cases. Interviews with companies indicate that the role of carbon credits is shifting due to greenwashing concerns and the rise of science-based targets (SBTi). The authors conclude that developing a robust empirical study to prove causality is inherently challenging due to endogeneity, data limitations in the CDP database, and structural changes in corporate climate strategies.

The Carbon Rating Framework, developed by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), aims to integrate emissions performance into financial decision-making by assigning companies a rating from CR1 (lowest emissions) to CR10 (highest emissions). Phase 2 involved testing this framework on a sample of 50 companies, using a weighted average of current emission intensity (70%) and projected intensity (30%) normalized by revenue. The testing demonstrated the framework's ability to differentiate emissions across diverse sectors, though it highlighted limitations regarding the availability of projected emissions data and the volatility of revenue as a normalization metric. Future directions include integrating Scope 3 emissions, aligning with India's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), and utilizing sector-specific intensity metrics.

The report finds that international reporting of military greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is generally poor, with significant under-reporting in data submitted to the UNFCCC. A comparison of five top military spenders showed that defence ministry reports for direct emissions were, on average, 95% higher than UNFCCC figures. The report highlights a critical lack of Scope 3 (supply-chain) reporting, noting that less than 10% of military carbon footprints typically appear in UNFCCC data. It identifies systemic loopholes in reporting guidelines and instances of 'greenwashing,' specifically by the UK military, and recommends mandatory, explicit military emissions reporting within National Inventory Reports.

The Corporate Responsibility Monitor 2025 finds that the tech sector faces a credibility crisis as AI growth drives exponential energy demand and emissions. The report argues that current accounting practices, which favor market-based over location-based reporting, obscure the true environmental impact of tech giants. While some companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple show early leadership in renewable energy procurement and supply chain employment, the sector generally lacks transparency regarding third-party data centers, mineral sourcing, and device lifespans. The document calls for the GHG-Protocol and SBTi to mandate location-based reporting and for companies to adopt 24/7 renewable energy procurement targets to align with a 1.5°C pathway.

The report argues that while Canada has a competitive advantage due to its clean electricity grids, the mining sector's emissions are rising as mines deepen and ore grades decline. It identifies three primary barriers to decarbonization: a lack of market demand for 'green' minerals, fragmented traceability infrastructure, and technological gaps in open-pit mining. The author proposes a policy toolkit including emission-intensity criteria for funding, support for R&D in emerging technologies like direct lithium extraction, and the maintenance of carbon pricing systems to incentivize the transition.

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 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (v5.0) establishes a framework to distinguish genuine corporate climate leadership from greenwashing. It assesses companies across four pillars: comprehensive GHG emissions disclosure (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), the alignment of emission reduction targets with 1.5°C pathways, the implementation of sector-specific transitions, and the scaling of durable carbon dioxide removals (CDR). The guidance emphasizes that net-zero claims are misleading without deep absolute reductions and argues against the use of standalone Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and traditional offsetting in favor of 'climate contributions' and millennial-scale durable CDR.

The briefing distinguishes between attributional accounting, which allocates emissions responsibility, and consequential assessment, which estimates how specific corporate actions change total greenhouse gas emissions. It argues that while attributional reporting is necessary for inventories, it fails to quantify real-world abatement or value actions like grid storage. By adopting modernized consequential methods, companies can prioritize interventions—such as siting solar projects in coal-heavy regions—that drive faster grid decarbonization.

The NewClimate Institute assesses the draft SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS) v2.0, noting improvements in target boundaries and scope 2 emissions requirements while calling for stricter rules on indirect mitigation, more frequent validation renewals, and the inclusion of activity-level alignment targets.

Canada is uniquely positioned to benefit from surging global electricity demand and corporate net-zero commitments because approximately 85 per cent of its electricity is already non-emitting. This clean energy advantage has already attracted significant investments in electric vehicle manufacturing in Ontario and data centers in Quebec. To maintain this competitive edge and ensure energy affordability, the document asserts that Canadian provincial and territorial governments must prioritize strategic grid expansion and modernization.