Search Climate Insights Directory

The Corporate Commitments and Emissions Explorer uses a formula-based approach to estimate corporate emissions trajectories, incorporating revenue growth, climate targets, and sectoral intensities. It offers five preset outlooks—Current, Climate-Aligned Action, Herd Catches Leaders, Laggards Catch Herd, and No Further Action—to simulate different levels of corporate ambition. The tool focuses on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, utilizing data from CDP and the Net Zero Tracker, while excluding Scope 3 emissions due to data quality and double-counting risks. Companies are categorized as ambitious, somewhat ambitious, or least ambitious based on their disclosure habits, emission intensities, and the nature of their climate commitments.

Reclaim Finance analyzes the Ceres document "Key Elements for a Net Zero Transition at Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Companies," concluding that it favors "business as usual" for the fossil fuel industry. The analysis identifies seven key weaknesses, including the failure to require Scope 3 targets, the reliance on intensity-based rather than absolute emission targets, and a lack of restrictions on carbon offsets. Reclaim Finance asserts that the Ceres framework is influenced by industry players like ConocoPhillips and fails to meet the standards set by GFANZ, the IPCC, and the IEA, which necessitate absolute production cuts to maintain a 1.5°C pathway.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) establishes a screening process for sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) to ensure they drive genuine decarbonisation. Inclusion requires eligible debt instruments to be self-labelled as SLBs and provide public disclosure of sustainability performance targets (SPTs). CBI assesses these targets against 1.5°C-aligned sectoral pathways from CBI, the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), and CRREM. Bonds are categorized as 'Fully-aligned', 'Strongly-aligned', 'Aligning', or 'not-aligned' based on their adherence to these pathways and the presence of comprehensive transition plans. The methodology specifically mandates scope 3 emission targets for companies selling fossil fuel products and airports.

The document outlines an eight-step process for finance leaders to align GHG emissions reporting with financial accounting. It emphasizes the need for cross-functional collaboration between finance and sustainability teams, the application of risk and materiality assessments, and the extension of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems and internal controls to ensure GHG data is reliable, verifiable, and decision-useful for capital markets.

The document outlines the application of the GHG Protocol's three scopes of emissions—direct (Scope 1), indirect energy (Scope 2), and value chain (Scope 3)—within a corporate accounting context. It emphasizes using financial reporting boundaries and existing ERP systems to automate data collection from invoices, thereby improving data quality and auditability. The guide details three methods for Scope 3 upstream emissions: spend-based, activity-based, and supplier-specific, while noting the challenges of downstream calculations. It also introduces the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards IFRS S1 and S2, which require climate-related disclosures and GHG emissions reporting to be aligned with financial statements.

The checklist specifies the requirements for legal entities to obtain and maintain Sustainability-Linked Debt (SLD) certification. It outlines eligibility criteria, the 90% certification threshold for economic activities, and the necessity of a comprehensive Transition Plan including a vision, strategic narrative, and finance plan. It also mandates governance structures, parent group commitments to net zero and the cessation of fossil fuel expansion, and strict public disclosure requirements.

The Climate Bonds Standard version 4.0 provides a science-based framework for certifying Use of Proceeds (UoP) debt instruments, physical assets, non-financial legal entities, and sustainability-linked debt (SLD). It establishes rigorous pre- and post-issuance requirements, including mandatory verification by Approved Verifiers, the development of transition plans, and annual public disclosure of allocation and eligibility. The standard introduces a 'Certification Threshold' for entities and SLDs, requiring 90% of economic activities to be compliant. It also mandates 'Climate Safeguards' for parent groups, including commitments to net zero and the prohibition of fossil fuel expansion after January 1, 2023.

The Checklist for Entity Certification outlines the requirements for non-financial entities to be certified under the Climate Bonds Standard v4.0. It details eligibility, the 90% certification threshold for economic activities, the components of a Transition Plan (including climate performance targets, delivery strategy, and finance plans), and governance requirements. It also specifies mandatory commitments for Parent Groups, such as no expansion of fossil fuel activities and net zero commitments, and explains the process for maintaining or losing certification.

The briefing argues that ExxonMobil's climate strategy lacks the transparency and ambition required to align with a 1.5°C pathway. It finds that the company's projected 2030 oil and gas production levels significantly exceed IEA NZE requirements, while its financial allocations remain heavily skewed toward fossil fuels with no reported investments in renewable power generation.

The document establishes a standardized framework for reporting aluminum emissions at the product level, utilizing fixed system boundaries to ensure comparability regardless of a company's vertical integration. It defines two primary reporting boundaries: a 'benchmarking boundary' (mining to final cast-house) and a 'full boundary' (mining to semi-fabrication). Key requirements include the use of primary data, the disclosure of scrap-based content (distinguishing between pre- and post-consumer scrap), and the reporting of mine-to-smelter cast-house emissions intensity for primary aluminum. The guidance also details specific calculation methods for energy impacts, including a hierarchy for sourcing renewable energy and a dual-reporting approach for pre-consumer scrap using both cut-off and co-product allocation methods.

The document outlines how real estate developers, building owners, and tenants in India can transition to renewable energy to reduce Scope 2 and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. It highlights various procurement mechanisms, including net metering, green tariffs, open access, and virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs). Using Lodha as an example, it discusses the challenges and opportunities for different user types, such as the limited rooftop space for residential tenants and the potential for commercial tenants to use open access or green tariffs. The text also emphasizes the importance of combining renewable energy with energy-efficient building design to achieve net-zero goals.

The Clean Air Task Force, The NorthBridge Group, and Green Strategies, Inc. argue that current greenhouse gas accounting rules are outdated and fail to incentivize the diverse portfolio of carbon-free energy (CFE) resources needed for full grid decarbonization by 2035. They recommend adopting a 'bottom-up' book and claim approach for energy attribute certificates (EACs) to prevent double counting and suggest a 'Carbon Facts' label to track both attributional emissions (associated with electricity use) and consequential avoided emissions (actual carbon reductions). The authors specifically urge CEQ to define the 50% hourly match goal by 2030 as either a minimum of 50% CFE in every hour or a high annual average of at least 80% hourly time-matching to ensure the development of firm CFE and storage resources.

The report evaluates corporate climate alignment using the CCIF, finding that while mitigation efforts (such as GHG reporting and renewable energy procurement) are common, there is a critical lack of detailed climate adaptation planning. Analysis of 483 debt issuers reveals that no company performed well across all three CCIF objectives, and only 14% have an adaptation and resilience plan. Sector-level data shows utilities as the highest performers in reporting and transition, while healthcare and automotive sectors suffer from significant data gaps. Case studies of companies in China, India, South Korea, and Singapore highlight the use of internal carbon pricing and science-based targets, but emphasize the need for better Scope 3 emissions tracking and quantitative physical risk assessments.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2023 finds that the majority of climate strategies among 24 assessed multinational companies lack integrity, with 2030 targets falling significantly short of the reductions needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. While all 24 companies pledged net-zero or equivalent goals, only five commit to deep decarbonisation of at least 90%. Most strategies rely on ambiguous commitments and non-credible offsetting plans, with only four companies adopting a climate contribution approach without neutralisation claims.

The document defines carbon accounting as the practice of quantifying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions to set reduction targets. It traces the evolution of environmental reporting from the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the establishment of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The text distinguishes between attributional accounting, which identifies where emissions occur, and consequential accounting, which measures system-wide changes resulting from specific actions. It argues that while attributional accounting is standard, organizations must adopt both methods in tandem and move toward near real-time assessments to effectively implement climate commitments and legislation like the US Inflation Reduction Act.

ClientEarth is pursuing a 'world-first' derivative action in the High Court of England and Wales to hold Shell's Board of Directors personally liable for mismanaging climate risks. The claim argues that Shell's energy transition strategy is insufficient, as its net-zero targets are not reflected in budgets and its reduction targets focus on 'carbon intensity' rather than absolute emissions. ClientEarth asserts this mismanagement breaches the UK Companies Act, specifically Section 172, which requires directors to promote the company's long-term success. The action is supported by various institutional investors from the UK, Sweden, France, Belgium, and Denmark.

The 2023 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor evaluates 24 multinational companies, finding that 15 of them have climate strategies of low or very low integrity. Key issues include ambiguous net-zero pledges, insufficient 2030 targets that fall short of 1.5°C pathways, and a heavy reliance on non-permanent biological carbon offsets. While emission disclosure transparency is moderate, the report highlights a critical '2030 blind spot' where corporate commitments do not match the required global reductions of 43-48% by 2030. The authors advocate for a shift from offsetting to a 'climate contribution' approach and call for tighter regulatory oversight to ensure corporate accountability.

The Canadian Climate Institute criticizes Ontario's proposed clean energy credit system, asserting it allows companies to claim 100 per cent clean electricity while others still report based on the average grid intensity, leading to double-counting. The author contends that such credits do not result in actual emission reductions, especially as Ontario plans to add 1,500 megawatts of natural gas-fired capacity to replace the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

The report evaluates transition planning among ASEAN companies in sectors like cement, steel, and chemicals against the Climate Bonds Initiative's 'Five Hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company. It finds that while net-zero commitments are increasing, most plans are fragmented and lack the robust, costed, and science-based pathways necessary for a 1.5°C alignment. The document provides specific analysis of companies such as Siam Cement Group and PTT, and offers guidance on improving the credibility of sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) by ensuring they include material emission scopes and absolute targets.

The report estimates that the global military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions, which would make the global military sector the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world, exceeding that of Russia. The authors argue that military emissions are systematically under-reported due to voluntary reporting obligations under the Paris Agreement and a lack of robust data collection. Using a methodology based on personnel numbers, stationary emissions, mobile-to-stationary ratios, and supply-chain multipliers, the study estimates operational GHG emissions (scopes 1 and 2) at approximately 500 MtCO2e, or 1.0% of global GHGs. The report notes these figures are conservative as they exclude the 'global military carbon bootprint'—emissions from warfighting impacts such as infrastructure damage and ecosystem destruction.