Letter | Published:

An assessment of climate action by high-carbon global corporations

Nature Climate Changevolume 8pages10721075 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Corporations are an important source of GHG emissions1,2,3 and important actors in mitigating climate change4. This paper presents and analyses a database of corporate climate action that provides an up-to-date assessment of companies’ carbon management practices, as well as systematically benchmarking companies’ emissions pathways against international targets. Our analysis covers 138 companies in 7 high-emitting sectors, accounting for 21% of emissions from all listed companies globally5. While most companies have implemented basic carbon management practices, we find that less than half of them have implemented more strategic practices. Further analysis indicates companies separate into those that hardly undertake any carbon management practices and those that undertake most. Perhaps surprisingly, most corporate emissions targets in our sample are aligned with the Paris Agreement goals, although most companies are yet to set quantified targets. Companies that have implemented more carbon management practices today are more likely to have set 2 °C-aligned targets. Carbon management and emissions performance are associated most strongly with where companies are headquartered and their size.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available in the paper and its supplementary information files.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Covington, H., Thornton, J. & Hepburn, C. J. Shareholders must vote for climate-change mitigation. Nature 530, 156 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Heede, R. Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854-2010. Climatic Change 122, 229–241 (2014).

  3. 3.

    Moorhead, J. & Nixon, T. Global 500 Greenhouse Gases Performance 2010–2013: 2014 Report on Trends (Thomson Reuters, 2014).

  4. 4.

    Persson, Å. & Rockström, J. Business leaders. Nat. Clim. Change. 1, 426–427 (2011).

  5. 5.

    Trucost EBoard Screening Tool (Trucost, acessed 15 November 2017); https://www.trucost.com/capital-markets/eboard-data-analytics/

  6. 6.

    Krabbe, O. et al. Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions targets with climate goals. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1057–1060 (2015).

  7. 7.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Cadez, S. & Guilding, C. Examining distinct carbon cost structures and climate change abatement strategies in CO2 polluting firms. Account. Audit. Account. J. 30, 1041–1064 (2017).

  9. 9.

    Cho, C. H. & Patten, D. M. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: a research note. Account. Organ. Soc. 32, 639–647 (2007).

  10. 10.

    Freedman, M. & Jaggi, B. in Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures (eds. Freedman, M. & Jaggi, B.) 129–160 (Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management Vol. 4, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, 2009).

  11. 11.

    Hughes, S. B., Anderson, A. & Golden, S. Corporate environmental disclosures: are they useful in determining environmental performance?. J. Account. Public Policy 20, 217–240 (2001).

  12. 12.

    Luo, L. & Tang, Q. Does voluntary carbon disclosure reflect underlying carbon performance? J. Contemp. Account. Econ. 10, 191–205 (2014).

  13. 13.

    Doda, B., Gennaioli, C., Gouldson, A., Grover, D. & Sullivan, R. Are corporate carbon management practices reducing corporate carbon emissions? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 23, 257–270 (2016).

  14. 14.

    Qian, W. & Schaltegger, S. Revisiting carbon disclosure and performance: legitimacy and management views. Br. Account. Rev. 49, 365–379 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Beder, S. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism (Chelsea Green Publishing, New York, 1997).

  16. 16.

    Laufer, W. S. Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. J. Bus. Ethics 43, 253–261 (2003).

  17. 17.

    Delmas, M. A. & Burbano, V. C. The drivers of greenwashing. Calif. Manage. Rev. 54, 64–87 (2011).

  18. 18.

    Nasiritousi, N. Fossil fuel emitters and Climate Change: unpacking the governance activities of large oil and gas companies. Environ. Polit. 26, 621–647 (2017).

  19. 19.

    Randers, J. Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of value added (‘GEVA’): a corporate guide to voluntary climate action. Energy Policy 48, 46–55 (2012).

  20. 20.

    Kondrasuk, J. N. Studies in MBO effectiveness. Academy of management review. Acad. Manage. J. 6, 419–430 (1981).

  21. 21.

    Rodgers, R. & Hunter, J. E. Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 76, 322–336 (1991).

  22. 22.

    Rodgers, R. & Hunter, J. A foundation of good management practice in government: management by objectives. Public Adm. Rev. 52, 27–39 (1992).

  23. 23.

    Boyne, G. A. & Chen, A. A. Performance targets and public service improvement. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 17, 455–477 (2008).

  24. 24.

    Bloom, N. & Van Reenen, J. Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Q. J. Econ. 122, 1351–1408 (2007).

  25. 25.

    Gouldson, A. & Sullivan, R. Long-term corporate climate change targets: what could they deliver? Environ. Sci. Policy 27, 1–10 (2013).

  26. 26.

    Aldy, J. et al. Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1000–1004 (2016).

  27. 27.

    Adoption of the Paris Agreement (United Nations, 2015).

  28. 28.

    The Emissions Gap Report 2015: A UNEP Synthesis Report (UNEP, 2015).

  29. 29.

    Boyd, R., Cranston Turner, J. & Ward, B. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions: What are the Implications for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2030? (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

TPI is funded and supported by a group of asset owners and managers listed at www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org. S.D. would also like to acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC, UK) and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment. The input of the TPI Steering and Technical Advisory Groups helped this research.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    • Simon Dietz
    • , William Irwin
    •  & Bruno Rauis
  2. Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    • Simon Dietz
  3. FTSE Russell, London, UK

    • Charles Fruitiere
    •  & Rory Sullivan
  4. Church Commissioners for England and Church of England Pensions Board, London, UK

    • Carlota Garcia-Manas
  5. ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Sustainability Research Institute, and School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    • Rory Sullivan

Authors

  1. Search for Simon Dietz in:

  2. Search for Charles Fruitiere in:

  3. Search for Carlota Garcia-Manas in:

  4. Search for William Irwin in:

  5. Search for Bruno Rauis in:

  6. Search for Rory Sullivan in:

Contributions

R.S. designed the methodology for assessing carbon management practices, with input from C.G.-M. and S.D. The methodology for assessing emissions performance was designed by S.D., with input from C.G.-M., W.I., B.R. and R.S. The data were analysed by S.D., C.F., W.I., B.R. and R.S. The paper was drafted by S.D. and W.I. with input from C.F., C.G.-M., B.R. and R.S.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Dietz.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1–28, Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary References

  2. Reporting Summary

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0343-2