Corporates

Corporates represent non-financial businesses in any industry and can be publicly or privately controlled. They make direct capital expenditure in activities and supply chains, drawing on capital received either as equity (whether listed on public exchanges or private) or debt taken on their balance sheets (such as corporate loans or issued bonds).

Responding entities tracked


Criteria

Responding Corporates Tracked

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Institutions that are joining the “Paris race,” by making a commitment to any level of action under any of the three dimensions (Targets, Integration, Flows). Depending on which Criteria is selected, this trend shows the number of institutions or the total assets they represent (USD billion).

How many institutions are joining the “Paris race”, by making a commitment to any level of action under any of the three dimensions. Depending on which is selected, this trend shows the number of institutions or the total assets they represent (USD billion).

Corporates are the second-largest reporting group in 2020, having more than doubled from 2015 (from 155 to 333). More corporates have reported integration measures than targets but with more uneven progress. In recent years green bond issuance and aligned portfolios have ticked upwards.

Due to lack of available data, it is not easy to weight corporates by financial value: only USD 497 billion in value could be linked to 20% of corporates in the dashboard (in 2020), compared to a total UK corporate landscape estimated over USD 8.3 trillion.

Trends By Dimension


Criteria

Targets

Distribution

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Distribution of integration scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Distribution of targets scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Reliability

Target drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

AVERAGE SCORE

Avg by number of institutions

Chart Bar

The green line indicates the average integration score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

The green line indicates the average targets score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

Reliability

Target drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

The number of corporates responding at a strategic level has been increasing steadily. Starting with 46 reporting corporates in 2015, the group reached 226 in 2020. Just over half of corporates now show a developed response (scoring over 30); the vast majority scored between 20 and 40. Developed responders have 76.7% of assets, which suggests larger institutions are performing better in this dimension.

The average score has been slowly falling as newly reporting institutions’ responses are progressively weaker. Leading corporates have also been reporting their climate action for the longest. Mondi Group is an early leader with a score of 58, followed by Unilever with 56. These two early leaders started 2015, tied with many other corporates, at 33.

Most efforts have been in setting and disclosure of mitigation targets, which a good share of corporates have reported since 2015.

Integration

Distribution

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Distribution of integration scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Distribution of targets scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Reliability

Integration drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

AVERAGE SCORE

Avg by number of institutions

Chart Bar

The green line indicates the average integration score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

The green line indicates the average targets score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

Reliability

Integration drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

The number of corporates introducing integration measures is increasing. While in 2015 only 4 institutions reported any such measures, that number rose to 130 in 2017 and 243 in 2020. However, corporates have been slow to take up integration measures, and scores have increased little since 2015.

Over 90% of corporates are still at an initial response stage on integration (with scores below 30). Larger institutions perform better: only 60% of their assets are associated with scores below 30.

Only one institution – BT Group– scored over 60, followed by Unilever with 55. BT Group has set high standards for improving practices over time: its score rose from 20 in 2015 to 65 in 2019.

The key integration drivers are setting an internal carbon price, followed by disclosure of climate risks, commitments to shareholder engagement, and climate progress reporting. 124 corporates reported on carbon price in 2020: 57 were commitments to act; 34 adopted; 33 adopted and disclosed.

Flows

INVESTMENT TRENDS

USDm *2019-2020 data is incomplete

Chart Bar

Bars show the volume of transactions in primary low-carbon and climate-resilient investments, and green bond issuances. Figures are always expressed in USD million.

Sources: BNEF, CBI, CPI, NAZCA, RAN

Reliability

Flows drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

PORTFOLIO ALIGNMENT

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Distribution of institutions based on the assessment of the share of their investment portfolios exposed to climate-critical sectors as either aligned or misaligned with Paris goals. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: FFD, FinanceMap, TPI

Reliability

Flows drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

Corporates are dragging on scaling up green investments, and portfolios are still misaligned with Paris goals. Low-carbon investment levels were on average USD 1.8 billion between 2015 and 2018. However, investment was highest at the start of the period, showing that corporates did not accelerate primary finance following the Paris Agreement.

Few corporates have assessed the alignment of their portfolios, owing to the nature of their business structures. However, out of 21 corporates reporting on flow in 2020, 2 of them have aligned portfolios: DS Smith and SEE, both of which have been aligned since 2018.

TRENDS BY INDICATORS


Targets indicators


Awareness of climate change

awareness of climate change

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have announced a clear commitment to addressing climate change through their activities, thereby raising awareness for action on climate risks or goals. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI or activity tracked under other indicators (adoption of mitigation targets, investment and divestment goals, activity to influence actors in the system).

Reliability

Adoption of quantified mitigation targets

Adoption of quantified mitigation targets

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set clear targets for climate action (primarily reducing their emissions), whether those are quantitative targets or general, and whether they are disclosed transparently. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: SBTi, ERI, NAZCA, WMB, TPI, NZAOA, PRB

Reliability

Mitigation targets by type

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set a target, by type of target adopted. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: SBTi, NAZCA

Reliability

Adoption of investment goals

ADOPTION OF INVESTMENT GOALS

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set and disclosed clear, accountable and measurable targets to provide a volume of financial services and investments for climate action. The distribution can be based on the institutions by number or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: WRI

Reliability

AGGREGATE INVESTMENT GOALS

USDm

Chart - How to read

Bars show the cumulative volume of investments that institutions have committed to in goals at the organizational level. Figures are always expressed in USD millions.

Sources: WRI

Reliability

Adoption of divestment goals

Adoption of divestment goals

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have announced a clear target to divest from fossil fuels, with a clearly defined scope. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: DivestInvest, FFD

Reliability

Adoption of institutional strategy on climate change

Adoption of institutional strategy on climate change

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set an institution-level strategy to incorporate climate change risks and opportunities, including investment or decarbonization plans. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PDC, PRI, TPI, CAFI, PRB

Reliability

Influencing actors in the system

Influencing actors in the system

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that are engaging with government and industry on climate change. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: InfluenceMap, World Economic Forum / Mission Possible, BEI, IA, SAS, PSI, PRI, NZAOA, WMB, TPI

Reliability

Integration indicators


Disclosure of climate risks

Disclosure of climate risks

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to the disclosure of climate risks and, if so, whether the level of disclosure has been assessed and can be considered sufficient. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: AODP, PRI, TCFD, CA 100+, WMB

Reliability

Emissions reporting

Emissions reporting

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to disclose their emissions, and whether there is evidence that emissions are already been tracked internally. Emissions that are verified or cover the full range of activities (scope 1, 2, and 3) are here considered of higher quality. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: TPI, PCAF, PRI

Reliability

Climate progress reporting

Climate progress reporting

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that are committing to provide, or providing regular updates on measures implemented, and actions taken.

Distribution can be based alternatively on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USDbn).

Sources: SSEI, CAFI, PSI, WRI, PRB, NZAOA, WMB, PRI

Reliability

Carbon price

CARBON PRICE

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to an internal carbon price to inform their decision making, have already adopted one, or transparently disclosed one to the public. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: CDP, CPLC, TPI, WMB, NAZCA

Reliability

CARBON PRICE RANGE ADOPTED

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that adopted and disclosed a carbon price, by actual carbon price range. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion), while the carbon price range is expressed in USD/tCO2.

Sources: CDP

Reliability

Climate scenario tools

Climate scenario tools

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that integrated temperature and climate scenario tools to support decision making, and the level of sophistication of the scenario used. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI

Reliability

Climate risk due diligence

Climate risk due diligence

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have adopted internal climate risk due diligence and related procedures, distinguishing between organizations that so far committed to do so and those that have already put measures in place, and the degree at which they are integrated across the operational and strategic levels of the organization. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI, CAFI

Reliability

Climate-related accountability

Climate-related accountability

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have adopted measures for climate accountability, looking at the extent of accountability and incentives for chief and operations-level staff, and at the existence of dedicated staff responsible for coordinating climate action. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI, SSEI

Reliability

Shareholder / client engagement

Shareholder / client engagement

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to engaging shareholders or clients on climate action, or that are taking the necessary steps by mandating climate reporting requirements or through active ownership. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, PRB, SSEI, 2Di FM, CA 100+

Reliability

Flows indicators


Investment trends

Investment trends

USDm *2019-2020 data is incomplete

Chart - How to read

Bars show the volume of transactions in primary low-carbon and climate-resilient investments, and green bond issuances. Figures are always expressed in USD million.

Sources: BNEF, CBI, CPI, NAZCA, RAN

Reliability

Portfolio alignment

PORTFOLIO ALIGNMENT

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions based on the assessment of the share of their investment portfolios exposed to climate-critical activities as either aligned or misaligned with Paris goals. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: FFD, FinanceMap, TPI

Reliability

Send feedback