Executive Chairman

<div><p>This report compares the 70 historic corporate sponsors of the United Nations Climate Change Conferences (COP) since 2020 identified by Spendwell. It compares these companies on climate crisis action and leadership, currently measured through participation in the independent Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as well as Climate Group’s RE100 and EP100 initiatives. These initiatives represent some of the only globally applicable and accessible, completely independent climate target verification and validation programs for corporate energy efficiency, renewable energy, near-term and net-zero. Where available, Net Zero Tracker data is included in order to compare corporate pledges and claims to verified and validated targets. Companies making more and better commitments and setting more and better independently verified or validated targets, rank higher.</p>

<p>Future updates to this report will include relevant new independent initiatives and programs as they emerge. It is anticipated that emissions disclosure and progress will be incorporated into this ranking and report in 2025, for example. See the Methodology section of this report for more information.</p>

<h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO VS. NET-ZERO</h4>
<p>SBTi’s corporate near-term and net-zero standards disallow carbon credits and offsets in most, if not all circumstances, making these likely the most advanced science-based target standards available to corporations from an independent, science-led organization. Because of this, Spendwell’s ranking methodology heavily weights validation of targets through SBTi compared to other initiatives. You can read more about how Spendwell scores and ranks companies in the Methodology section of this report.</p>

<p>In order to reduce confusion between SBTi’s more rigorous, credit and offset-free net-zero standard and the more common understanding of “net-zero” as credit and offset friendly, Spendwell refers to SBTi’s net-zero standard here and elsewhere as <em>science-based zero.</em></p>

<div className="report-summary-title"><h3>Key Findings</h3></div>


<ul><li><h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO</h4>Just 11 (16%) of these 70 historic COP corporate sponsors have set science-based zero targets with SBTi, the collaborative climate commitment program supported by the United Nations. Another five companies have active commitments to set science-based zero targets with SBTi.</li>

<p><h4>2040 OR EARLIER TARGET DATES</h4>Only five (7%) of these companies have science-based zero target years set for 2040 or earlier.</p>

<p><h4>MISSED DEADLINES & REMOVAL</h4>Conversely, eight of these 70 companies committed to setting science-based zero targets with SBTi, but failed to set approved targets within the commitment time frame (a minimum of 2 years). SBTi has already removed seven of these companies from their commitments list.</p>

<p><h4>PLEDGES & CLAIMS VS. VALIDATED</h4>Of these eight companies that failed to have their science-based zero targets scientifically validated by SBTi, all but one have recently made net-zero or similar claims or pledges in their own company promotional materials, according to data reported by Net Zero Tracker or in some instances, reported by Spendwell.</p>

<li><h4>NEAR-TERM</h4>26 (38%) companies have managed to set near-term targets with SBTi with another four committed to doing so.</li>

<li><h4>RENEWABLE ENERGY</h4>17 (25%) of these companies have made a commitment with a target year to 100% renewable energy through Science Based Targets or Climate Group’s RE100 initiative.</li>

<li><h4>ENERGY EFFICIENCY</h4>Just 5 companies have set energy efficiency targets with Climate Group’s EP100 initiative.</li></ul></div>


cop sponsorship since 2021 mostly an exercise in greenwashing

<div><p>This report compares the 97 companies that constitute the Corporate Alliance for the World Economic Forum’s First Movers Coalition, a global coalition of companies leveraging their purchasing power to decarbonize the world's heavy-emitting sectors. The report compares these companies on climate crisis action and leadership, currently measured through participation in the independent Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as well as Climate Group’s RE100 and EP100 initiatives. These initiatives represent some of the only globally applicable and accessible, completely independent climate target verification and validation programs for corporate energy efficiency, renewable energy, near-term and net-zero. Where available, Net Zero Tracker data is included in order to compare corporate pledges and claims to verified and validated targets. Companies making more and better commitments and setting more and better independently verified or validated targets, rank higher.</p>
<p>Future quarterly and year-end updates to this report will include relevant new independent initiatives and programs as they emerge. It is anticipated that emissions disclosure and progress will be incorporated into this ranking and report in 2025, for example. See the Methodology section of this report for more information.</p><p><em>Moeve is a new addition to the First Movers Coalition and will be included in reports starting Q2, 2025. Companies are represented in this report by their parent company and governmental institutions, like the University of Michigan, are not currently tracked by Spendwell.</em></p>

<h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO VS. NET-ZERO</h4>
<p>SBTi’s corporate near-term and net-zero standards disallow carbon credits and offsets in most, if not all circumstances, making these likely the most advanced science-based target standards available to corporations from an independent, science-led organization. Because of this, Spendwell’s ranking methodology heavily weights validation of targets through SBTi compared to other initiatives. You can read more about how Spendwell scores and ranks companies in the Methodology section of this report.</p>

<p>In order to reduce confusion between SBTi’s more rigorous, credit and offset-free net-zero standard and the more common understanding of “net-zero” as credit and offset friendly, Spendwell refers to SBTi’s net-zero standard here and elsewhere as <em>science-based zero.</em></p>

<div className="report-summary-title"><h3>Key Findings</h3></div>


<ul><li><h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO</h4>Just 26 (27%) of the Coalitions’s 97 tracked companies have set science-based zero targets with SBTi, the collaborative climate commitment program supported by the United Nations. Another 8 companies have active commitments to set science-based zero targets with SBTi.</li>

<p><h4>2040 OR EARLIER TARGET DATES</h4>Eleven (11%) First Movers have science-based zero target years set for 2040 or earlier.</p>

<p><h4>MISSED DEADLINES & REMOVAL</h4>Conversely, 19 (20%) of these 97 companies committed to setting science-based zero targets with SBTi, but failed to set approved targets within the commitment time frame (a minimum of 2 years). SBTi has already removed some of these companies from their commitments list.</p>

<p><h4>PLEDGES & CLAIMS VS. VALIDATED</h4>Of these 19 companies that have failed to have their science-based zero targets scientifically validated by SBTi, at least 17 have recently made net-zero or similar claims or pledges in their own company promotional materials, according to data reported by Net Zero Tracker or in some instances, reported by Spendwell.</p>

<li><h4>NEAR-TERM</h4>55 (57%) companies have managed to set near-term targets with SBTi with another four committed to doing so.</li>

<li><h4>RENEWABLE ENERGY</h4>23 (24%) of these companies have made a commitment with a target year to 100% renewable energy through Science Based Targets or Climate Group’s RE100 initiative.</li>

<li><h4>ENERGY EFFICIENCY</h4>Just five companies have set energy efficiency targets with Climate Group’s EP100 initiative.</li></ul></div>


many world economic forum corporate first movers moving backwards on climate

<div><p>This report compares the 141 companies led by the members of the World Economic Forum’s Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders (Alliance). It compares these companies on climate crisis action and leadership, currently measured through participation in the independent Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as well as Climate Group’s RE100 and EP100 initiatives. These initiatives represent some of the only globally applicable and accessible, completely independent climate target verification and validation programs for corporate energy efficiency, renewable energy, near-term and net-zero. Where available, Net Zero Tracker data is included in order to compare corporate pledges and claims to verified and validated targets. Companies making more and better commitments and setting more and better independently verified or validated targets, rank higher.</p>
<p>Future quarterly and year-end updates to this report will include relevant new independent initiatives and programs as they emerge. It is anticipated that emissions disclosure and progress will be incorporated into this ranking and report in 2025, for example. See the Methodology section of this report for more information.</p>

<h4>ALLIANCE OF CEO CLIMATE LEADERS</h4>
<p>Established through the World Economic Forum in 2014, the Alliance actively seeks to encourage governments and other companies to set ambitious climate targets, take collective action and reduce emissions. Prior to COP29, the Alliance released an open letter that, in addition to calling for ambitious policy progress, asked other companies to set ambitious science-based climate targets. This report includes companies represented by both current and former Alliance members.</p>


<h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO VS. NET-ZERO</h4>
<p>SBTi’s corporate near-term and net-zero standards disallow carbon credits and offsets in most, if not all circumstances, making these likely the most advanced science-based target standards available to corporations from an independent, science-led organization. Because of this, Spendwell’s ranking methodology heavily weights validation of targets through SBTi compared to other initiatives. You can read more about how Spendwell scores and ranks companies in the Methodology section of this report.</p>

<p>In order to reduce confusion between SBTi’s more rigorous, credit and offset-free net-zero standard and the more common understanding of “net-zero” as credit and offset friendly, Spendwell refers to SBTi’s net-zero standard here and elsewhere as <em>science-based zero.</em></p>

<div className="report-summary-title"><h3>Key Findings</h3></div>


<ul><li><h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO</h4>Just 53 (38%) of the Alliance’s 141 companies have set science-based zero targets with SBTi, the collaborative climate commitment program supported by the United Nations. Another 11 companies have active commitments to set science-based zero targets with SBTi.</li>

<p><h4>2040 OR EARLIER TARGET DATES</h4>Only 28 (20%) Alliance companies have science-based zero target years set for 2040 or earlier.</p>

<p><h4>MISSED DEADLINES & REMOVAL</h4>Conversely, 24 of these 141 companies committed to setting science-based zero targets with SBTi, but failed to set approved targets within the commitment time frame (a minimum of 2 years). SBTi has already removed 21 of these companies from their commitments list.</p>

<p><h4>PLEDGES & CLAIMS VS. VALIDATED</h4>Of these 24 companies that have failed to have their science-based zero targets scientifically validated by SBTi, at least 21 have recently made net-zero or similar claims or pledges in their own company promotional materials, according to data reported by Net Zero Tracker or in some instances, reported by Spendwell.</p>

<li><h4>NEAR-TERM</h4>94 (67%) companies have managed to set near-term targets with SBTi with another four committed to doing so.</li>

<p><h4>MISSED DEADLINES & REMOVAL</h4>Six companies failed to set near-term targets by the agreed-to deadline and were removed from SBTi’s commitments list.</p>

<p><h4>PLEDGES & CLAIMS VS. VALIDATED</h4>Five companies that have failed to have their near-term targets scientifically validated by SBTi recently made net-zero or similar claims or pledges in their own company promotional materials, according to data reported by Net Zero Tracker. Net-zero targets usually encompass near-term ones.</p>

<li><h4>RENEWABLE ENERGY</h4>58 (41%) of these companies have made a commitment with a target year to 100% renewable energy through Science Based Targets or Climate Group’s RE100 initiative.</li>

<li><h4>ENERGY EFFICIENCY</h4>Just 10 companies have set energy efficiency targets with Climate Group’s EP100 initiative.</li></ul></div>


Several CEO Climate Leader companies show significant climate leadership improvement, more to be done

<div><p>This report compares the 35 companies that constitute the Corporate Alliance for the World Economic Forum’s 1t.org, an ambitious partnership to restore and grow one trillion trees by 2030. The report compares these companies on climate crisis action and leadership, currently measured through participation in the independent Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as well as Climate Group’s RE100 and EP100 initiatives. These initiatives represent some of the only globally applicable and accessible, completely independent climate target verification and validation programs for corporate energy efficiency, renewable energy, near-term and net-zero. Where available, Net Zero Tracker data is included in order to compare corporate pledges and claims to verified and validated targets. Companies making more and better commitments and setting more and better independently verified or validated targets, rank higher.</p>
<p>Future quarterly and year-end updates to this report will include relevant new independent initiatives and programs as they emerge. It is anticipated that emissions disclosure and progress will be incorporated into this ranking and report in 2025, for example. See the Methodology section of this report for more information.</p>

<h4>1T.ORG CORPORATE ALLIANCE</h4>
<p>Established through the World Economic Forum in 2020, the 1t.org or One Trillion Tree initiative established a platform for governments, business and civil society to collaborate on efforts in support of the United Nation’s ongoing tree growth, preservation, and restoration efforts. A Corporate Alliance was established to support this work, requiring Alliance members to establish leadership, action, integrity, transparency, and learning commitments along with their own tree growth, preservation and restoration pledges. As part of the corporate integrity commitment these companies made, they all agreed to “set a company-wide Paris Agreement-aligned emissions reduction target, such as a 1.5°C Science-Based Target or a credible net-zero goal” for 2050 or earlier.</p>


<h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO VS. NET-ZERO</h4>
<p>SBTi’s corporate near-term and net-zero standards disallow carbon credits and offsets in most, if not all circumstances, making these likely the most advanced science-based target standards available to corporations from an independent, science-led organization. Because of this, Spendwell’s ranking methodology heavily weights validation of targets through SBTi compared to other initiatives. You can read more about how Spendwell scores and ranks companies in the Methodology section of this report.</p>

<p>In order to reduce confusion between SBTi’s more rigorous, credit and offset-free net-zero standard and the more common understanding of “net-zero” as credit and offset friendly, Spendwell refers to SBTi’s net-zero standard here and elsewhere as <em>science-based zero.</em></p>

<div className="report-summary-title"><h3>Key Findings</h3></div>


<ul><li><h4>SCIENCE-BASED ZERO</h4>Just nine (26%) of the Alliance’s 35 companies have set science-based zero targets with SBTi, the collaborative climate commitment program supported by the United Nations. Another 3 companies have active commitments to set science-based zero targets with SBTi.</li>

<p><h4>2040 OR EARLIER TARGET DATES</h4>Seven (20%) Alliance companies have science-based zero target years set for 2040 or earlier.</p>

<p><h4>MISSED DEADLINES & REMOVAL</h4>Conversely, 4 (11%) of these 35 companies committed to setting science-based zero targets with SBTi, but failed to set approved targets within the commitment time frame (a minimum of 2 years). SBTi has already removed some of these companies from their commitments list.</p>

<p><h4>PLEDGES & CLAIMS</h4>According to Net Zero Tracker and additional data gathered by Spendwell, just 18 (barely half) of these companies have announced and planned for unambiguous science-based zero by or before 2050. This includes the nine companies with SBTi validated targets, but excludes the two fossil fuel companies with net-zero claims.</p>

<li><h4>NEAR-TERM</h4>19 (54%) companies have managed to set near-term targets with SBTi with another four committed to doing so.</li>

<li><h4>RENEWABLE ENERGY</h4>11 (31%) of these companies have made a commitment with a target year to 100% renewable energy through Science Based Targets or Climate Group’s RE100 initiative.</li>

<li><h4>ENERGY EFFICIENCY</h4>Just one company has set energy efficiency targets with Climate Group’s EP100 initiative.</li></ul></div>


Most 1t.org corporate alliance companies failing to meet science-based zero target obligations

Only 1 of Kansas City’s 11 largest companies, T-Mobile USA, has set net-zero targets with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the collaborative climate commitment initiative initially anchored and currently supported by the United Nations. Just 2 of these 10 companies have made commitments to 100% renewable energy through the SBTi or Climate Group’s RE100 initiative. None of these companies have committed to setting advanced energy efficiency targets through Climate Group’s EP100 initiative and only 3 of these 10 companies have set enough targets for the SBTi to effectively grade their commitments on a future-temperature alignment scale. This report compares the 10 largest metro Kansas City-headquartered companies on their commitments to climate emergency action and leadership, as measured through the independent SBTi as well Climate Group’s independent RE100 and EP100 initiatives. Companies making more and better commitments and setting more and better targets, rank better.

Largest Kansas City metro companies failing to lead on climate crisis

None of South Texas’ 10 largest companies have set net-zero targets with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the collaborative climate commitment initiative initially anchored and currently supported by the United Nations. Just 1 of these 10 companies, Rackspace, has made commitments to 100% renewable energy through the SBTi or Climate Group’s RE100 initiative and none of these companies have committed to setting advanced energy efficiency targets through Climate Group’s EP100 initiative. None of these companies have set enough targets for the SBTi to effectively grade their commitments on a future-temperature alignment scale. This report compares the 10 largest South Texas-headquartered companies on their commitments to climate emergency action and leadership, as measured through the independent SBTi as well Climate Group’s independent RE100 and EP100 initiatives. Companies making more and better commitments and setting more and better targets, rank better.

Largest South Texas companies failing on climate crisis

Just 1 of the 24 companies currently sponsoring COP 28 in Dubai have set net-zero targets with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the collaborative climate commitment initiative anchored by the United Nations. Just 5 of these companies have committed to setting net-zero targets with SBTi. Only 4 of these companies have set enough targets for the initiative to effectively grade their commitments on a future-temperature alignment scale. Just 2 of these 18 companies have made a commitment to 100% renewable energy through Science Based Targets or the RE100 initiative. Just 2 again have set targets with Climate Group’s EP100 energy efficiency initiative. This report looks at the 18 companies serving as official sponsors of COP 28. This report compares these companies on their commitments to climate emergency action and leadership, as measured through the independent Science Based Targets as well as Climate Group’s RE100 and EP100 initiatives. Companies making more and better commitments and setting more and better targets, rank better.

COP 28 sponsors failing to lead on climate commitments and targets

Over the last 5 years, these 10 companies collectively spent over $431,000,000,000 of their income repurchasing their own company stock, a practice that was illegal in the United States until the 1980s. This expenditure on buybacks almost doubles what these same companies spent on the prior five years, which was over $241,000,000,000. Stock buybacks disproportionately benefit insiders like corporate executives and institutional investors with the capabilities of maximizing buyback periods. Because stock buybacks allow beneficiaries to forgo the regular income taxes they would typically pay on ordinary dividends, buybacks by the film and television industry have likely saved their wealthiest shareholders $10s of billions in taxes over the last decade. This report compares the 10 largest US-operating film and television companies on their stock buybacks over the last 5 years. Companies that spend less on buybacks, rank better.

corporate impact report

Competitors

overall

no current rankings available

rankings in progress

environmental impact

IN PROGRESS

human impact

IN PROGRESS

political impact

IN PROGRESS

human impact

IN PROGRESS

economic impact

IN PROGRESS

consumer impact

IN PROGRESS

economic impact

IN PROGRESS

human impact

IN PROGRESS

political impact

IN PROGRESS

economic impact

IN PROGRESS

consumer impact

IN PROGRESS

human impact

IN PROGRESS

political impact

IN PROGRESS

environmental impact

IN PROGRESS

consumer impact

IN PROGRESS

environmental impact

IN PROGRESS

economic impact

IN PROGRESS

economic impact

IN PROGRESS

sitewide disclaimer