Many world economic forum corporate first movers moving backwards on climate
rankings
Companies committing to more independently verifiable action to mitigate their negative impact on the climate rank higher.
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.
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.
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.
SCIENCE-BASED ZERO VS. NET-ZERO
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.
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 science-based zero.
Key Findings
SCIENCE-BASED ZERO
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.NEAR-TERM
55 (57%) companies have managed to set near-term targets with SBTi with another four committed to doing so.RENEWABLE ENERGY
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.ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Just five companies have set energy efficiency targets with Climate Group’s EP100 initiative.
2040 OR EARLIER TARGET DATES
Eleven (11%) First Movers have science-based zero target years set for 2040 or earlier.MISSED DEADLINES & REMOVAL
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.PLEDGES & CLAIMS VS. VALIDATED
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.Please note: the Key Findings presented in this report are independent of the company climate rankings and Spendwell's climate ranking methodology. The Key Findings are statements of fact drawn from aggregate observations of this report's data. The company rankings found within this report are also based in factual observations of this data, but are scored based on Spendwell's own methodology, which is in beta. Spendwell's climate ranking methodology is grounded in current consensus around corporate climate targets and commitments, as interpreted by Spendwell. In simplest terms, Spendwell's climate ranking assumes the following order of importance in commitments and targets, where the < symbol means less [important] than :
energy efficiency < renewable energy < near-term < net-zero
Similarly, Spendwell's climate ranking methodology assumes that later is less [important] than sooner (i.e., 2050 < 2025) when it comes to target dates. Please consult the full ranking methodology below in order to learn more.
This ranking methodology will be included in Spendwell's Open Standard development process going forward.
All methodologies are in beta. Expect revisions and improvements.
Ranking Methodology
Spendwell is a completely independent corporate accountability effort. In order to maintain this independence, neither the corporations ranked in this report nor the initiatives included in this report's ranking scores or methodology were consulted in the production of this report. As an independent accountability project, it is part of Spendwell's mission to provide accountability for corporations as well as the initiatives and programs providing climate target setting, evaluation, tracking and reporting for corporations. The data used in this report is open and publicly available. Links to all sources are included in the following Methodology.
Jump To...
Context & Measures
Ranking Points System
Future Measures & Updates
Company Self-reporting
Company Comments or Statements
Open Standards Development
Context & Measures
This Spendwell ranking is predicated on the values-based statement a company should do all that it can to address and ultimately reverse its negative impact on the global climate. Most individual value rankings reported by Spendwell consist of a singular data point or a combination of like data points over set time periods (e.g., executive pay in each of the last 7 years, averaged). Measuring climate and other environmental impacts is significantly more complex.
Adding to this complexity is the third criteria for inclusion of a data point in any individual Spendwell value ranking: the data point should be independently verified. Typically, data points are derived from a company's self-reporting to regulatory bodies. In some instances, data is self-reported to independent, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and entities committed to transparency and truth-telling. Measurable climate data points are almost exclusively reported to the latter, complicating the process of compiling a value ranking, as nongovernmental bodies rarely have regulatory authority (e.g., the ability to require self-reporting). Fortunately, public interest in corporate climate impact has fostered a robust, independent NGO-based reporting system that Spendwell can tap into and distill for publicly accessible, directly measurable and independently verified or validated data points.
Two active climate accountability initiatives are currently reported by Spendwell and included in Spendwell’s initial climate impact value rankings:
- The Climate Group’s RE100 and EP100 programs focused on renewable energy consumption and efficiency, respectively, and
- The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), an independent corporate climate action commitment and measurement effort supported by several organizations including CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute and the World Wide Fund for Nature. SBTi is focused on renewable energy as well as science-based validation of near-term and net-zero targets.
Note: 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.
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 science-based zero.
Both of these initiatives meet Spendwell’s value-ranking criteria and both demonstrate corporate climate commitment to action. Just as important, these initiatives represent two of the only cross-industry, independent climate change-reporting efforts active on a global scale.
For informational purposes and when available, Spendwell includes data from the Net Zero Tracker program. The Net Zero Tracker program is a collaborative effort between the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, the Data-Driven EnviroLab, NewClimate Institute and Oxford Net Zero. The data collected by Net Zero Tracker is derived from materials produced directly by companies without necessarily any outside verification or validation of claims or pledges made. As such, this data does not meet Spendwell's criteria for inclusion in our rankings. However, it is significantly valuable for comparing claims or pledges with independently verified and validated commitments and targets, which is how this data is currently being employed by Spendwell. In the next phase of Spendwell's ranking, focused on transparency, it is likely that a measure scoring inconsistencies between claims or pledges and verified or validated commitments and targets will be included.
back to menu
Ranking Points System
The RE100, EP100 and SBTi initiatives require significant commitments to action by corporations and involve rigorous, scientifically guided and independently approved goal- and target-setting. These initiatives produce numerically comparative data points representing corporate commitment to positive climate impacts, level of positive impact attainment, and generally a time-frame for achieving those positive impacts. An approved RE100 commitment or an SBTi renewable electricity commitment consists of a target year for attaining 100% renewable energy consumption. EP100 commitments generally involve a target year, but this varies widely by company and industry. Similarly, an approved SBTi science-based zero target consists of a target year for attaining zero emissions. SBTi committed targets are assessed by SBTi to align with one of three levels of progressively positive climate impact: an impact level consistent with a “2 degrees Celsius” rise in global temperatures, a “well-below 2 C” rise, or a “1.5 C” or less rise. Points for ranking these complex commitments and targets are as follows:
Energy Efficiency
Spendwell assigns a company 50 points for participation in the EP100 initiative, but because of the significant variation in target years depending on company, industry, and more, Spendwell does not award bonus points for target year nearness.Renewable Energy
Spendwell assigns a company 50 points for participation in the RE100 initiative or the SBTi renewable electricity target. Companies are awarded a point for each year a 100% renewable energy target is sooner than 2050. For example, if a company's RE100 target year is 2025, they will be awarded 25 bonus points. In the event a company has committed to both initiatives, Spendwell uses only the data from the initiative with the earliest target year.Near-term
A company gets 25 points for committing to set near-term Science Based Targets. Spendwell does not count commitments to the SBTi version of Business Ambition for 1.5°C unless companies have already set targets. The Business Ambition for 1.5°C commitment initiative closed for commitments over 3 years ago. For more information, see SBTi's final report on its Business Ambition for 1.5°C program.- A company gets 25 points each for setting near-term Scope 1, 2 or 3 Science Based Targets.
- A company gets 50 points for setting Science-Based Targets that align with “2 degrees” of warming, 100 points for targets aligned with “well-below 2 degrees” of warming or 150 points for targets aligned with “1.5 degrees Celsius” of warming.
Science-based zero
Companies committing to set science-based zero targets with SBTi get 100 points and an additional 150 points when their science-based zero targets are validated. Companies are awarded 5 points for each year a science-based zero target is sooner than 2050 and an additional 200 points if their target is as soon or sooner than 2040. For example, if a company’s target year is 2039, they will be awarded 255 bonus points. If a company's science-base zero target year is after 2050, they lose 5 points for per year beyond this cut off. For example, if the company's science-based zero target year is 2053, they will be award 235 points total with no additional bonus for their validated science-based zero target.Missed Target Deadlines & Removal
Spendwell considers the abuse of commitment and target setting initiatives to be a form of greenwashing. Additionally, the climate crisis requires urgent action, companies should set targets as soon as possible and relevant initiatives should verify and validate them in a timely fashion. If a company, including its subsidiaries and overseas operations, misses an agreed to deadline for target validation or is removed from the Climate Group or SBTi's commitment list(s) for failure to set or reach approved targets, the company will lose 500 points and any points associated with previously made commitments and/or targets tied to the removed commitment. This includes companies that made Business Ambition for 1.5°C net-zero commitments, but failed to follow through with SBTi target validation. For SBTi, targets are typically due within 24 months of committing to set them. SBTi may or may not keep a company's commitment in active status while targets are being validated beyond the initial 24 month allowance. To ensure consistency in rankings, promote a sense of urgency, and in an effort to discourage greenwashing, Spendwell's ranking provides for a 3 month grace period for companies to gain target validation, for a total of 27 months. After this time, companies still without validated targets will lose 500 points. Commitment points are removed during this grace period. Certain companies, such as financial institutions and certain automobile industry companies have been granted target setting extensions by SBTi. Spendwell does not currently penalize these companies for having missed target setting dates, but does not grant them commitment points. For more information on SBTi's commitment compliance policies, including exceptions, see SBTi's commitment compliance policy.Please note: when SBTi notified committed companies in early 2023 about the above compliance policy, SBTi also let companies rescind commitments. If a company made a commitment through the Business Ambition for 1.5°C program, Spendwell's ranking includes that original commitment whether or not it was rescinded during SBTi's commitment compliance policy notice period.
Pledges & Claims
When available, information from Net Zero Tracker is provided for each company. This information includes whether or not a company has made a net-zero or similar pledge or claim (as determined by Net Zero Tracker) in their company's promotional materials. Net Zero Tracker does not track or perform independent verification or validation of these pledges and claims which means they cannot be included in Spendwell's current commitments and targets-focused rankings. However, this information is useful in assessing a company's seriousness and honesty about climate action. It is included here so that a company's pledges or claims can be compared against verified or validated commitments and targets. In the future, Spendwell's transparency-focused climate ranking phase will likely include some measure comparing promotional pledges and claims to verified or validated ones.For companies where Net Zero Tracker data is unavailable, Spendwell may provide information about pledges and claims. These instances are noted and cited accordingly in each company's details section.
Other Gross Misrepresentations
In certain instances, Spendwell will include in this report and ranking gross misrepresentations of commitments to climate crisis mitigation. For instance, this could include public misrepresentation of independent target validation or gross and intentionally misleading misrepresentation of emissions reductions. These misrepresentations will be scored on a case-by-case basis, but in a way that is universally applicable for all companies committing the same or similar misrepresentations. Currently, Spendwell includes in this ranking any retracted commitment to a UN-convened or recognized net-zero alliance or compact. Scoring details are below.UN-convened or supported net-zero alliance retractions
Companies that have publicly withdrawn or have been expelled from UN-convened or supported net-zero alliances will lose 500 points. Spendwell considers the abuse of UN-convened or supported net-zero initiatives to be a form of greenwashing. In order to regain these lost points, a company must fulfill the implied obligation of UN-convened net-zero alliances by having their science-based zero targets validated by SBTi or validated through equivalent means (company self-reporting) outlined in this methodology. For financial services or other industries with pending SBTi guidance, validated near-term targets in combination with new commitments to net-zero validation through SBTi will regain lost points for companies with retracted commitments from initiatives or alliances.Financial Services Companies
SBTi is in the process of finalizing net-zero guidance for companies in financial services. Banks, asset managers and other companies categorized as financial services by SBTi that have extensions or active commitments older than 2 years will retain their commitment points while SBTi finalizes guidance for this sector.Fossil Fuel Companies
Companies Spendwell classifies as belonging to the fossil fuel industry with no active commitments or targets tracked by Spendwell, lose 500 points. For Spendwell, fossil fuel companies are those actively involved in the production or distribution of fossil fuels as a major component of their business. General merchandise retailers with subsidized fuel services are not considered fossil fuel companies for Spendwell's rankings. Utilities that consume fossil fuels, but do not produce or distribute them in significant ways are not considered fossil fuel companies for Spendwell's rankings.
You can find out more about each of these independent, science-led climate initiatives through the following links:
SCIENCE BASED TARGETS INITIATIVE
points system basis
The point system used in this ranking was developed by Spendwell, in consultation with outside expertise and research, in order to weight the importance of each commitment and target made by companies. The points applied do not represent an independent, exact value measurement of individual commitments or targets, but rather their value relative to one another in this current ranking and to those made by other companies or entities in other Spendwell rankings. Where possible, the weighting provided by this point system was developed to closely align with the relevant priorities and recommendations presented by the UN's High Level Expert Group's November 2022 report, Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions. Future updates and phases of this climate ranking will reflect, as much as possible, the Integrity Matters report.
back to menu
Future Measures & Updates
This ranking is currently focused on science-based, independently verified and validated climate action commitments and targets. Future updates to this ranking will include measuring a company's transparency regarding its targets as well as demonstrated or verifiable action taken to make those commitments and targets, real and meaningful. Transparency and action will focus on emissions disclosure and progress, see below for more details.
New target initiatives
Future updates to this ranking and report will likely include new initiatives and standard validation efforts. For example, the International Organization of Standards (ISO) is undertaking an effort to develop a net-zero standard which could be used by organizations to independently validate or verify corporate targets and plans based on a common, comparable standard. This is an example of the type of effort Spendwell will consider for future inclusion in this report. You can find out more about ISO's efforts here:
Emissions disclosure (transparency)
The goal of science-based commitments and targets is emissions reduction and their eventual elimination, making open and transparent emissions disclosure essential to corporate climate accountability. The Net-zero Data Public Utility (NZDPU) and other open data disclosure projects and tools are moving towards production. In 2025 or 2026, depending on how quickly open disclosure projects and tools progress, Spendwell will begin incorporating emissions disclosures into this ranking methodology for climate. This methodology, including its points system, will be updated at that time.
Emissions progress (action)
Measured emissions progress will be incorporated into this ranking methodology for climate at the same time as emissions disclosure or shortly thereafter. This methodology, including its points system, will be updated at that time to reflect both the importance and urgency of rapid emissions reduction.
You can find out more about the NZDPU here:
Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (action)
Getting to science-based zero will likely not be enough if we're to maintain a liveable planet. Mitigation efforts will need to extend beyond value chain emissions to include net-negative, historical emissions mitigation, and similar efforts. No initiatives currently measure beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) commitments or targets systemically, let alone actual BVCM efforts. In the future, this methodology will incorporate BVCM commitments, targets and action as qualifying programs are developed. You can read more about what beyond value chain mitigation entails and its importance, here
back to menu
Company self-reporting
If for some reason a company is unable to have commitments and targets verified or validated through the initiatives currently tracked by Spendwell, they may self-report independently verified or validated equivalent commitments and targets. In order to self-report, the following must be met:
- A company cannot have current, rejected, removed, withdrawn, or otherwise failed commitments or targets with any of the initiatives tracked by Spendwell. A company cannot have expired or overdue target validation periods nor be in extension status for target submission with any of the initiatives tracked by Spendwell.
- For near-term and science-based zero, a company must provide independent verification that their targets meet or exceed the sector specific target guidance currently published by SBTi. This independent verification process must be managed by an accredited auditing firm and include the validation of no less than two independent climate scientists or independent climate science organizations. Industry alliances or associations are not considered independent. These scientists or organizations must have net-zero or similar target validation experience and histories. The validation of any targets must be in writing and included in the company's annual sustainability report for as long as the company expects them to be considered by Spendwell in lieu of SBTi validation.
- For renewable energy target verification, a company must provide independent verification that their targets meet or exceed the RE100 program's Technical Guidance. Both SBTi and Climate Group's RE100 renewable energy commitment initiatives use this Guidance as a baseline. This independent verification process must be managed by an accredited auditing firm and include the validation of at least one independent climate scientist or independent climate science organization. Industry alliances or associations are not considered independent. These scientists or organizations must have experience and histories with renewable energy target validation for corporations. The validation of any targets must be in writing and included in the company's annual sustainability report for as long as the company expects them to be considered by Spendwell in lieu of SBTi or Climate Group's renewable energy target verification.
- For energy efficiency target verification, a company must provide independent verification that their targets meet or exceed the EP100 program's Joining Criteria. This independent verification process must be managed by an accredited auditing firm and include the validation of at least one independent climate scientist or independent climate science organization. Industry alliances or associations are not considered independent. These scientists or organizations must have experience and histories with energy efficiency target validation for corporations. The validation of any targets must be in writing and included in the company's annual sustainability report for as long as the company expects them to be considered by Spendwell in lieu of Climate Group's energy efficiency target verification through EP100.
If your company had previously applied to join EP100, but was rejected by Climate Group for not meeting Climate Group's Joining Criteria, you may provide this documented rejection as well as supporting documentation demonstrating your company's existing and ongoing energy efficiency efforts with details about how they meet or exceed the commitments outlined in the EP100 joining criteria. Rejected companies making good faith efforts to meet energy efficiency standards will be awarded energy efficiency points for this ranking. Spendwell will review these instances on a case-by-case basis.
In order to begin the process submitting alternative verification or validation for energy efficiency, renewable energy, near-term or science-based zero targets, contact Spendwell using the following option. Please provide Spendwell with your name, company, role within your company and the specific measure or measures for which you would like to submit independent verification. Spendwell will provide further instructions for identity verification and procedures after receiving this initial message.
Please note: Spendwell only accepts independent validation submissions from companies currently reported on by Spendwell and your company must be included in the report from which you are submitting your request.
clicking the above will open your default email client.
back to menu
Company Comments or Statements
Spendwell allows any company to provide a limited comment or statement about the rankings or data reported by Spendwell. A comment typically references a specific aspect of a report while a statement is typically more generalized. Comments and statements do not impact a company's ranking on any measure reported by Spendwell.
In order to begin the process submitting a comment or statement, contact Spendwell using the following option. Please provide Spendwell with your name, company and role within your company. Spendwell will provide further instructions for identity verification and procedures after receiving this initial message.
Please note: Spendwell only accepts comments or statements from companies currently reported on by Spendwell and your company must be included in the report from which you are submitting your request.
clicking the above will open your default email client.
back to menu
Open Standards Development
Future modifications to this climate ranking and its underlying standard will be developed through an open standards development process. To find out more or express interest in participating in our open standards development, use the following contact option.
clicking the above will open your default email client.
If you have other questions, comments, or suggestions about this report, its methodology, or any other aspect of Spendwell's work, you can use the contact options below to get in touch.
Please note: the Key Findings presented in this report are independent of the company climate rankings and Spendwell's climate ranking methodology. The Key Findings are statements of fact drawn from aggregate observations of this report's data. The company rankings found within this report are also based in factual observations of this data, but are scored based on Spendwell's own methodology, which is in beta. Spendwell's climate ranking methodology is grounded in current consensus around corporate climate targets and commitments, as interpreted by Spendwell. In simplest terms, Spendwell's climate ranking assumes the following order of importance in commitments and targets, where the < symbol means less [important] than :
energy efficiency < renewable energy < near-term < net-zero
Similarly, Spendwell's climate ranking methodology assumes that later is less [important] than sooner (i.e., 2050 < 2025) when it comes to target dates. Please consult the full ranking methodology below in order to learn more.
This ranking methodology will be included in Spendwell's Open Standard development process going forward.
All methodologies are in beta. Expect revisions and improvements.
Ranking Methodology
Spendwell is a completely independent corporate accountability effort. In order to maintain this independence, neither the corporations ranked in this report nor the initiatives included in this report's ranking scores or methodology were consulted in the production of this report. As an independent accountability project, it is part of Spendwell's mission to provide accountability for corporations as well as the initiatives and programs providing climate target setting, evaluation, tracking and reporting for corporations. The data used in this report is open and publicly available. Links to all sources are included in the following Methodology.
Jump To...
Context & Measures
Ranking Points System
Future Measures & Updates
Company Self-reporting
Company Comments or Statements
Open Standards Development
Context & Measures
This Spendwell ranking is predicated on the values-based statement a company should do all that it can to address and ultimately reverse its negative impact on the global climate. Most individual value rankings reported by Spendwell consist of a singular data point or a combination of like data points over set time periods (e.g., executive pay in each of the last 7 years, averaged). Measuring climate and other environmental impacts is significantly more complex.
Adding to this complexity is the third criteria for inclusion of a data point in any individual Spendwell value ranking: the data point should be independently verified. Typically, data points are derived from a company's self-reporting to regulatory bodies. In some instances, data is self-reported to independent, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and entities committed to transparency and truth-telling. Measurable climate data points are almost exclusively reported to the latter, complicating the process of compiling a value ranking, as nongovernmental bodies rarely have regulatory authority (e.g., the ability to require self-reporting). Fortunately, public interest in corporate climate impact has fostered a robust, independent NGO-based reporting system that Spendwell can tap into and distill for publicly accessible, directly measurable and independently verified or validated data points.
Two active climate accountability initiatives are currently reported by Spendwell and included in Spendwell’s initial climate impact value rankings:
- The Climate Group’s RE100 and EP100 programs focused on renewable energy consumption and efficiency, respectively, and
- The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), an independent corporate climate action commitment and measurement effort supported by several organizations including CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute and the World Wide Fund for Nature. SBTi is focused on renewable energy as well as science-based validation of near-term and net-zero targets.
Note: 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.
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 science-based zero.
Both of these initiatives meet Spendwell’s value-ranking criteria and both demonstrate corporate climate commitment to action. Just as important, these initiatives represent two of the only cross-industry, independent climate change-reporting efforts active on a global scale.
For informational purposes and when available, Spendwell includes data from the Net Zero Tracker program. The Net Zero Tracker program is a collaborative effort between the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, the Data-Driven EnviroLab, NewClimate Institute and Oxford Net Zero. The data collected by Net Zero Tracker is derived from materials produced directly by companies without necessarily any outside verification or validation of claims or pledges made. As such, this data does not meet Spendwell's criteria for inclusion in our rankings. However, it is significantly valuable for comparing claims or pledges with independently verified and validated commitments and targets, which is how this data is currently being employed by Spendwell. In the next phase of Spendwell's ranking, focused on transparency, it is likely that a measure scoring inconsistencies between claims or pledges and verified or validated commitments and targets will be included.
back to menu
Ranking Points System
The RE100, EP100 and SBTi initiatives require significant commitments to action by corporations and involve rigorous, scientifically guided and independently approved goal- and target-setting. These initiatives produce numerically comparative data points representing corporate commitment to positive climate impacts, level of positive impact attainment, and generally a time-frame for achieving those positive impacts. An approved RE100 commitment or an SBTi renewable electricity commitment consists of a target year for attaining 100% renewable energy consumption. EP100 commitments generally involve a target year, but this varies widely by company and industry. Similarly, an approved SBTi science-based zero target consists of a target year for attaining zero emissions. SBTi committed targets are assessed by SBTi to align with one of three levels of progressively positive climate impact: an impact level consistent with a “2 degrees Celsius” rise in global temperatures, a “well-below 2 C” rise, or a “1.5 C” or less rise. Points for ranking these complex commitments and targets are as follows:
Energy Efficiency
Spendwell assigns a company 50 points for participation in the EP100 initiative, but because of the significant variation in target years depending on company, industry, and more, Spendwell does not award bonus points for target year nearness.Renewable Energy
Spendwell assigns a company 50 points for participation in the RE100 initiative or the SBTi renewable electricity target. Companies are awarded a point for each year a 100% renewable energy target is sooner than 2050. For example, if a company's RE100 target year is 2025, they will be awarded 25 bonus points. In the event a company has committed to both initiatives, Spendwell uses only the data from the initiative with the earliest target year.Near-term
A company gets 25 points for committing to set near-term Science Based Targets. Spendwell does not count commitments to the SBTi version of Business Ambition for 1.5°C unless companies have already set targets. The Business Ambition for 1.5°C commitment initiative closed for commitments over 3 years ago. For more information, see SBTi's final report on its Business Ambition for 1.5°C program.- A company gets 25 points each for setting near-term Scope 1, 2 or 3 Science Based Targets.
- A company gets 50 points for setting Science-Based Targets that align with “2 degrees” of warming, 100 points for targets aligned with “well-below 2 degrees” of warming or 150 points for targets aligned with “1.5 degrees Celsius” of warming.
Science-based zero
Companies committing to set science-based zero targets with SBTi get 100 points and an additional 150 points when their science-based zero targets are validated. Companies are awarded 5 points for each year a science-based zero target is sooner than 2050 and an additional 200 points if their target is as soon or sooner than 2040. For example, if a company’s target year is 2039, they will be awarded 255 bonus points. If a company's science-base zero target year is after 2050, they lose 5 points for per year beyond this cut off. For example, if the company's science-based zero target year is 2053, they will be award 235 points total with no additional bonus for their validated science-based zero target.Missed Target Deadlines & Removal
Spendwell considers the abuse of commitment and target setting initiatives to be a form of greenwashing. Additionally, the climate crisis requires urgent action, companies should set targets as soon as possible and relevant initiatives should verify and validate them in a timely fashion. If a company, including its subsidiaries and overseas operations, misses an agreed to deadline for target validation or is removed from the Climate Group or SBTi's commitment list(s) for failure to set or reach approved targets, the company will lose 500 points and any points associated with previously made commitments and/or targets tied to the removed commitment. This includes companies that made Business Ambition for 1.5°C net-zero commitments, but failed to follow through with SBTi target validation. For SBTi, targets are typically due within 24 months of committing to set them. SBTi may or may not keep a company's commitment in active status while targets are being validated beyond the initial 24 month allowance. To ensure consistency in rankings, promote a sense of urgency, and in an effort to discourage greenwashing, Spendwell's ranking provides for a 3 month grace period for companies to gain target validation, for a total of 27 months. After this time, companies still without validated targets will lose 500 points. Commitment points are removed during this grace period. Certain companies, such as financial institutions and certain automobile industry companies have been granted target setting extensions by SBTi. Spendwell does not currently penalize these companies for having missed target setting dates, but does not grant them commitment points. For more information on SBTi's commitment compliance policies, including exceptions, see SBTi's commitment compliance policy.Please note: when SBTi notified committed companies in early 2023 about the above compliance policy, SBTi also let companies rescind commitments. If a company made a commitment through the Business Ambition for 1.5°C program, Spendwell's ranking includes that original commitment whether or not it was rescinded during SBTi's commitment compliance policy notice period.
Pledges & Claims
When available, information from Net Zero Tracker is provided for each company. This information includes whether or not a company has made a net-zero or similar pledge or claim (as determined by Net Zero Tracker) in their company's promotional materials. Net Zero Tracker does not track or perform independent verification or validation of these pledges and claims which means they cannot be included in Spendwell's current commitments and targets-focused rankings. However, this information is useful in assessing a company's seriousness and honesty about climate action. It is included here so that a company's pledges or claims can be compared against verified or validated commitments and targets. In the future, Spendwell's transparency-focused climate ranking phase will likely include some measure comparing promotional pledges and claims to verified or validated ones.For companies where Net Zero Tracker data is unavailable, Spendwell may provide information about pledges and claims. These instances are noted and cited accordingly in each company's details section.
Other Gross Misrepresentations
In certain instances, Spendwell will include in this report and ranking gross misrepresentations of commitments to climate crisis mitigation. For instance, this could include public misrepresentation of independent target validation or gross and intentionally misleading misrepresentation of emissions reductions. These misrepresentations will be scored on a case-by-case basis, but in a way that is universally applicable for all companies committing the same or similar misrepresentations. Currently, Spendwell includes in this ranking any retracted commitment to a UN-convened or recognized net-zero alliance or compact. Scoring details are below.UN-convened or supported net-zero alliance retractions
Companies that have publicly withdrawn or have been expelled from UN-convened or supported net-zero alliances will lose 500 points. Spendwell considers the abuse of UN-convened or supported net-zero initiatives to be a form of greenwashing. In order to regain these lost points, a company must fulfill the implied obligation of UN-convened net-zero alliances by having their science-based zero targets validated by SBTi or validated through equivalent means (company self-reporting) outlined in this methodology. For financial services or other industries with pending SBTi guidance, validated near-term targets in combination with new commitments to net-zero validation through SBTi will regain lost points for companies with retracted commitments from initiatives or alliances.Financial Services Companies
SBTi is in the process of finalizing net-zero guidance for companies in financial services. Banks, asset managers and other companies categorized as financial services by SBTi that have extensions or active commitments older than 2 years will retain their commitment points while SBTi finalizes guidance for this sector.Fossil Fuel Companies
Companies Spendwell classifies as belonging to the fossil fuel industry with no active commitments or targets tracked by Spendwell, lose 500 points. For Spendwell, fossil fuel companies are those actively involved in the production or distribution of fossil fuels as a major component of their business. General merchandise retailers with subsidized fuel services are not considered fossil fuel companies for Spendwell's rankings. Utilities that consume fossil fuels, but do not produce or distribute them in significant ways are not considered fossil fuel companies for Spendwell's rankings.
You can find out more about each of these independent, science-led climate initiatives through the following links:
SCIENCE BASED TARGETS INITIATIVE
points system basis
The point system used in this ranking was developed by Spendwell, in consultation with outside expertise and research, in order to weight the importance of each commitment and target made by companies. The points applied do not represent an independent, exact value measurement of individual commitments or targets, but rather their value relative to one another in this current ranking and to those made by other companies or entities in other Spendwell rankings. Where possible, the weighting provided by this point system was developed to closely align with the relevant priorities and recommendations presented by the UN's High Level Expert Group's November 2022 report, Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions. Future updates and phases of this climate ranking will reflect, as much as possible, the Integrity Matters report.
back to menu
Future Measures & Updates
This ranking is currently focused on science-based, independently verified and validated climate action commitments and targets. Future updates to this ranking will include measuring a company's transparency regarding its targets as well as demonstrated or verifiable action taken to make those commitments and targets, real and meaningful. Transparency and action will focus on emissions disclosure and progress, see below for more details.
New target initiatives
Future updates to this ranking and report will likely include new initiatives and standard validation efforts. For example, the International Organization of Standards (ISO) is undertaking an effort to develop a net-zero standard which could be used by organizations to independently validate or verify corporate targets and plans based on a common, comparable standard. This is an example of the type of effort Spendwell will consider for future inclusion in this report. You can find out more about ISO's efforts here:
Emissions disclosure (transparency)
The goal of science-based commitments and targets is emissions reduction and their eventual elimination, making open and transparent emissions disclosure essential to corporate climate accountability. The Net-zero Data Public Utility (NZDPU) and other open data disclosure projects and tools are moving towards production. In 2025 or 2026, depending on how quickly open disclosure projects and tools progress, Spendwell will begin incorporating emissions disclosures into this ranking methodology for climate. This methodology, including its points system, will be updated at that time.
Emissions progress (action)
Measured emissions progress will be incorporated into this ranking methodology for climate at the same time as emissions disclosure or shortly thereafter. This methodology, including its points system, will be updated at that time to reflect both the importance and urgency of rapid emissions reduction.
You can find out more about the NZDPU here:
Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (action)
Getting to science-based zero will likely not be enough if we're to maintain a liveable planet. Mitigation efforts will need to extend beyond value chain emissions to include net-negative, historical emissions mitigation, and similar efforts. No initiatives currently measure beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) commitments or targets systemically, let alone actual BVCM efforts. In the future, this methodology will incorporate BVCM commitments, targets and action as qualifying programs are developed. You can read more about what beyond value chain mitigation entails and its importance, here
back to menu
Company self-reporting
If for some reason a company is unable to have commitments and targets verified or validated through the initiatives currently tracked by Spendwell, they may self-report independently verified or validated equivalent commitments and targets. In order to self-report, the following must be met:
- A company cannot have current, rejected, removed, withdrawn, or otherwise failed commitments or targets with any of the initiatives tracked by Spendwell. A company cannot have expired or overdue target validation periods nor be in extension status for target submission with any of the initiatives tracked by Spendwell.
- For near-term and science-based zero, a company must provide independent verification that their targets meet or exceed the sector specific target guidance currently published by SBTi. This independent verification process must be managed by an accredited auditing firm and include the validation of no less than two independent climate scientists or independent climate science organizations. Industry alliances or associations are not considered independent. These scientists or organizations must have net-zero or similar target validation experience and histories. The validation of any targets must be in writing and included in the company's annual sustainability report for as long as the company expects them to be considered by Spendwell in lieu of SBTi validation.
- For renewable energy target verification, a company must provide independent verification that their targets meet or exceed the RE100 program's Technical Guidance. Both SBTi and Climate Group's RE100 renewable energy commitment initiatives use this Guidance as a baseline. This independent verification process must be managed by an accredited auditing firm and include the validation of at least one independent climate scientist or independent climate science organization. Industry alliances or associations are not considered independent. These scientists or organizations must have experience and histories with renewable energy target validation for corporations. The validation of any targets must be in writing and included in the company's annual sustainability report for as long as the company expects them to be considered by Spendwell in lieu of SBTi or Climate Group's renewable energy target verification.
- For energy efficiency target verification, a company must provide independent verification that their targets meet or exceed the EP100 program's Joining Criteria. This independent verification process must be managed by an accredited auditing firm and include the validation of at least one independent climate scientist or independent climate science organization. Industry alliances or associations are not considered independent. These scientists or organizations must have experience and histories with energy efficiency target validation for corporations. The validation of any targets must be in writing and included in the company's annual sustainability report for as long as the company expects them to be considered by Spendwell in lieu of Climate Group's energy efficiency target verification through EP100.
If your company had previously applied to join EP100, but was rejected by Climate Group for not meeting Climate Group's Joining Criteria, you may provide this documented rejection as well as supporting documentation demonstrating your company's existing and ongoing energy efficiency efforts with details about how they meet or exceed the commitments outlined in the EP100 joining criteria. Rejected companies making good faith efforts to meet energy efficiency standards will be awarded energy efficiency points for this ranking. Spendwell will review these instances on a case-by-case basis.
In order to begin the process submitting alternative verification or validation for energy efficiency, renewable energy, near-term or science-based zero targets, contact Spendwell using the following option. Please provide Spendwell with your name, company, role within your company and the specific measure or measures for which you would like to submit independent verification. Spendwell will provide further instructions for identity verification and procedures after receiving this initial message.
Please note: Spendwell only accepts independent validation submissions from companies currently reported on by Spendwell and your company must be included in the report from which you are submitting your request.
clicking the above will open your default email client.
back to menu
Company Comments or Statements
Spendwell allows any company to provide a limited comment or statement about the rankings or data reported by Spendwell. A comment typically references a specific aspect of a report while a statement is typically more generalized. Comments and statements do not impact a company's ranking on any measure reported by Spendwell.
In order to begin the process submitting a comment or statement, contact Spendwell using the following option. Please provide Spendwell with your name, company and role within your company. Spendwell will provide further instructions for identity verification and procedures after receiving this initial message.
Please note: Spendwell only accepts comments or statements from companies currently reported on by Spendwell and your company must be included in the report from which you are submitting your request.
clicking the above will open your default email client.
back to menu
Open Standards Development
Future modifications to this climate ranking and its underlying standard will be developed through an open standards development process. To find out more or express interest in participating in our open standards development, use the following contact option.
clicking the above will open your default email client.
If you have other questions, comments, or suggestions about this report, its methodology, or any other aspect of Spendwell's work, you can use the contact options below to get in touch.
Ranking
rankings
Companies committing to more independently verifiable action to mitigate their negative impact on the climate rank higher.
Report Disclaimer
Spendwell is a corporate accountability-focused investigative media group that sources all data used in its rankings and reports through government regulatory entities, recognized nongovernmental organizations, news media and independently verifiable company self-reporting. For this climate report, the data used is sourced from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the Climate Group, each of which have their own data policy/disclaimer that can be found at the following links: SBTi Disclaimer (see dashboard Key text) and the Climate Group's RE100 terms of service and the Climate Group's general/EP100 terms of service. These disclaimers also apply to the related data in this report.The veracity of the information sourced from SBTi and the Climate Group is generally excellent, but is reliant, in most instances, on information provided by companies to these NGOs. Spendwell disclaims any liability arising from use of Spendwell’s reporting, rankings or any other content on spendwell.com or otherwise provided by Spendwell. Spendwell does not provide investment advice; therefore, nothing on Spendwell.com or content otherwise provided by Spendwell should be construed as an offering of investment advice. If you believe information reported by Spendwell or included in one of Spendwell’s reports or rankings is inaccurate, please contact Spendwell through the report or ranking in question in order to request an investigation and/or editorial correction.
If you believe this report needs a correction or update, please let Spendwell know.
If you are media or have other questions regarding this report, please contact Spendwell.
Clicking either of these buttons will open your default email client.
