New York, May 2025

For the fifth year in a row, I’ve published my annual analysis of CDP climate scores — and 2024 marks a dramatic shift. Here's why:

🔻 The U.S. is falling behind:

Only 7.8% of S&P 500 companies received an A or A- rating this year — down sharply from 21.6% in 2023. In contrast, 50% of France’s CAC 40, and around 30% of the UK’s FTSE and Germany’s DAX, still maintain top scores. The gap in climate leadership is widening.

📉 Key sectors downgraded:

Industries most affected include Materials, Consumer Staples, and Energy — areas critical to decarbonization efforts.

❓ Missing scores from major tech players:

Companies that were A or A- last year — including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, IBM, HP, Adobe, and Accenture — currently have no public score.

⏳ Unpublished scores & transparency concerns:

Although scores were released on April 17, many major companies are still missing from the dataset — possibly due to transparency issues, appeals, or changes in CDP’s disclosure policies.

➡️ Full analysis is now live here

New York, April 2024

This year, we are expanding the CDP Climate Change scores analysis to almost 700 global companies. A few take-aways:

By Company(more details here)

• Haleon, Amazon and EssilorLuxottica all obtain a B for their first submission!
• There is no significant downgrade (1 notch max) among the major companies
• Many major companies (mainly American) continue not disclosing: for example, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Berkshire Hathaway, Tesla, Charter Communications and others.

By Geography / Stock Exchange (more details here)

• Europe is definitely in advance with significantly more companies scoring A/A-.
• France (CAC40) is leading the pack with almost 70% in A/A- (vs. 35% for the US)
• Obtaining single A is getting harder year over year. Germany is the exception.

By Sector (more details here)

• Great momentum for industrial companies with 3x more winners than losers. Healthcare is also showing progress.
• All the utilities are either maintaining their score or being downgraded
• IT companies tend to keep high scores (most are between A and B)
• Financial companies are very heterogenous with many large swings vs. 2022 (both ways) and still a significant number of companies without score for the past 2 years.

New York, November 2023

In our new release, we are taking one more step to track climate performance of companies at scale

Good news, there is an increasing number of companies disclosing their climate performance due to regulation in Europe and soon in the United States (still waiting to hear from the SEC!). There are also more organizations collecting climate data. No doubt that integrating these new data sources will significantly accelerate our efforts to analyze and benchmark corporates' climate performance but at the same time, we will have to reinforce control mechanism to ensure data quality and comprehensiveness. That is the journey we are starting by adding this month 2 new sources : Wikirate and Yourstake.

"Wikirate is an open data platform powered by a global community that collects, analyzes and shares data on company commitments, actions and impacts on people and the planet." The platform is really well structured, supported by a team passionate to empower people with open ESG data. Check their latest dataset Climate 100 GHG Emissions.

"YourStake is a platform that provides Wealth and Asset Managers with tools to take their clients through a values-aligned investment journey, and is an independent Public Benefit Corporation with a core commitment to make values-aligned investing personalized, explainable, and transparent" YourStake made the news early 2023 by releasing a free library of SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation) data. Many thanks for this contribution!

New York, March 2023

Thanks to one of our sister websites, Net Zero Tracker ( zerotracker.net), information about the use of offsets and CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removals) in the net zero targets of companies is now included on net0tracker. Many thanks! Click on the logos for examples Microsoft Netflix Colgate

Offset credits

"Offsetting claims to compensate an entity’s own GHG emissions by accounting for GHG emission reductions (including through avoided emissions) or GHG removals achieved external to the actor. This way, the entity claims a reduced net contribution to global emissions through offset credits. Offsetting is typically arranged through a marketplace for carbon credits or other exchange mechanisms."

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

"CDR, also known as negative emissions, represents any action that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. CDR comprises a range of nature-based solutions, for example afforestation, or reforestation, and technological solutions, for example direct air carbon carbon and storage (DACCS)."

Separate emissions reduction and removal targets

"Some entities differentiate their emission reductions targets from their removals targets. Separate targets for emission reductions and removals improves transparency, making it easier to track progress and compare the level of target ambition. The achievement of the Paris Agreement temperature goals requires both rapid emission reductions and the removal of residual emissions. Separating emissions reduction and removal targets recognises that the outcomes of removal activities are generally not equivalent to the outcome of emission reduction activities."

Data source from zerotracker.net - For more information, see methodology

New York, January 2023

Here's my observations for the 2022 climate scoring of top 100 companies in the US:

• Based on CDP 2022 Climate Change questionnaires, scores are getting worse on average with relatively less companies scoring in A to B- range (-14pts vs. 2021) and more in C to D range (+8pts). It is probably due to the evolution of the scoring system more focused on accountability than just reporting comprehensiveness. Still 33% companies are scoring A/A- (vs. 42% in 2021).
• Something is happening in the US financial sector: all the major American banks (Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Capital One, Citi) submitted the questionnaire but were not scored. According to CDP, these companies submitted their questionnaire after the deadline. That also explains the drop in A/A- scores vs. 2021.
• Top 3 upgrades are companies that started reporting recently: 2nd year for Meta (B), Booking Holdings (C) and first year for Broadcom (C).
• Top 3 Downgrades are ConocoPhillips (B=>D), BlackRock (A=>C) and WalMart (A- =>C). Note that the scoring details are not publicly available so it's hard to understand the key drivers
• Amazon and Broadcom started submitting in 2022 whereas Netflix and Charter Communications both stopped after reporting in 2021 for the first time.

New York, November 2022 - Technical Update

During summer 2021, I started developing this website like a prototype, leveraging Django framework (because I love Python) and a big Excel file with CSV extracts to display stats, scores and build charts. On top of learning (thank you Stackoverflow and all the open source communities) the basics on how to develop a simple website, I spent a lot of time manually inputting data, scraping websites and testing different ideas for scoring. Early 2022, I realized that this website would be impossible to maintain if I did not fundamentally change its architecture. The main limitation was my inability to deal with simple time series and score versioning. Over the past year, here's a status of the main technical changes:

• KILL THE BIG EXCEL FILE and migrate all data to a POSTGRESQL database. That required re-writing all the code for querying and computing charts, scores and statistics - it was long but extremely satisfying. The website became slighlty faster too (postgresql queries are usually faster than manipulation of a csv file with pandas). There are now more possibilities for statistics, like computing scores for different periods or analyzing performance by sector.
• CREATE A USER INTERFACE FOR DATA INPUT: changing an excel file is far easier than interacting with a database but it provides very low control on the quality of data input. That is why I created a separate web interface to input data and load supporting documents, with data checks embedded in the user input forms. I successfully tested this interface during summer to input new data from recent sustainability reporting of companies.
• CREATE A USER PERMISSION SYSTEM AND VALIDATION WORKFLOW: along with the user interface, I had to create a user permission system to allow users to input data with the possibility to verify data before they are taken into account for updating scores and statistics of the website. This part still requires a lot of work before it can be fully functional.
• SEPARATE FRONT AND BACK-END (as much as possible): technically, I think my architecture is still monolithic but I separated as much as possible the visual rendering of the website with the back-office routines (cron jobs mainly) that update the database. It makes the code more readable and maintainable too. I also separated static (like css or some static pictures) and media files (mainly upload documents and dynamically-generated charts).
• DIFFERENTIATE PRODUCTION AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT: I am the only developer and my website is quite light in terms of data and code, that is why for long time, I had no issue with working on very similar environments in local and production. Well... that also caused many problems and security risks!

So What? Why does it matter?

The more I learn, the more I realize how my mistakes could have been easily avoided and how professional software engineers would have done a way better job BUT I learnt invaluable lessons that can only be learnt by doing. First, the value of prototyping is huge - by playing with Excel for many months, I could test a lot of ideas and better define better data models later. By doing it fast, I also maintained my motivation and was laser-focused on the website objective (not its technical foundations). Then, I realized how easy it is to fall in love with coding, architecture, lastest tools (there's real beauty in clean code) and get disconnected with the end objectives... I experienced it myself so I can also better understand some software professionals who tend to behave the same way. Finally, I love learning and solving problems and remembering this journey inspires me, and hopefully others, to continue dreaming developping bigger things.

What's Next?

By year-end, I plan to update all the 2022 scores and prepare for 2023. Here's the ideas for now:

• Way more analytics
• Study the expansion of the scope of covered companies beyond the S&P 100
• More real-time data (especially finance and economic data) to counter-balance the pretty static scoring
• Open the website to external contributors and users

Focus on Progress! First Observations on 2022 Climate Reporting

New York, June 2022 - One year ago, I started analyzing the climate performance of the top 100 American companies by scanning through their website, sustainability reporting, CDP disclosures, verification report and updates about their progress to date. I added additional data points from MSCi (Implied Temperature Rise) and SBTi with the objective to calculate a global climate performance score that balances transparency (30%), commitments (40%) and results (30%). See methodology here (note that the scores will be updated after completing all the reviews by early July 2022.).

Over the past 3 months, many sustainability reports were released to the public. Here's my first observations on 2022 Climate Reporting:

Better consistency, comparability and reliability

New York, June 2022 - If adopted, the proposed SEC rules related to climate-related disclosures will significantly enhance consistency, comparability and reliability of climate data and risks for almost 7,000 companies in the US. Only a few days left (until June 17) for public comments.

Let's start with my Top 5 positives ❤️

...and the Top 5 negatives 🤔

BETTER BUT STRICTER - MY FIRST LOOK AT THE CDP SCORES (CLIMATE CHANGE)

New York, December 2021 - Here's my first take-aways on the new 2021 CDP scores:
👋 Significant acceleration of disclosures: +35% vs. 2020 (64% market) increase in participation, representing 13,000+ companies worldwide (vs. less than 10,000 in 2020)
✅ Average rating for S&P 100 US companies remain stable at slightly above B-
📶 Single A's are getting more difficult (only 11 vs. 24 in 2020) - the distribution is evolving towards much less A-rated companies and a concentration in A- and B
❌ Among S&P 100, 26 downgrades but by only 1 notch (except Lockeed Martin downgraded from A to B) and usually from high ratings (A / A-).
👍 Among S&P 100, 20 upgrades including many significant improvements due to new-comers like Raytheon (A-), Nextera (A-) but also Starbucks, General Dynamics and American Tower (D to B)

Is the creation of ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) a real game-changer in ESG reporting?

YES, for several reasons:

What’s next?

10 Best Practices in Climate Reporting

New York, November 2021 - Last summer 2021, I embarked on a wonderful but long adventure : analyzing the climate performance of the top 100 American companies by scanning through their website, sustainability reporting, CDP disclosures, verification report and updates about their progress to date. Because there is no public repository of carbon footprint and climate targets, I had no choice but to manually investigate every single company based on its public data. I collected over a thousand documents and captured millions of data points that I intend to make publicly-available on the net0tracker website. My objective was to get a feel of the state of climate reporting and quantitatively benchmark different companies in their climate disclosures and performance. Here's the 10 best practices to improve transparency:

1. Provide comprehensive scope 3 footprint data: many companies calculate but do not publish scope 3 data in their sustainability report, probably because of lack of verification or trust. Many companies also misrepresent the total scope 3 footprint by only including a few categories (typically business travel and commute).
2. Provide all the details of your climate commitments: reduction targets, baseline, scopes, exclusions and pace of reduction by year. The formulation adopted by SBTi is a good start.
3. Do not merge scopes or categories: GHG protocol define 3 scopes and specific scope 3 categories for carbon accounting. Some companies merge some scopes (e.g. scope 1 and 2) or some categories without providing the details.
4. Make the verification report publicly-available: 35% companies claim that their climate data is verified but do not provide the verification report.
5. Avoid or verify prior year restatements: some companies restate their prior year GHG data, often because of change of methodology, but fail at making them re-verified by an external third-party.
6. Make GHG data consistent with CDP report: there are still many discrepancies between public reporting and CDP report because of periods, scopes or restatements.
7. Make CDP report publicly-available: 63% companies provide their CDP report. Since CDP requires to create an account and impose quotas on number of companies to search for, a simple link to the CDP website is not enough to demonstrate transparency.
8. Provide the latest CDP questionnaire, even if not available yet on CDP website. The most advanced companies (14%) share their 2021 submissions even if 2021 scores are not published yet. I also encourage companies that submit for the first time to CDP (e.g. Netflix, Facebook) to share their CDP questionnaire
9. Publish your climate data in a timely manner: in general, companies report their carbon footprint 6 to 12 months after the closing period, which is still way too late.
10. Regularly report on your progress: report on your progress at least on quarterly basis and provide guidance on the achievement of your commitments.

Do Not Be Fooled By The (CDP) Score!

New York, November 2021 - For most sustainability professionals, the ultimate measure of climate reporting quality and transparency is the CDP score (climate change questionnaire). It is used by almost 10,000 companies to advertise their progress towards environmental stewardship and communicate to investors. Over the past few months, I have explored the parallels between finance and carbon reporting and realized that a CDP score is far from telling the full story. Many experienced leaders in sustainability report that this score is more related to the completeness of answers to the questionnaire than real climate performance and carbon emission reductions. But isnt't it natural to think that there is a relation between transparency and performance? How can we measure this relation?
Good news: this week, MSCi made public a new forward-looking indicator to measure the alignment of companies, portfolios and funds with global climate targets : the Implied Temperature Rise (ITR). You can now search over 2,900 companies and check their ITR and decarbonization target. Thank you MSCi for this contribution! So let's compare the 2 metrics for the top 100 US companies, starting with the distribution of scores as shown below.

CDP score distribution is significantly skewed to good scores with 48% and 21% of companies scoring respectively A/A- and B. ITR score distribution looks similar but proportions are quite different with only 15% of companies below 1.5°C and 38% between 1.5°C and 2°C. This distribution is a sad reminder that despite all the net zero pledges and alignment to 1.5°C scenario, US companies are very far from being aligned with Paris agreement. Let's now plot ITR by CDP score category to understand the relationship.

A few observations:

• No clear correlation between CDP and ITR scores, even if most of the companies aligning with a below 2°C scenario have a good CDP score
• Most of C-score companies are below 2°C (AIG, Paypal, Verizon, McDonald, Target, Comcast)
• F-score companies (no CDP reporting) show a few surprises: Berkshire Hathaway and Tesla respectively show a 2.25°C and 2.81°C alignment but do not disclose any carbon data. Facebook and Netflix (committed to reporting to CDP this year) are well below 2°C. Could Charter Communications (1.7°C) be the next one?
• High temperatures (>3.5°C) are among all the CDP scores categories: General Motors (A / 4°C), Southern Company (A- / 4°C), Dow (B / 4°C), Kraft Heinz (B- / 3.8°C), General Electric (D / 4°C), Nextera Energy (F / 3.61°C) and Exxon Mobil (F / 4°C)

3 Major Challenges in Trusting Carbon Data

New York, October 2021 - Exploring GHG emissions data in a ESG or sustainability report is a very similar experience to reading financials in an annual report: it is technical, full of footnotes, appendix, references to frameworks (e.g. CDP, GRI, SASB, TCFD...) and external documents. Like finance, the language makes it hardly accessible to non-experts. A major difference with financial reporting is the level of verification and regulation. For non-financial data, we often talk about assurance, not audit, to name the verification process of disclosures. In the absence of regulation, many assurance providers have adopted various standards, such as ISO14064-3, ISAE 3000, AICPA, AA100 or proprietary methodology. This naturally leads to a lack of consistency and comparability across companies.

Today, I see 3 major issues in carbon emissions data reporting:

• Partial disclosure is not good enough: Very few companies (1 out of 6) get value chain or scope 3 emissions verified, which usually represent more than 80% total emissions.
• Third-party verification is too light: The vast majority (>90%) of assurance statements are 'limited', a type of 'negative' assurance, which means that it is expressed in a negative form. For example, in a limited assurance, the assurer states that it did not find evidence that data is materially incorrect. Not really re-assuring.
• Performance reporting is not rigorous enough: performance against targets are rarely verified, some past period data and GHG emissions baselines can be modified without additional verification and restatements

S&P100 companies significantly under-report value chain (scope 3) GHG emissions

New York, October 2021 - In the previous blog, we saw that only 1 out of 6 companies is fully transparent in its GHG emission reporting, even if about 4 out of 5 companies report scope 1-2 and a part of scope 3 emissions. The real game-changer is the full transparency on value chain (scope 3) GHG emissions. I estimate that only 44% companies report all scope 3 emissions and only 16% get them fully verified by an external third-party.

Reporting value chain GHG emissions, both upstream (supply chain) and downstream, remains a major challenge for most corporates, in terms of data availability, accuracy, consistency, frequency and completeness. However, value chain emissions usually represent more than 80% total GHG emissions with some sectors well-above 90% (for example, 98% in consumer discretionary, 95% in financial services, 94% in consumer staples). MSCi recently published a study with similar findings (MSCI Net Zero Tracker), that shows the emissions intensity by scope and by sector and also tracks the progress in scope 3 reporting.

Among companies reporting incomplete scope 3 emissions, I estimate that about 2/3 scope 3 emissions are omitted on average. The charts below helps visualize the gap by sector.

Value Chain Emissions Represent more than 85% of total emissions (vs. 66% are currently reported)

The left chart represents the weight of emissions by scope for companies fully disclosing their emissions. On average, value chain (scope 3) emissions represent 85% total emissions.
The right chart represents the same as left chart but for all the companies, including those not fully reporting their emissions. Comparing the 2 charts enable to visualize the under-reported emissions by sector

Note: Only S&P 100 companies (44%) fully disclosing their scope 3 emissions are selected.

Note: Based on all scope 3 emissions reported by S&P 100 companies

Yet, assessing the completeness of scope 3 emissions sounds like a judgement call. Even if CDP requires justification for every category of scope 3 emissions (section C6 of CDP questionnaire), companies within the same sector tend to have different approach or rationale to exclude some categories. This scope 3 completeness issue highlights the need for stronger sectorial guidance, methodologies and reporting framework standards specifically focused on scope 3 emissions. For example, banks tend not to report on scope 15 - Investments because of lack of widely-recognized methodologies; 3M does an excellent job at reporting their emissions but reports understandable challenges to calculate product-level emissions (55,000 heavily-diversified products); tech companies like Amazon and Apple are merging some scope 3 categories (IP reasons?). In summary: scope 3 emissions are significantly under-reported but there is hope for fast improvements as many companies are leading the way in adopting new tools and methodologies to not only demonstrate transparency but also disclose and optimize the full carbon footprint of their products and services. In terms of timing, I wish the consumers would get in the game before the regulators!

The Big Picture

France, September 2021 - The general public should be able to understand and track the climate performance of companies they work for or buy products or services from. Our collective awareness of climate change risks is going to intensify in the coming years and new regulations will soon impose more stringent obligations on greenhouse gas emissions disclosure. Looking at the top 100 largest American companies, what is our starting point? How do we define climate transparency? What do Amazon, Berkshire and Tesla have in common?
Transparency refers to clear public disclosures, completeness, timeliness, verification and quality of climate performance data within generall-accepted accounting frameworks. For GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions, it means reporting full scope emissions over at least 2 comparable years, fully and positively verified by an external third-party, and publicly disclosing supporting materials, such as CDP questionnaire and verification reports. The level of disclosure is also assessed by the CDP score.

Major Companies Failing on Transparency

Transparency Issues	Top 5 Companies Failing at Transparency
No public disclosures exist about GHG emissions	Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Tesla Danaher
Last year emissions are not publicly reported as of September 2021	Walmart Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Alphabet Inc. Google Costco Schlumberger Ltd.
2 years of data are not available	Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Costco General Electric Raytheon Technologies Charter Communications Inc.
Scope 1-2 emissions are not both reported and verified	Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Exxon Mobil Costco Ford Motor Company Chevron
Scope 3 emissions are not publicly reported, not even partly	Texas Instruments Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Exxon Mobil Costco Home Depot
Not all emissions (S1-S2-S3) are publicly reported	Amazon.com Inc. Texas Instruments Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Exxon Mobil AT&T Inc.
All emissions (S1-S2-S3) are not both publicly reported and verified	Walmart Amazon.com Inc. Apple Inc. CVS Health Texas Instruments
2020 Climate change questionnaire are not submitted to CDP	Amazon.com Inc. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Exxon Mobil Chevron Facebook, Inc.

The Vision

Net0Tracker tracks the climate performance of major companies with a vision that climate data should be a public good