Winners and losers of the latest climate CDP scores

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.

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

Scaling Up! 🚀

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!

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

Offsetting data now available!

New York, March 2023

Thanks to one of our sister websites, Net Zero Tracker (, 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

Net Zero Tracker ( is a great (and very-much needed) initiative, born out of a collaboration between research and non-profit organisations (Oxford Net Zero, Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, Data-Driven EnviroLab and New Climate Institute), with the ambition to increase transparency and accountability of net zero targets. By collecting data at scale and making them freely available, they quickly became the definitive repository of net zero pledges for nations, states and regions, cities and companies. Here's below how Net Zero Tracker ( explains offsets, CDR and the reason why separating emission reduction and removals is important in quality of targets

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 - For more information, see methodology

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

Surprising insights in 2022 climate scoring

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.
And congratulations to the 19 companies that were upgraded. Among them, you will probably hear from companies reaching the best score (A) : Cisco, Coca-Cola, Accenture, Linde, Google, Adobe and AT&T. This analysis is based on CDP Climate Change questionnaire. As of 2023, CDP is the largest database with 18,700+ companies (50% global market cap) disclosing their environmental performance in 2022. Similarly to a financial rating agency, each company receives a score, from A (leadership) to D (Disclosure only) that indicates "the level of action reported by the company to assess and manage its environmental impacts during the reporting year".

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

(Technical) Project Status - Still a Prototype?

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

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

Climate Performance Reporting

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:

📉Focus is clearly shifting from aspirational goals and compliance to analysis of progress against targets. We also observe much fewer new targets in 2021/2022. This is consistent with the SBTi project to better measure progress against stated targets (see SBTI PROGRESS REPORT 2021)
📈More companies report on their climate performance with also better transparency, dedicated resources on often revamped sustainability section of corporates websites and much better explanations about methodology, key figures (providing a full 'ESG data table' seems like a best practice) and alignement with other reporting frameworks (e.g. CDP, GRI, TCFD...).
🔍Better control: the level of third-party external assurance on GHG emissions disclosures tends to increase, with more companies moving from limited to reasonable assurance (mainly over scope 1 and 2).
🔓Still too many restatements: as companies are expanding the management of their GHG footprint, better methodology and calculations are retroactively applied to past years, but usually without an additional third-party verification.
⌛️GHG reporting is still issued very late compared to financial information. Most climate reporting are issued 6 to 9 months after the closing of the reporting period. A few companies started dislosing estimates with disclaimers.
📊Scope 3 reporting is still very unstable and heterogeneous. In general, more categories are added and verified but normalization and good understanding of full value chain performance will remain challenging until we get confident about the comprehensiveness of scope 3 reporting. Supplier engagement initiatives are increasing though.

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

New SEC Proposed Rules

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 ❤️

💡 On top of scope 1 and 2 emissions, scope 3 emissions will have to be disclosed if material or if a company has committed to a GHG emissions reduction target that includes scope 3. This is a very smart way to mandate scope 3 reporting, clarify the scope of net zero commitments for a lot of companies and keep them accountable.
📊 Most of GHG protocol is adopted but not fully: in particular, companies will be required to align with the accounting principles of the financial reporting : same fiscal year period, same historical periods, same organizational boundary as the consolidated statements… so that analysis of financial and climate performance can be analyzed together consistently.
📆 The timing of GHG disclosures will have to align with financial reporting, so companies will have to either track GHG emissions on a quarterly basis or rely on estimates (SEC notes that if actual reported data is not reasonably available, a company will be permitted to use a reasonable estimate of its GHG emissions for its fourth fiscal quarter). Today, most companies only report on an annual basis with 6-9 months delay compared to financial results disclosures.
📚 The structure (articulated around governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and target) and content of disclosures (e.g. physical vs. transition risks) are based on TCFD framework, like ISSB, which is excellent news. Disclosures of targets, transition plan, progress vs. plan, associated expenditures (expensed and capitalized costs), internal carbon price, uses of carbon offsets and RECs (incl. costs), scenario analysis (if used) will promote transparency and peer benchmarking. ✒ Limited assurance (similar to the quality of a financial review) from 2024/2025 and reasonable assurance (similar to a financial audit) from 2026/2027 will be required for the disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions of large companies. Smaller reporting companies are exempt.

...and the Top 5 negatives 🤔

🌂 Scope 3 disclosures benefit from a “safe harbor” mechanism, limiting liability exposures. Let’s hope this will be removed soon, at least for the largest companies.
📅 First mandatory climate-related reporting is expected in 2024. This is too late given the climate urgency (a good reminder that SEC mission is not to address climate-related issues but protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets and promote capital formation).
📉 Scenario analysis is not mandated (yet) but required to be disclosed if used. This is an essential tool for risk management that should be integrated in the future.
❓No specific methodology is prescribed for financed emissions (category 15 in scope 3), which will leave (too) much flexibility for financial institutions to report on their scope 3 emissions.
💲I am concerned that in the current economic context, the additional compliance costs, estimated at about $500k per year, will delay the adoption of this proposed regulation or weaken it.

Please feel free to share your comments.



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)

Please feel free to share your comments.

COP26 News: Launch of ISSB

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

New York, November 2021

YES, for several reasons:

✅ It merges several major standards, like SASB, IIRC and CDSB. That signals the end of "Alphabet soup"
✅ It deepens the integration of financial and sustainability information to inform investment decisions. Good news for the market and CFOs!
✅ The early published prototype on climate signals wide adoption of TCFD principles and recognition that climate risks require initiatives at the right speed and at global scale. Companies should continue their efforts in adopting TCFD.

What’s next?

🔧GRI and ISSB will have to collaborate in the coming months and solve their philosophical divergence.
📝First ISSB standards to be published by end-2022.
📆 The US SEC is expected to impose climate reporting requirements by end-2021.
🔍 Corporates will continue to reinforce their governance and monitoring of sustainability-related risks.

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

Fight against Climate Change Starts with Transparency (5/5)

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.

Please feel free to share your comments. Email

Fight against Climate Change Starts with Transparency (4/5)

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.