Getting a Grip on Context:
Initial Findings of World's First
Science-Based Approach to
Corporate Sustainability Ratings
Ne...
For Climate Counts – Why Context?

100

0
4 Pillars:
Measure
Reduce
Report
Policy Stance
Great progress – but is it enough?

81% of the world’s 500 largest public companies listed on the
Global 500 engage with C...
Are we sustainable?
Enter Context-Based Metrics
•

In late 2012, CC was
approached by Center for
Sustainable Organizations
(CSO) with a propos...
Brief Introduction to ContextBased Carbon Metrics
Mark W. McElroy, Ph.D.
Center for Sustainable Organizations
Context-Based Carbon Metrics
•

One of a new class of metrics
called context-based metrics

•

Not like conventional relat...
Context-Based Carbon Metrics (cont.)
•

How we build context-based
carbon metrics:
1. Choose a science-based
mitigation sc...
Initial Results – World’s First
Context-Based Carbon Ranking
Mike Bellamente
Climate Counts, Inc.
Initial Results
• Survey Sample
– 100 public companies in multiple sectors
– Range of analysis: 2005-2012
– Data gathered ...
Initial Results (cont.)
• Top 10 Scorers (Sustainable)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Autodesk (0.449)
Unilever (0.600)
E...
Initial Results (cont.)
• Bottom 10 Scorers (Unsustainable)
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.

Cisco Systems (1.566...
Initial Results (cont.)
• Other interesting results
– We also measured emissions intensity (per $ of
sales) and found no p...
Q&A with Representatives of
GE and J&J
Gretchen Hancock, GE
Jed Richardson, J&J
Getting a Grip on Context: Initial Findings of World's First Science-Based Approach to Corporate Sustainability Ratings
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Getting a Grip on Context: Initial Findings of World's First Science-Based Approach to Corporate Sustainability Ratings

893 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
893
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
132
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • As opposed to b-to-b
  • Getting a Grip on Context: Initial Findings of World's First Science-Based Approach to Corporate Sustainability Ratings

    1. 1. Getting a Grip on Context: Initial Findings of World's First Science-Based Approach to Corporate Sustainability Ratings New Metrics of Sustainable Business Conference September 24, 2013 (v2)
    2. 2. For Climate Counts – Why Context? 100 0 4 Pillars: Measure Reduce Report Policy Stance
    3. 3. Great progress – but is it enough? 81% of the world’s 500 largest public companies listed on the Global 500 engage with CDP to enable effective measurement of their carbon footprint and climate change action. Company scores have improved 60% from 2007 on the Climate Counts scorecard.
    4. 4. Are we sustainable?
    5. 5. Enter Context-Based Metrics • In late 2012, CC was approached by Center for Sustainable Organizations (CSO) with a proposal to enhance CC’s methodology • Agreed to pilot a new form of ranking that would be contextbased (i.e., that would rate corporate emissions against science-based standards) • World’s first context-based sustainability ranking in the capital markets!
    6. 6. Brief Introduction to ContextBased Carbon Metrics Mark W. McElroy, Ph.D. Center for Sustainable Organizations
    7. 7. Context-Based Carbon Metrics • One of a new class of metrics called context-based metrics • Not like conventional relative or absolute metrics • Impacts measured against norms, standards, or thresholds (science-based) for what they would have to be in order to be sustainable • Thresholds for carbon expressed as concentration limits in the atmosphere (e.g., 350 ppm)
    8. 8. Context-Based Carbon Metrics (cont.) • How we build context-based carbon metrics: 1. Choose a science-based mitigation scenario (PoleStar) 2. Measure company emissions in baseline year (2005) and express as emissions per dollar of contribution to GDP ($CGDP) 3. Then set reduction targets per $CGDP for all downstream years based on science-based scenario 4. Adjust for changes in size of GDP and inflation, and adjust further to ensure that maximum allowable global emissions, if applied to all GDP-related sources on Earth, will not exceed maximum allowable global emissions per the science-based scenario. 5. Then compare actual company emissions to reduction targets and compute scores accordingly. Actual Emissions Per $CGDP Normative Emissions Per $CGDP < 1.0 = Sustainable > 1.0 = Unsustainable
    9. 9. Initial Results – World’s First Context-Based Carbon Ranking Mike Bellamente Climate Counts, Inc.
    10. 10. Initial Results • Survey Sample – 100 public companies in multiple sectors – Range of analysis: 2005-2012 – Data gathered with assistance of South Pole Carbon in Zurich (Bloomberg) and CDP • Top-line Highlights – 49 of 100 scored sustainably, 51 unsustainably – At least 3 of the sustainably scoring companies are known for their histories of using contextbased carbon metrics, including the top two performers: • Autodesk and Unilever
    11. 11. Initial Results (cont.) • Top 10 Scorers (Sustainable) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Autodesk (0.449) Unilever (0.600) Eli Lilly (0.601) Canon (0.611) L’Oreal (0.679) GE (0.685) Reckitt Benckiser (0.699) Abbott Labs (0.708) Hyundai (0.730) State Street Bank (0.739)
    12. 12. Initial Results (cont.) • Bottom 10 Scorers (Unsustainable) 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. Cisco Systems (1.566) GM (1.650) Wells Fargo (1.670) Citigroup (1.737) Dow Chemical (1.887) Conagra Foods (1.889) Royal Bank of Scotland (2.009) UPS (2.083) Molson Coors (2.721) Weyerhaeuser (3.144)
    13. 13. Initial Results (cont.) • Other interesting results – We also measured emissions intensity (per $ of sales) and found no positive correlation between context-based and intensity scores: • • • • #1 Autodesk ranked 6th on intensity #2 Unilever ranked 52nd on intensity #3 Eli Lilly ranked 74th on intensity Worst intensity performer (Cemex) scored sustainably in the context-based ranking (26th) – 23 of the 49 companies (47%) that scored sustainably actually increased their average annual emissions between 2005 and 2012 (decoupling is possible!)
    14. 14. Q&A with Representatives of GE and J&J Gretchen Hancock, GE Jed Richardson, J&J

    ×