Driving Outcomes: Analysis
Ceres published 24 reports and 72 columns and blogs in 2023.
April 2023
May 2023
U.S. Banks and the Road to Net Zero Analyzing the 2030 Oil and Gas Targets of the Six Largest U.S. Banks
Sustainable Finance Opportunities A Guide for Financial Institutions November 2023
Assessing Corporate Action on Deforestation Amid Growing Regulatory Risk November 2023
Inclusive Insurance for Climate-Related Disasters A Roadmap for the United States
Tackling Transferred Emissions
Data as the Key Essential Steps for Decarbonizing Private Equity
Net Zero Standard for North American Banks July 2023
Climate Principles for Oil and Gas Mergers and Acquisitions
Introduction Achieving global climate goals will require significant shifts in bank activity, as part of broader action by governments and the private sector globally. To tackle the climate risks they face and reap the opportunities of a low-carbon economy, many of the world’s largest banks have committed to net zero portfolios by 2050 or sooner. And they have increasingly backed up their goals with interim targets for reducing emissions in key sectors by 2030, when global emissions must by slashed by half to avoid the most severe impacts of the climate crisis. Front and center are the targets that the banks have set for the emissions of the companies and projects that they finance in the oil and gas industry. Unlike companies that generate emissions from their own operations, most of a bank’s climate impact is indirect , resulting from corporate activities that are financed by the banks through products and services including loans, investments, and derivatives. These financed and facilitated emissions 1 are a key element of banks’ decarbonization strategies, informing capital allocation decisions and management policies, although it’s important to note they are not a perfect proxy for real-world emissions. With seven years to go in this pivotal decade, Ceres and TPI Centre analyzed these critical carbon emission reduction targets that the largest six banks have established for the oil and gas sector. These targets are increasingly being compared to each other, often in simplistic ways. While our analysis is not perfect, we believe it is the most comprehensive comparison possible, given existing disclosures. We find that none of the six banks’ oil and gas targets are aligned with a 2030 pathway that achieves the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C by mid-century. Our assessment of these targets provides insight into how the banks can improve their target-setting practices and accelerate emissions reductions in the real economy.
January 2023
Climate Transition Plans in the U.S. Food Sector Addressing Risks to Farmers and Farmworkers January 2023
1 For brevity throughout this paper, we may refer to financed and facilitated emissions as financed emissions; however, in most instances we are referring to both. The only exceptions are when we are discussing individual banks who may only disclose financed emissions and omit facilitated emissions.
Tackling Transferred Emissions: Climate Principles for Oil and Gas Mergers and Acquisitions
1
1 | U.S. Banks and the Road to Net Zero: Analyzing the 2030 Oil and Gas Targets of the Six Largest U.S. Banks
ceres.org
March 2023
August 2023
Hot and Cold How Asset Managers Voted on Climate-Related Shareholder Proposals in 2022, and What It Means for 2023
Development of a Company‑Level Cost‑Benefit Analysis Framework Assessing the Full Value of Water Stewardship Investments to Business and Society
An Investor Guide to the Climate Principles for Oil and Gas Mergers and Acquisitions
Electric Vehicle Batteries A Guidebook for Responsible Corporate Engagement Throughout the Supply Chain
How to engage oil and gas companies and banks on transferred emissions
As the 2023 proxy season approaches, clues of what to expect can be found in the 2022 trends. Last year, the number of climate-related proposals filed jumped a record-breaking 60% to 241 and—even more importantly—the number of corporations making commitments to shareholders in exchange for withdrawal of proposals prior to voting surged 62% to 115, according to a Ceres analysis. The combination of these company commitments, along with 18 climate-related proposals that won a majority of shareholders’ votes, means that shareholders prevailed in more than half of their climate engagements with companies they own last year.
Introduction With the world’s water supply in crisis, companies are increasingly recognizing the threats that they face from too little water, too much water, or polluted water, and how climate change is compounding these threats. Yet, there is a two-way interaction between the private sector and freshwater— industry affects water resources just as water resources affect industry . Research and companies’ disclosures underscore the financial impacts that companies are already experiencing or are exposed to, and the impacts industry’s practices are causing for society. With the launch of the Valuing Water Finance Initiative , a global investor-led effort to engage companies with a high water footprint to value and act on water as a financial risk, Ceres in 2021 partnered with water risk consultant Bluerisk, sustainability intelligence provider S&P Global Sustainable1, and the asset manager DWS Group to develop two materiality briefs to estimate the cost of addressing water-related externalities in the value chains. These briefs, which focus on eight apparel companies and three meat companies provide insights into the potential magnitude of the cost of action to address water-related externalities and how those costs would impact company valuations. Since then, engagements with financial institutions, investors, and companies have underscored the need to go one step further to estimate not only the cost to address externalities, but also the cost of solutions to address emerging water risks, as well as the magnitude of business and societal benefits that could be achieved from companies investing in water stewardship. This brief introduces a framework to estimate both costs and benefits of engaging in water stewardship, enabling companies and investors to gain a more complete financial picture, better understand the full value of water, and prioritize action where it matters the most: to the business and to society.
CULTIVATING INNOVATION Practical Solutions for Companies to Reduce Agricultural Emissions November 2023
September 2023
Figure ClimateRelated Proposal Outcomes
Climate risk management in the U.S. insurance sector An analysis of climate risk disclosures July 2023
BICEP NETWORK 2023 POLICY OUTLOOK
Decarbonizing U.S. Gas Distribution An Investor Guide September 2023
Proposals Commitments Majority Votes
1 / The Investor Guide to Climate Transition Plans in the U.S. Food Sector
ceres.org/XXXX
An Investor Guide to the Climate Principles for Oil and Gas Mergers and Acquisitions
1
1 | Development of a Company‑Level Cost‑Benefit Analysis Framework
1 | Hot and Cold: How Asset Managers Voted on Climate-Related Shareholder Proposals in 2022, and What It Means for 2023
ceres.org
ceres.org
1 / Innovation to drive down agricultural emissions: Practical solutions for the food sector
ceres.org
August 2023
October 2023
Responsible Policy Engagement Benchmarking for Banks
2022
Valuing Water Finance Initiative Benchmark Assessing Company Performance on Corporate Expectations across Four Water-Intensive Industries
Benchmarking Methane and Other GHG Emissions Of Oil & Natural Gas Production in the United States May 2023 Data downloads at: www.sustainability.com
Annual Report
Benchmarking Air Emissions Of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States September 2022 Data Downloads at: www.sustainability.com
Introduction
In November 2022, Ceres released its second Responsible Policy Engagement Benchmark looking at the largest companies in the U.S. The benchmark measured the alignment between corporate climate targets and their direct and indirect climate policy engagement. The analysis provided a snapshot of how consistently the leading U.S. companies are lobbying on climate policy. The findings were that most companies had adequate systems in place to oversee climate risks within their enterprises but, in many cases, their climate lobbying was inconsistent with their announced climate and net zero plans. As Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Chair of the Network for Greening the Financial System Ravi Menon makes clear in a recent statement, “the world is still not on a transition path that is aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement. According to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we need to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% in the next seven years to reach net zero by 2050. We are now one third of the way through this ‘critical decade’ and nowhere near this target. Emissions are still rising, not falling.” U.S. financial regulators have also publicly acknowledged climate as an emerging or current systemic risk, as highlighted in Ceres’ financial regulator climate risk scorecard . Given this backdrop, investors have stepped up their focus on the lobbying practices of the companies they are invested in, calling on companies, including banks, to disclose how their direct and indirect climate lobbying aligns with climate science. In 2021, six shareholder proposals asking for a report on climate lobbying went to a vote and were passed with majority support from large asset managers, including BlackRock and Vanguard. In 2022, 24 agreements were reached between investors and companies on climate lobbying proposals at various companies. This year, 19 climate- related proposals were filed at banks alone, with four being filed on climate lobbying disclosure and four banks engaging in dialogue on the issue. Investors are concerned when a company is expending resources on lobbying that is pushing in a direction inconsistent with its publicly stated strategy—and that is quite often the case when companies are members of trade associations that do not lobby in favor of some members’ climate commitments. Contributing money and resources towards trade organizations that do not lobby
ADDRESSING FINANCIAL RECOVERY GAPS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSEHOLDS: Models for Inclusive Disaster Insurance
Contributors:
May 2023
Benchmarking Methane and Other GHG Emissions of Oil & Natural Gas Production in the United States / May 2023 Data tables and maps at: www.sustainability.com
Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States Data tables and maps at: www.sustainability.com September 2022
1 | Responsible Policy Engagement Benchmarking for Banks
ceres.org
| strategy & outcomes
2023 Leadership Circle Executive Summary | 8
Powered by FlippingBook