Below shows the results using our methodology published in Nature Communications. For Electric Utilities and Cement, we demonstrate how Paris Compliance can be assessed using the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach with the IEA B2DS as the underlying decarbonisation pathway. A base year of 2014 was used to be consistent with the starting year of the IEA B2DS. Other sectors that can be evaluated using this approach are Aluminium, Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Pulp and paper, Steel, and Transport. Please use our Tool to evaluate a company in these sectors. If you have complete publicly available data for a company, please consider contacting us to add this to our assessments below.

Notes on the assessment

We assess three metrics:

Perfomance to date -> Current performance since the base year. It is the companies’ cumulative emissions since the base year compared to its Paris Compliant Pathway (PCP). A score above 1 indicated the company has emitted more than its PCP and is currently not Paris Compliant.

Estimated Year to Finish (EYF) -> This provides an indicator of when the company is expected to exceed its carbon budget if it continues business as usual. The Electric Utility sector’s carbon budget cut-off is 2050 as this is the year it should reach net-zero under the IEA B2DS pathway. For the cement sector it is 2060 as this is the where the IEA B2DS decarbonisation pathway projections end.

Re-alignment decarbonisation rate -> This is a measure of how much faster a company needs to decarbonise to re-align themselves with the Paris Compliant Pathway (PCP), relative to the rate had it followed its PCP since the base year.

Below shows the results using our methodology published in Nature Communications. For Electric Utilities and Cement, we demonstrate how Paris Compliance can be assessed using the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach with the IEA B2DS as the underlying decarbonisation pathway. A base year of 2014 was used to be consistent with the starting year of the IEA B2DS. Other sectors that can be evaluated using this approach are Aluminium, Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Pulp and paper, Steel, and Transport. Please use our Tool to evaluate a company in these sectors. If you have complete publicly available data for a company, please consider contacting us to add this to our assessments below.

Notes on the assessment

We assess three metrics:

Perfomance to date -> Current performance since the base year. It is the companies’ cumulative emissions since the base year compared to its Paris Compliant Pathway (PCP). A score above 1 indicated the company has emitted more than its PCP and is currently not Paris Compliant.

Estimated Year to Finish (EYF) -> This provides an indicator of when the company is expected to exceed its carbon budget if it continues business as usual. The Electric Utility sector’s carbon budget cut-off is 2050 as this is the year it should reach net-zero under the IEA B2DS pathway. For the cement sector it is 2060 as this is the where the IEA B2DS decarbonisation pathway projections end.

Re-alignment decarbonisation rate -> This is a measure of how much faster a company needs to decarbonise to re-align themselves with the Paris Compliant Pathway (PCP), relative to the rate had it followed its PCP since the base year.

The data table below shows the results for Coal using the methodology published in Nature Climate Change. We map production of companies against 3 pathways; “SSP1-RCP1.9” (AIM/CGE), “SSP2-RCP1.9” (MESSAGE-GLOBIOM), and “SSP5-RCP1.9” (GCAM4), commencing in 2014. We allocate the annual production budgets based on the companies’ share of 2010-2014 production, and thus use a grandfathering approach. We are currently working on how to integrate different equity principles into the assessment.

We assess two metrics:

Metric 1: Performance to date -> Current performance (2020) since the base year (2014). It is the companies’ cumulative production since the base year compared to its Paris Compliant Pathway (PCP). A score above 1 indicates the company has produced more than its PCP and is currently not Paris Compliant. For example, a score of 2.17 means that the company has produced 117% more that what would be considered to be Paris Compliant. On the other hand, a score of 0.85 means that the company has produced 85% of its production budget and would currently be considered Paris Compliant.

Metric 2: Estimated Year to Finish (EYF) -> This provides an indicator of when the company is expected to exceed its production budget (until 2050) if it continues to produce according to production growth rates between 2010-2018.

The data table below shows the results for Oil using the methodology published in Nature Climate Change. We map production of companies against 3 pathways; “SSP1-RCP1.9” (AIM/CGE), “SSP2-RCP1.9” (MESSAGE-GLOBIOM), and “SSP5-RCP1.9” (GCAM4), commencing in 2014. We allocate the annual production budgets based on the companies’ share of 2010-2014 production, and thus use a grandfathering approach. We are currently working on how to integrate different equity principles into the assessment.

We assess two metrics:

Metric 1: Performance to date -> Current performance (2020) since the base year (2014). It is the companies’ cumulative production since the base year compared to its Paris Compliant Pathway (PCP). A score above 1 indicates the company has produced more than its PCP and is currently not Paris Compliant. For example, a score of 2.17 means that the company has produced 117% more that what would be considered to be Paris Compliant. On the other hand, a score of 0.85 means that the company has produced 85% of its production budget and would currently be considered Paris Compliant.

Metric 2: Estimated Year to Finish (EYF) -> This provides an indicator of when the company is expected to exceed its production budget (until 2050) if it continues to produce according to production growth rates between 2010-2018.

The data table below shows the results for Gas using the methodology published in Nature Climate Change (2023). We map production of companies against 3 pathways; “SSP1-RCP1.9” (AIM/CGE), “SSP2-RCP1.9” (MESSAGE-GLOBIOM), and “SSP5-RCP1.9” (GCAM4), commencing in 2014. We allocate the annual production budgets based on the companies’ share of 2010-2014 production, and thus use a grandfathering approach. We are currently working on how to integrate different equity principles into the assessment.

We assess two metrics:

Metric 1: Performance to date -> Current performance (2020) since the base year (2014). It is the companies’ cumulative production since the base year compared to its Paris Compliant Pathway (PCP). A score above 1 indicates the company has produced more than its PCP and is currently not Paris Compliant. For example, a score of 2.17 means that the company has produced 117% more that what would be considered to be Paris Compliant. On the other hand, a score of 0.85 means that the company has produced 85% of its production budget and would currently be considered Paris Compliant.

Metric 2: Estimated Year to Finish (EYF) -> This provides an indicator of when the company is expected to exceed its production budget (until 2050) if it continues to produce according to production growth rates between 2010-2018.