close
Share with your friends

Companies are under pressure to disclose their exposure to climate-related risks and explain their strategies to ensure resilience and competitive advantage in a net zero world.

KPMG’s new study aims to help by proposing a set of quality criteria for climate-related disclosures and analyzing how the world’s 250 largest companies measure up against these criteria.

Readers of this study will learn:

  • What good climate risk and net zero reporting looks like
  • How the world’s largest companies are performing
  • Which companies are doing it well and what they can teach others

The results of this research enable any company to assess its own reporting against the performance of this global leadership group.

This report is part of KPMG’s long established series of sustainability reporting surveys. It is intended primarily to help corporate reporting, investor relations and sustainability professionals shape their own company’s reporting. It may also help investors, lenders, insurers, asset managers and ratings agencies to understand current reporting maturity and the gaps where improvement is needed.

Adrian King

Co-Chair, ESG & Sustainability Services, KPMG IMPACT
Partner, KPMG in Australia

Wim Bartels

Co-Chair, Impact Measurement, Reporting & Assurance Services, KPMG IMPACT
Partner, KPMG in Netherlands

Wheel

KPMG has developed 12 quality criteria for good corporate reporting on climate risk and net zero transition.


The criteria are based on the insights of climate disclosure experts at KPMG firms, combined with key elements of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations, other reporting frameworks and evolving best practice.


KPMG professionals used these criteria to analyze and compare the maturity of climate risk and net zero reporting by the world's 250 largest companies.


Click on the wheel to discover how the world's largest companies perform for each of the 12 quality criteria.

X

44% of G250 companies report they have assigned board responsibility for overseeing the company's response to climate change

X

33% of G250 companies mention climate change in the Chair or CEO's message in the annual financial or integrated report

X

56% of G250 companies clearly acknowledge climate change as a potential risk to the business in the annual financial (or integrated) report

X

31% of G250 companies include a section on climate-related risk in the company's annual financial (or integrated) report and/or publish a stand-alone climate risk or TCFD report

X

47% of G250 companies report on both the physical and transitional risks the company faces from climate change

X

22% of G250 companies include scenario analysis of climate-related risks in their reporting

X

12% of G250 companies report scenario analysis under two or more global warming scenarios

17% of G250 companies report scenario analysis with clear timelines

X

19% of G250 companies report climate-risk scenario analysis aligned with recognized scenarios developed by reputable sources

X

46% of G250 companies report a net zero target OR science-based targets

19% report a net zero target

27% report science-based targets

X

17% of G250 companies describe the company's strategy to achieve its decarbonization targets

X

24% of G250 companies clearly communicate whether the company is on track to meet its decarbonization targets

X

11% of G250 companies report using an internal carbon price or "shadow price"

  

Governance of climate-related risks


This demonstrates to investors and other stakeholders that the company is serious about understanding and addressing climate risk. Companies may choose to make the board as a whole responsible for the company’s climate response, supported by a sub-committee, or may name a specific board member with responsibility.


This signals to the company’s investors that the organization’s leadership acknowledges climate change as a material risk for the business. It also implies that the company’s action on climate change is being driven from the top.


It is now widely acknowledged that climate change poses a potential financial risk to companies in all industry sectors. All companies should therefore clearly acknowledge in their financial reporting that climate change is potentially a financial risk to the business. They should also disclose the materiality of that risk



Identifying climate-related risks


This demonstrates that the company is attempting to measure, manage, and disclose its climate-related risks and opportunities. It may give investors and other stakeholders confidence that the company is actively working to increase its resilience to the impacts of climate change.


Physical risks result from the changing climate, e.g. more frequent and severe storms, wildfires and rising sea levels. Transitional risks arise from the global shift to a net zero economy, e.g. new regulation and changing market dynamics. Corporate reporting therefore needs to cover both types of climate-related risk in order to be complete and robust.



Impacts of climate-related risks


Scenario analysis is an effective way to understand how climate-related risks might impact the business and to plan appropriate responses. It helps companies surmise how risks might evolve under different climate, economic and regulatory conditions. It also provides investors and other stakeholders with a forward-looking view on the organization’s potential vulnerability or resilience to climate-related risks and is recommended by the TCFD.


Despite the best efforts of climate scientists, no one knows exactly how much the world will warm by and how quickly or how rapidly the world will transition to net zero. It is therefore important for companies to report on potential climate risks under a range of possible global warming scenarios. KPMG professionals typically advise clients to conduct scenario analysis under a minimum of two warming scenarios such as 1.5˚C and 2˚C (which are considered low warming scenarios and are the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement), 3˚C (considered a moderate warming scenario) and 4˚C (considered a high warming scenario). Additionally, investors, lenders and insurers need to understand the climate risk profile of companies in the short, medium and long terms. It is therefore important that corporate reporting clearly defines the timelines used for climate risk scenario analyses and explains why those timelines were selected.


Financial stakeholders need to know that the scenarios used by companies for climate-related risk assessment are robust and reliable. KPMG professionals therefore recommend that companies use recognized and respected scenarios developed by credible sources such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) or the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA). Using a combination of different scenarios from reputable sources adds depth to analysis.



Reporting on net zero transition


Setting carbon reduction targets aligned with global decarbonization goals shows investors that the company is in step with the global shift to a net zero economy. For example, a company may choose a deadline of 2050 or sooner to achieve net zero emissions. This is in line with what the IPCC says is necessary to limit global warming to a relatively safe level (1.5˚C). Alternatively, companies might set a “science-based” carbon reduction target in line with what is needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Over 1,000 companies have adopted science-based targets to date.


A company’s reporting needs to explain how it will achieve its carbon reduction targets by describing the company’s decarbonization strategy. A clear strategy on carbon reduction also helps the company by enabling all divisions and functions within the business to understand and deliver their own contributions to the group target.


A company can maintain or increase investor confidence if its reporting either confirms it is on track to achieve its carbon reduction targets or is open about any dilemmas and challenges that have hindered progress. A lack of transparency can have the opposite effect by diminishing investor confidence.


Investors may view the use of an internal carbon price as a sign that a company is well prepared to manage climate-related risks and to navigate net zero transition. An internal carbon price can also signal that management understands the organization’s exposure to potential increases in external carbon prices applied by governments and is factoring it into future investment decisions. The use of an internal carbon price is especially important in high carbon sectors such as oil and gas; metals, minerals and mining; and electric utilities which are particularly exposed to carbon reduction policies and external carbon pricing.


  

Insights