Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 3. Disclosure Trends for C4C Large Com-
pany Signatories (1999-2008)
Table 4. Quantitative Disclosure Trends for C4C
Large Company Signatories (1999-2008)
Trend
Quantity Percentage
Reported
Quantity Percentage
Total Large Companies
255
100%
Scope 1 Emissions
85
33%
Disclosed Nothing
103
40%
Scope 2 Emissions
81
32%
Disclosed Something
152
60%
Scope 3 Emissions
58
23%
Disclosed Quantitative Data
109
43%
Scope 1, 2, or 3
86
34%
OECD Countries
176
69%
Emissions Intensity
71
28%
CDP Participants
98
38%
GHG Reduction Plan
94
37%
Reported ALL of the Above
42
16%
Reported NONE of the Above
146
57%
that disclosed quantitative data in one or more
years within the 1999-2008 reporting years. 103
companies (40%) did not disclose any informa-
tion. 98 companies were simultaneously C4C
signatories and CDP participants. See Table 3 for
summary of these results.
As mentioned above, only 43% of companies
disclosed quantitative information in one or more
of the following categories: GHG emissions,
emissions reduction goals, emissions intensity. In
contrast, 57% (146 companies) filed COPs in the
past three years but did not include quantitative
disclosure in the categories mentioned, see Table
4.
emissions due to size and other organizational
characteristics” (Caring for Climate, 2010).
The firms participating in C4C are responsible
for a wide range of GHG pollution. Seven firms
report annual emissions exceeding 100 million
tons of CO2-e: larger than the annual emissions
of Denmark and Sweden combined. 12 firms
in the sample emit less than 100 ktCO2. Table
6 summarizes findings related to the 255 C4C
signatories analyzed:
Well over half of the C4C signatories now
collect and publicly disclose some GHG emissions
data. Nearly half provide sufficient data to start
tracking emissions over time, and this proportion
should increase in the coming years. However,
the trends that are reported at this stage should be
interpreted with care. It is apparent from the
public disclosures that many firms are still estab-
lishing an accounting methodology. Some of the
changes in GHG emissions documented in this
report are the result of changes in accounting
rather than actual changes in pollution. In addition,
large companies frequently merge with others
and/or divest holdings, which can have dramatic
effects on their net emissions.
Figure 3 shows the prevalence with which
C4C signatories reported quantitative emissions
data. Companies within OECD countries report
more frequently than companies in non-OECD.
Rather than focus on specific companies that
did not report, or on companies that reported but
did not provide any quantitative information, the
focus of subsequent sections is the 86 companies
(34%) that have disclosed scope 1, 2, or 3 emis-
sions numbers. We found that in any given year
all 86 of these companies did not disclose their
emissions. However, 26.8% of all C4C companies
disclosed their 2006 emissions numbers, this
represents the highest number of companies dis-
closing for a given year. See Table 5 for details:
From the analysis, it was clear that accounting
for firm-level GHG emissions presents a challenge
to many companies. As the explanatory note at-
tached to the C4C Business Leaders' Statement
acknowledges, many C4C participants currently,
“do not have the capacity to measure their GHG
Search WWH ::




Custom Search