¿Son fiables los datos corporativos de emisiones? Los inversores buscan seguridad
Leer
Corporate climate data reliability is a concern for investors seeking assurance, according to MSCI Sustainability and Climate. In a recent analysis, it was found that 40% of reported Scope 1 and 2 emissions do not specify their scope or coverage. This inaccuracy is part of a broader trend of companies revolutionizing non-financial corporate information, particularly climate risk reporting, following mandates from BlackRock and regulatory bodies like the CSRD in Europe and Spain's Ley 11/2018.
The report, "The Promise and Limitations of AI in Climate Data," analyzed nearly 98,000 annual emission disclosures and 61,000 climate objectives from over 11,000 listed companies. While investors require reliable, comparable, and transparent data to make informed investment decisions, the reality is that climate data is abundant but requires consistent interpretation across different emitters. Artificial intelligence can aid in this process, but it still necessitates substantial human judgment and collaboration.
Key issues identified include:
1. Scope 1 and 2 operational coverage: 36% of annual emission disclosures for Scope 1 and 2 did not specify whether the reported figures covered all operations or only selected activities.
2. Decarbonization objectives coverage: 56% of corporate climate objectives examined did not explicitly state the percentage of emissions they covered. The Science-Based Targets initiative requires Scope 3 short-term objectives to cover at least 67% of emissions, with most long-term objectives aiming for at least 90% coverage.
3. Scope 2 reporting method: Scope 2 emissions can be reported using a location-based method (reflecting average grid emissions) or a market-based approach (considering clean energy certificates). This can lead to significant differences, but nearly half (47%) of reported Scope 2 emissions did not specify the method used.
4. Combined Scope 1 and 2 totals: The combined Scope 1 and 2 reported figure was not always equal to the sum of individual Scope 1 and 2 values, indicating the use of different carbon accounting approaches.
5. Scope 3 coverage: In most cases, the percentage of coverage when including Scope 3 in reduction objectives was not indicated. Additionally, existing protocols allow for interpretations that can complicate data analysis, such as the choice between operational control or capital-based approaches in accounting for emissions from majority-owned subsidiaries.
Written by urgent.news from Expansion ES's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
