Setting the Standard:
Assessing oil and gas
companies’ transition plans
March 2024

Jared Sharp, Simon Dietz,
Shafaq Ashraf and Hayli Chiu

About the LSE Transition Pathway Initiative Centre
The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) Centre is an independent, authoritative source of research and data on the
progress of corporate and sovereign entities in transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
The TPI Centre is part of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, which is basedat the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The TPI Centre is the academic partner of TPI, a
global initiative led by asset owners and supported by asset managers. As of March 2024, over 150 investors globally,
representing around US$60 trillion combined Assets Under Management and Advice, have pledged support for TPI.
The TPI Centre provides data on publicly listed equities, corporate bond issuers, banks and sovereign bond issuers.
The TPI Centre’s company data:•
Assess the quality of companies’ governance and management of their carbon emissions and of risks andopportunities related to the low-carbon transition.
•
Evaluate whether companies’ current and planned future emissions are aligned with international climate
targets and national climate pledges, including those made as part of the Paris Agreement.
•
Form the basis for the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark Disclosure Frameworkassessments.
•
Are published alongside the methods online and fully open access at www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org/
and on GitHub.

About the authors
Jared Sharp is a Project Lead and responsible for the Net Zero Standards project at the TPI Centre.
Simon Dietz is the Research Director at the TPI Centre and a Professor of Environmental Policy in the Department ofGeography and Environment at LSE.
Shafaq Ashraf is a Project Lead and responsible for the Climate Action 100+ project at the TPI Centre.
Hayli Chiu was a Research Analyst within the Carbon Performance team until February 2024 and worked on the Net
Zero Standards project at the TPI Centre.

Acknowledgements
This report is based on the results of the Net Zero Standard for Oil & Gas, which was originally designed by theInstitutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).

About IIGCC
IIGCC brings the investment community together to work towards a net zero and climate resilient future. IIGCC has
400+ members from 27 countries representing $65 trillion in assets under management. IIGCC supports investors ingenerating returns for clients and beneficiaries, which in turn provides financial wellbeing for future generations.
IIGCC works with its members to address climate risk and ensure they are well positioned to make the most ofinvestment opportunities offered by climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, ensuring that their investments
contribute towards a better world for us all to live in.
IIGCC brings investors together to create practical solutions that can make a real difference in tackling climatechange. Through its leading work to drive supportive investment practices, policies and corporate behaviours, IIGCC
helps investors to navigate implementation of climate considerations in portfolios, advocate for a more supportive
policy environment, and undertake effective stewardship and engagement with companies, and the wider market.
For more information visit www.iigcc.org and @iigccnews
The authors would like to thank Dan Gardiner, head of transition research at IIGCC, who has been one of the key
figures behind the Net Zero Standards. Dan’s support throughout all stages of the assessment and analysis phasesof this project was invaluable.
Georgina Kyriacou copy-edited the report.
The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.
The authors declare no conflict of interest in preparing this report. For the full disclaimer about the data and information
published in this report, see p16.
This report was first published in March 2024 by the TPI Centre. © The authors, 2024
Published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 licence. Permissions requests should be directed toGeorgina Kyriacou: g.a.kyriacou@lse.ac.uk.
Suggested citation: Sharp J, Dietz S, Ashraf S and Chiu H (2024) Setting the Standard: Assessing oil and gas companies’
transition plans. London: Transition Pathway Initiative Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science.

2

Contents
Executive summary

4

1. The Net Zero Standard for Oil & Gas

5

2. Results

8

3. Discussion

14

References

15

Disclaimer

16

Executive summary
The TPI Centre has assessed the transition plans of 10 of the world’s largest, publicly listed oil and gas
companies (five from Europe and five from North America) using the new Net Zero Standard for Oil &Gas.
The Standard is designed to provide a more in-depth, sectoral analysis of oil and gas companies’
transition plans compared with frameworks available previously. Uniquely, it focuses oncomprehensiveness and alignment with limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,
investigating aspects of transition planning disclosure that were historically not possible to assess due tolow data availability. It therefore offers investors new, sector-specific insights into the ambition androbustness of transition plans, and the net zero transition risks faced by companies in a highly exposed
sector.
The Standard was developed by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) with support
from the TPI Centre.

Key findings•

Companies assessed on the Standard score on only 19% of applicable metrics, on average.
Such weak results provide evidence that transition plans within the oil and gas sector are stillinsufficiently detailed for investors to accurately assess transition risk.

•

Scoring on the Standard varies widely between companies. The best performing company
scores on more than 50% of applicable metrics, while the worst performing scores on none.
The substantial variation in companies’ ambition demonstrates that progress in transition
planning is possible among oil and gas companies but is not currently being achieved by most.

•More disclosure is required on the central aspects of transition planning, including measures toneutralise emissions, and production forecasts. Most companies are missing out these crucial
elements, with companies failing to score on 87% of metrics related to the quantification ofemissions reductions and on 89% of metrics relating to future oil and gas production.

•

There are significant differences in approach to transition planning between European andNorth American companies. European companies, on average, score highest on ‘Solutions’
metrics, which assess whether a company is diversifying into low-carbon energy products.
European companies score on 46% of Solutions metrics while, in contrast, North Americancompanies score on 3% of Solutions metrics, leaving them exposed to future demand
fluctuations.

4

1. The Net Zero Standard for
Oil & Gas
Introduction
The Net Zero Standard for Oil & Gas (‘the Standard’) is a new framework that aims to help investors toassess alignment of oil and gas companies’ transition plans with a 1.5ºC warming scenario, the goal of theParis Agreement. Too often, it is unclear if a company’s strategy is robust enough to align with and deliveron 1.5ºC. In response, the Standard offers a deep examination of a wide range of strategic decision-points
to help investors bridge the information gap on transition plans.
The TPI Centre has assessed 10 of the world’s largest, publicly listed oil and gas companies against theStandard, five from Europe and five from North America (see Table 1.1). These were selected by investors
based on the materiality to their portfolios and the companies’ emissions footprint. This report presents
the results.

Development and assessment process
The Standard was developed following the success of the Climate Action 100+ (CA100+) Net Zero
Company Benchmark (‘the Benchmark’), a strategic tool to inform investor engagement with major
corporate emitters. Through dialogue, investors can use the Benchmark to accelerate the business
transition to net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.
A major component of the Benchmark is the Disclosure Framework, which evaluates the adequacy ofcorporate disclosure through a set of 11 indicators covering various aspects of transition planning. The
Disclosure Framework is designed to be sector-agnostic, to allow investors to compare company progress
across all CA100+ companies. This is a key strength of the framework, but as the quality of companies’
sustainability disclosures improves and engagement dialogue deepens, investors are increasingly seeking amore in-depth understanding of sector-specific transition strategies and the unique challenges eachsector faces. Therefore, the Standard was designed to fulfil the requirement for benchmarks with sectoral
specificity, to accurately assess the quality of transition plans.
Starting in 2021 for the oil and gas sector, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)
developed a comprehensive standard to assess various elements of transition risk within the sector.
Following a two-year collaborative process led by IIGCC with support from the TPI Centre, investors andregional investor groups, a pilot study was undertaken, and final indicators released in 2023. Other Net
Zero Standard frameworks include the Net Zero Banking Assessment Framework and the Net Zero
Standard for Diversified Mining; work is in progress on standards for the steel and automotive sectors.
The assessment process for the Standard mimicked that of the CA100+ disclosure benchmark. The
company data were gathered exclusively from companies’ public disclosures. Following an initial round ofassessments, the preliminary results were sent to the assessed companies for feedback. After the
feedback was integrated and scores were compared for consistency, the results were finalised andsubsequently published on the signatory-only section of the CA100+ website.

5

Table 1.1. The companies assessed by the Net Zero Standard for Oil & Gas and their current
performance on the CA100+ Benchmark
Company nameRegionCountry HQMarketcapitalisation,
13/03/24 ($ billions)

CA100+ net zero
disclosure score

BP

Europe

UK

104

73%

ChevronNorth America

USA

282

30%

ConocoPhillips

North America

USA

136

25%

Eni S.p.A

Europe

Italy

50

75%

Exxon Mobil

North America

USA

108

34%

Occidental Petroleum

North America

USA

64

35%

Repsol S.A.

Europe

Spain

19

59%

Shell plc

Europe

UK

203

55%

Suncor Energy

North America

Canada44

18%

TotalEnergies SE

EuropeFrance158

73%

Structure of the Standard
The Standard has been designed to complement the CA100+ Disclosure Framework, adding 81 1 sectorspecific metrics onto indicators 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 (see Table 1.2).
Key points:•

Metrics are grouped by sub-indicator, with each covering an element of transition planning. These
sub-indicators are further grouped into indicators under an overarching topic.

•

The metrics within the Standard were divided into three categories based on the aspect oftransition planning they address: Disclosure, Solutions and Alignment.

•

The metrics are assessed on a binary Y/N basis and then aggregated by sub-indicator and metric
type to calculate overall percentage scores.

•

Some metrics require benchmarks for specific segments of company emissions that have yet to becreated and are therefore not currently active [see footnote 1].

•

The number of metrics in each section varies considerably, depending on the topic covered. The
indicators covering strategy and capital allocation (5 and 6) are the most numerous. These
components constitute the core of a well-structured transition plan and, consequently, carry thehighest weight within the Standard. They have also been identified as a key focus area by
investors.

•

The Standard introduces metrics specifically focused on companies’ upstream targets and assessesalignment of those targets and the alignment of the companies’ existing Scope 1 and 2 targets(indicators 2 and 3).

Ten metrics are currently not active, meaning they are not currently being assessed as the benchmark required to assessalignment is still being developed. The number of applicable metrics can also vary according to the position of the company in thevalue chain: metrics covering companies’ upstream business are not applicable to upstream companies, whose main emissions
targets cover this segment.

1

6

•

The Standard raises the bar for disclosure standards, requiring companies to disclose in a moreconsistent manner.

•

Indicator 10 requires specific information related to energy and emissions disclosures that isnecessary for investors to determine the carbon intensity of their products. These have historically
been disclosed in a manner that is inconsistent and opaque. Companies have often included
factors such as fossil fuel equivalence calculations, which distort energy intensity figures and any
targets on which they are based, by numerically increasing the contribution of renewables without
discussing the methodology or impact.

Table 1.2. Structure of the Net Zero Standard for Oil & Gas
CA100+
indicator

2 – Long-termemissions targets

3 – Medium-termemissions targets

5 – Decarbonisation
strategy

6 – Capital allocation

NZ Standard for O&G
sub-indicator

NZ Standard for O&G
metric type

NZ Standard for O&G
new metrics

i - Operational emissions
targets (long-term)

Alignment

1 (0 active)ii – Upstream targets(long-term)

Disclosure + Alignment

2 (1 active)

i - Operational emissions
targets (medium-term)

Alignment

1 (0 active)ii - Upstream targets(medium-term)

Disclosure + Alignment

2 (1 active)

i - Decarbonisation strategy

Disclosure2ii - Neutralising measures

Disclosure + Alignment

13iii - Climate solutions

Solutions8

iv – Methane

Disclosure + Alignment

7

v - Oil and gas production

Disclosure + Alignment

18 (16 active)

i - Oil and gas capital
expenditure

Disclosure + Alignment

9 (7 active)ii - Green investment

Solutions

9 (8 active)iii - Decarbonisation
investment

Disclosure2

i - Energy disclosure

Disclosure

4ii - Emissions disclosure

Disclosure3

10 – TCFD* disclosure*Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures72. Results
This section presents the results from the first assessment of companies against the Net Zero Standard
for Oil & Gas. It focuses exclusively on the metrics of the Standard, excluding wider results from the
CA100+ Disclosure Framework. Therefore, the analysis focuses primarily on companies’ strategy andcapital allocation disclosures.

Company results
The results shown in Figure 2.1 demonstrate wide variation in company performance:
•
•
•
•
•

The average score of companies is 19% – meaning the average company scores ‘Yes’ on 19% of
metrics.
TotalEnergies tops the list of companies assessed, scoring ‘Yes’ on more than 50% of applicable
metrics.
Suncor, at the bottom of the list, does not score ‘Yes’ on any of the metrics.
Three companies score on around 30% of the metrics, and most of the rest score on around 10%
or fewer.
Given that a minimum score of around 80% indicates a robust transition plan (see further below),
our results indicate that the sector has much progress to make.

Figure 2.1. Overall scoring of the 10 assessed companies

8On the whole, European companies score far better than their North American counterparts, making up
the top five. The highest-scoring North American company, ranking sixth, scores on only 13% of themetrics. The average score for North American companies is 7%, compared with 32% for European
companies.
A score of 100% may not be required to judge that a company has a robust transition plan. In particular,
the subset of metrics labelled ‘Solutions’ covers alternative forms of low-carbon energy into which an oil
and gas company might diversify. While a company may aim to reduce its transition risk by diversifying
into many alternative forms of energy (Cherepovitsyn and Rutenko, 2022), ultimately it may be in thecompany’s interests to focus on a narrower set of solutions. Therefore, a company could score on all
Disclosure and Alignment metrics, only score on the Solutions metrics relevant to one type of climate
solution (e.g. renewables), and still have a robust plan. This would give the company an overall score ofaround 80%, which can be considered the minimum for a robust transition plan.
As shown above, none of the assessed companies currently comes close to this minimum score: on
average, companies score on a quarter of the metrics. This shows how far oil and gas companies’
transition plans have to go before they can be considered robust.

Indicator, sub-indicator and metric results
Looking at aggregate company results provides information about overall performance and its variation
but is just one way to analyse the results. In order to assess specific areas of company strength andweakness, below we present scores at the indicator, sub-indicator and metric levels.

Indicator-level results
The indicator-level results show some differentiation between areas of companies' transition planning. The
scoring on capital allocation (indicator 6) and disclosure (indicator 10) is substantially higher than on
strategy (indicator 5) (see Figure 2.2). This has been driven by companies making forward-looking capital
expenditure (CAPEX) statements pertaining to both fossil-fuel investment and green investment, as well
as strong emissions disclosure. The relatively poor performance on strategy means that the key strategicareas of transition planning are still missing from company disclosures.
Figure 2.2. Percentage scoring by indicator
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

14%

16%

2/3 - Long andMedium-term Targets(2)

5 - Strategy (45)

25%

26%

6 - Capital Allocation(17)

10 - Disclosure (7)

0%

Y

N

Note: Numbers in brackets represent the count of current active metrics

9Sub-indicator-level results (Strategy and CAPEX)As mentioned above, indicators 5 and 6 represent the bulk of the Standard and indicate where transition
planning needs to be the most sector-specific. Overall, the scoring on these indicators, as with the rest of
the Standard, is low but there are some sub-indicators that perform better than others.
The sub-indicator related to methane (5.iv) attracts the highest scores across the Standard. This is driven
by companies achieving the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership’s (OGMP) ‘gold standard’ (5.iv.a) andcommitting to zero routine flaring by 2030 (5.iv.e). Nevertheless, most companies have not set amethane emissions reduction target with a clear and specific base and target year, and only twocompanies provided a comprehensive strategy to address methane emissions.
Figure 2.3. Percentage scoring of sub-indicators within strategy and capital allocation indicators

5.i - Decarbonisation Strategy (2)0%5.ii - Neutralisation measures (13)13%

5.iii - Climate solutions (8)19%5.iv - Methane (6)33%

5.v - Production (16)11%

6.i - Fossil fuel capex (7)26%

6.ii - Green investment (8)30%

6.iii - Decarbonisation capex (2) 5%0%

10%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Y

N

Note: Numbers in brackets represent the count of active metrics contained in each sub-indicator

While companies disclose various decarbonisation strategies, inadequate quantification of each strategy
led to poor scoring on 5.i and 5.ii. Many companies present their various strategies through waterfall
charts with gradient colours, which lack clear percentages and numerical data. In other cases, companies
simply enumerate potential decarbonisation methods without providing specific figures.
Furthermore, companies are failing to disclose their oil and gas production plans (5.v) or to acknowledge
the need for substantial reductions in fossil-fuel production across the industry by 2050. While six
companies do score on metrics related to medium-term production plans, only two provide any long-term
production forecasts. Unlike decarbonisation strategy, this area of transition planning scores lower due toan absence of disclosure rather than the quality of disclosure. Not being able to understand how acompany is planning to respond to changing demand for its core products creates substantial transition
risk for investors in the long term.
Regarding CAPEX disclosures, most assessed companies do disclose total group CAPEX for the last
financial year alongside forward-looking guidance. However, there remains a lack of more detailed
10breakdown of CAPEX, such as by business segment, by CAPEX specific for green investments, or by CAPEX
dedicated to abatement technologies.

Metric-level results
The metrics with the highest scores were as follows:•

5.iv.e – Zero flaring by 2030 (90%)•

6.i.a – Total group CAPEX disclosed (80%)•

10.ii.b – Emissions (incl. Scope 3) verification by a third party (70%)•

5.iv.a – OGMP gold standard (70%)

Scoring is concentrated in areas of disclosure that have been common practice in company climate
disclosures for some time (e.g. group CAPEX and emissions verification). Methane commitments were aparticular focus of the UN COP28 conference in 2023, and a number of companies were recently awarded
the OGMP ‘gold’ standard, which may explain the high scoring in this area.
There are 22 metrics on which no company scores. These metrics are evenly distributed across indicators
5, 6 and 10; for each of these indicators, 30–35% of metrics are not scored on by any company.
Substantial progress is required across all indicators, even by the best scoring company.

Results by metric type
As introduced in Section 1, metrics within the Standard are divided into three broad categories:•

Disclosure metrics assess the quality of companies’ public disclosures relating to climate.

•

Solutions metrics cover the contribution companies are making to investments in low-carbon
technologies, infrastructure or other activities that displace fossil fuels.

•

Alignment metrics determine whether commitments made in Disclosure metrics are aligned with a
1.5°C scenario – specifically, the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario.

Companies score highest on Solutions metrics, followed by Disclosure, then Alignment – see Figure 2.4.
While this trend also applies to most companies individually, there are exceptions (e.g. Shell’s worst scoreby metric type is on Solutions).
Figure 2.4. Percentage scoring by metric type

Note: Numbers in brackets represent the count of active metrics

11

The higher scoring on the Solutions metrics suggests the assessed companies are more comprehensively
disclosing information regarding alternative energy sources than other aspects of transition planning suchas fossil fuel production forecasts. This may come from a desire to focus attention on areas of growthwithin their business. However, a caveat is that in the early years of companies developing alternative
energy products, growth rates can be rapid relative to a low base. This makes it easier for companies toscore on metrics testing the alignment of solutions that are assessed against growth rates of thatparticular energy product from the IEA’s NZE scenario.
Relatively low scoring on Alignment is perhaps unsurprising, as the Standard requires aligning disclosure
with a 1.5°C scenario. With companies scoring on only 8% of Alignment metrics, the conclusion,
inevitably, is that current transition plans are incompatible with 1.5°C.

Transition plan diversity
It is to be expected that companies will follow different pathways to net zero. Companies vary in theirstarting points and operational strengths and can decarbonise using a multitude of technologies andsteps. One area in which this can be seen is the variation in scoring on climate solutions. The analysis
shows that different companies are focusing on different climate solutions. These can be broadly
segmented into renewable electricity, alternative fuels and abatement.
Table 2.1. Diversity of transition plans – scoring determined by whether a company sets targets for the
relevant business segment
Company

Production in decline?

Solution –renewables

Solution –alternative fuels

Solution –abatement

Occidental
Petroleum

N (no forecast)NN

Y (incl. third party sales)

ChevronN (increasing)N

Y (biofuels + hydrogen)Y

Eni S.p.A

N (increasing)Y

Y (biofuels + hydrogen)YBP

Y (but medium-term
oil only)Y

Y (biofuels + hydrogen)Y

The solutions a company chooses to focus on may impact the level of transition risk it faces. For example,
electricity markets and technologies are established and demand for electricity is highly likely to grow inthe coming decades as the electrification of power, automotive and heating systems occurs (IEA, 2023).
However, the future market size for biofuels, hydrogen and third-party abatement is more uncertain(McKinsey, 2023).

Differences between European and North American companies
One result that stands out is the difference in solution approaches between European and North
American companies. European companies are pursuing a range of energy solutions and therefore score
highly on Solutions metrics (see Figure 2.5). North American companies satisfy far fewer Solutions
metrics, a consequence of their exclusive focus on alternative fuels. None of the assessed North Americancompanies scores for renewable energy targets.

12

Figure 2.5. Scoring on metric type, by location of company HQ (North America vs. Europe)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
46%

20%
29%

10%
0%

9%

3%

0%

Disclosure

Solutions

Alignment

18%
Disclosure

North America

Solutions

Alignment

EuropeY

N

Alignment is the metric type on which both regions score the lowest, but Alignment scores also reveal akey difference in transition planning between European and North American companies. Currently, mostactive Alignment metrics focus on oil and gas production. Unlike North American companies, European
companies are willing to discuss reducing their production and to set forward-looking guidance aligningwith this. Although, it should be noted that where European companies’ forecasts are aligned with a 1.5°C
scenario, it is often because they are focused on producing either oil or gas, while the other declines.
North American companies’ failure to score on any Alignment metric is indicative of their approach to
production. Most of the assessed North American companies have stated they plan to increase theirproduction of fossil fuels if they discuss production rates at all. This conflicts with the IEA’s guidance that
global fossil-fuel production needs to decline this decade if global temperature rise is to be kept to 1.5°C(IEA, 2023).

13

3. Discussion
The results of this first assessment of oil and gas companies against the Net Zero Standard for Oil & Gas
show that none of the companies assessed has a comprehensive transition plan, although TotalEnergies
has made substantial progress on developing its plan. The variance shown in these results proves that
progress towards robust transition planning is possible, even for companies that suggest the demands ofinvestors are too challenging.
The results also starkly demonstrate the varying ambition of transition plans between North America andEurope. The relative weakness of North American companies’ transition plans raises questions about
whether investors in these companies are exposing themselves to substantially greater transition risk. The
lack of focus on solutions, and the narrow range of solutions invested in, highlight the need for long-term
investors to think critically about the direction companies are taking. For active investors, being aware ofgeographical differences will be critical for effective engagement.
Having a transition plan is not evidence that a company is transitioning, of course. It is simply theroadmap a company has set out. Progress on the transition needs to be monitored and updated regularly,
as with any other element of company strategy. Some companies covered by this assessment have been
observed to retreat from the original ambitions of their climate strategies and this represents a threat tosociety’s transition away from fossil fuels.

Areas in which companies need to improve
The results from this first assessment of companies against the Standard indicate that transition planningby oil and gas companies can improve in all areas, but particularly in the following ways:•

Companies need to set Scope 3 targets covering the use of sold products. This is crucial for oil andgas companies. Once it has set a target, the company can identify the potential decarbonisation
levers it intends to use to reach it, and, importantly, quantify their expected contribution.

•

Production forecasts are a crucial signal of how seriously a company is taking the transition. It isperhaps understandable that this is one of the worst-performing areas, due to the existential
questions it poses for companies. However, without acknowledging the impact of the transition on
the core business, companies risk deploying capital that leads to carbon lock-in and accentuates
the risk of assets becoming stranded.

•

While methane abatement is the sub-indicator on which companies score the most often, there
remain easy wins that companies are not grabbing. For example, it should be achievable topublicly set a date for, and subsequently align with, OGMP’s recommendations: 70% of companies
have committed to doing this but they have not outlined when they expect to do so.

•

North American companies need to discuss alternative energy sources, including renewable power,
whereas European companies need to build on their existing progress and improve decarbonisation
strategy disclosure and the alignment of their commitments.

There is no single area in which disclosure can be considered fully robust, and decarbonisation demands acomprehensive approach. With 2023 being the hottest year on record and 2024 possibly set to exceed
this, investors and oil and gas companies need to work together to raise the standard of transition
planning.

14

References
Cherepovitsyn A and Rutenko E (2022) Strategic Planning of Oil and Gas Companies: The Decarbonization
Transition, Energies 15(17): 6163. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176163
Climate Action 100+ (2023) Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark 2.0 2023 Results.
https://www.climateaction100.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-Key-Findings.pdf
International Energy Agency [IEA] (2023) World Energy Outlook (2023).
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023
McKinsey (2023) Global Energy Perspective 2023. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/ourinsights/global-energy-perspective-2023

15

Disclaimer
1.

Data and information published in this report and on the TPI Centre website are intended
principally for investor use but, before any such use, you should read the TPI Centre’s website
terms and conditions to ensure you are complying with some basic requirements which aredesigned to safeguard the TPI Centre while allowing sensible and open use of the methodologies
and of the data processed by the TPI Centre. References in these terms and conditions to “data”
or “information” on the website shall include the Carbon Performance data, the Management
Quality indicators or scores, and all related information.

2.

By accessing the data and information published in this report and on the website, you
acknowledge that you understand and agree to the website terms and conditions. In particular,
please read paragraphs 4 and 5 below which detail certain data use restrictions.

3.

The processed data and information provided by the TPI Centre can be used by you in a variety ofways – such as to inform your investment research, your corporate engagement and proxyvoting, to analyse your portfolios and publish the outcomes to demonstrate to your stakeholders
your delivery of climate policy objectives and to support the TPI Centre in its initiative. However,
you must make your own decisions on how to use the TPI Centre’s data as the TPI Centre cannot
guarantee the accuracy of any data made available, the data and information on the website is
not intended to constitute or form the basis of any advice (investment, professional orotherwise), and the TPI Centre does not accept any liability for any claim or loss arising from any
use of, or reliance on, the data or information. Furthermore, the TPI Centre does not impose any
obligations on supporting organisations to use TPI Centre data in any particular way. It is forindividual organisations to determine the most appropriate ways in which the TPI Centre can be
helpful to their internal processes.

4.

Subject to paragraph 3 above, the Management Quality and the Carbon Performance indicatorsthat are part of the TPI online tool and available publicly on the TPI Centre’s website are:•

Free, if they are used for internal and not for commercial purposes, including for research, as
one of the inputs to inform portfolio construction, for financial decision-making including
cases of lending and underwriting, for engagement and client reporting, for use in proprietarymodels as part of climate transition analysis and active investment management.

•

Restricted, unless licensed where the use is for further commercial exploitation throughredistribution, derived data creation, analytics, and index or fund creation (inclusive of where
the index is used as the basis for the creation of a financial product, or where TPI data is a key
constituent of a fund’s construction).

5.

Notwithstanding any other provision of these website terms and conditions, none of the data or
information on the website may be reproduced or made available by you to any other person
except that you may reproduce an insubstantial amount of the data or information on thewebsite for the uses permitted above.

6.

The data and information on the website may not be used in any way other than as permitted
above. If you would like to use any such data or information in a manner that is not permitted
above, you will need the TPI Centre’s written permission. In this regard, please email all inquiries
to info@transitionpathwayinitiative.org.

16

LSE Transition Pathway Initiative Centre
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change
and the Environment
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE, UK
T +44 (0)20 7107 5027
E tpi@lse.ac.uk

Transition Pathway Initiative
C/o UNPRI Association
5th Floor, 25 Camperdown Street
London E1 8DZ, UK
T +44 (0)20 3714 3141
E info@transitionpathwayinitiative.org@tp_initiativetransitionpathwayinitiative.org