Absolutely, we want to fix all global problems, but success requires focus. We believe the most urgent issue is interconnected with others. If we can’t solve this one (created by us), solving the rest, like the 17 UN sustainability goals, becomes challenging. Let’s tackle the main problem first and then address the others.
Our foundation was very much established to tackle the significant issue of poor GHG data quality. Leveraging cutting-edge AI, ML, NLP, and LLM technologies, along with industry collaborations, we guarantee high-quality, accurate data, subjected to stringent automated and manual quality controls. For every datapoint we deliver source for full data transparency and source verification.
We collect only publicly disclosed data from companies. The data is not subject to any assumptions or estimations. We disclose the source of the data and share the algorithms and methodology publicly on our webpage.
If there is no trace publicly of a companys GHG emissions we declare that company as ”Not reported”. In order to be able to show ”a” value insted of no value (which some of our customers demand) we use industry averages on GHG emissions.
Basicaly by ensuring we only compare what is comparable. If a company increses their inclusion in scope 3 we make sure to only compare what is comparable. please read our methodology.
No.
Results and ambitions are two completely different things. The planet do not need more ambitions, associations, memberships and prices salutiong climate ambitions. We need action and results!
There is also underlying facts and statistics regarding our decision.
- Reports suggesting a record number of companies committing to science-based climate targets, the actual progress appears less encouraging. Boston Consulting Group’s finding that only 14% of companies have managed to align their carbon reduction efforts with their ambitions over the past five years. (source)
- Despite the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) reporting a significant uptake in companies setting science-based climate targets, with over 2,000 companies making commitments, the real impact of these commitments on global emissions reduction remains to be seen. The initiative highlights that nearly 80% of the targets approved in 2021 were aligned with a 1.5°C warming limit and that companies with these targets have been more successful in reducing emissions. However, the global picture shows a vast gap between commitment and actual, meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. (source)
- Carbon offsetts – It is great that companies offset their emissions. Major issue with this is that these offsets vary in quality and delivery. Simply, one ton of offsets in one project does not correlate to the same amount of ton offset in another projects.
- ESG ratings are often inaccurate and biased, once again not linked to acctual reductions or emissions. On top of this, usually only applicable to the largest companies around the globe.
And some quotes:
”When examining the methodology behind MSCI ESG ratings, Bloomberg Businessweek found that, instead of measuring the impact a company has on the Earth and society, ESG ratings measure the risk the world poses to the company. For instance, despite McDonalds’s producing 54 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2019, MSCI upgraded its rating after determining climate change did not pose a risk to the firm’s profits.”
”Various ESG ratings providers have differing methodologies, and this can be reflected in the low levels of correlation between the ratings they provide. MIT research found the correlation between six major ESG ratings agencies, including MSCI, Moody’s and Refinitiv, to be 0.61 (with 1.00 representing a perfect correlation and -1.00 a perfect negative correlation). In comparison, the three largest credit ratings agencies are correlated between 0.94-0.96 on their debt ratings.”
(source: ”https://www.maddyness.com/uk/2022/02/14/the-problem-with-esg-scores/”
Get shit done.