Methodology
CCATA aims to establish a long-term synthesis and analysis of decarbonisation data in order to track, year-on-year, how NZ’s largest companies are progressing with their climate impact and emissions reduction targets. The goal is to increase transparency and accountability within and across sectors, and to encourage more organisations to increase their climate change efforts as we collectively strive to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Our analysis draws from publicly available reports and data published by each individual company with a cut off date of the 26th August 2024. We also used information listed on the Science-Based Targets initiative. (SBTi) website, using the below methodology.
Company Selection
The companies for the 2023/4 round were initially selected from the EPA's top emitters in Aotearoa New Zealand. We tried to focus on a few key industries for this first round. Then we added the top 5 banks to the mix as banks and financial institutions are beginning the process of following the Aotearoa Climate Risk Standards this year. Becasue of this, we wanted to see what level of target setting and reporting they were undertaking for climate action. Next year we may add another sector eg construction, insurance to the mix of sectors and companies.
Report Analysis
Each company’s report/s and SBTi data is separately reviewed by a minimum of two analysts, who then assign a traffic light score of red, orange or green for each indicator as detailed in the example below. The analysts then come together to discuss their individual scoring results for each company and agree upon interim scores. This ensures accuracy of data and results. Interim scores are then reviewed by two independent reviewers to further increase accuracy and reliability of results. Scores are then finalised and confirmed by all analysts when agreement is reached.
Example indicator scoring:
‘Targets’ section Indicator 1: Do they have emission reduction targets?
This score shows whether the company has declared emissions reduction targets included in their report/s. Analysis involved a simple search of the company’s reports having any emission targets mentioned. There are three scoring options for this indicator:
Scoring options:
| Yes |
| In development |
| No |
Rating Methodology
We have drawn on the method developed by the Net Zero Tracker to conduct the evaluation. This method is considered to set the benchmark for companies globally but contains few NZ companies due to the size of our companies. The CCATA method has 20 indicators of climate action which have been identified and collated into three sections: Targets , Plans and Reporting.
This document outlines the indicators and the way in which we evaluated each aspect and coding them. Click here.
Targets
The Targets section identifies interim (2030) and net zero (2050) targets made by each company as well as inclusion or exclusion of scopes 1, 2 & 3, details of intensity and absolute reductions, what GHGs are included and if targets are aligned with SBTi standards.
We searched for 2030 targets. The 2030 timeline aligns with global climate goals under the Paris Agreement, where countries and businesses are expected to take significant action to limit global warming. We then looked to see how much detail was provided to explain how these targets would be met. Some companies integrated the targets and plans for the targets into their company strategy and this was noted.
We then looked for validation of the targets and in particular from the international body Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). The language used around science-based targets in the reports was confusing and hard to understand whether or not the company was actually externally validated. Hence we decided to use the SBTi website to understand the situation and so took data from there.
Understanding the scopes included in the targets is also important so we broke down the scopes and tried to understand what scopes had targets and what sort of targets. Carbon emission accounting typically involves three scopes to categorise emissions:
| Scope 1 refers to direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company, such as emissions from company vehicles or on-site fuel combustion. |
| Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling consumed by the company. |
| Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain (upstream and downstream), including those from purchased goods and services, business travel, waste disposal, and employee commuting. |
Plans
The second key category we evaluated were the company plans. These were often contained in the sustainability report or separate climate roadmaps.
We looked for detailed plans that included estimates of emission reductions and dates or time horizons. The more comprehensive and detailed plans included what technology and when and the expected outcome. We then looked to try and understand the role of offsetting and carbon credits in the plans. Most often this information was not specified. Those companies working with Toitū Envirocare have certificates on the Toitū website that outlined the credits and offsetting details and we used those to get some of the information. However, this did not give information regarding the conditions of use which we looked for in the reporting or on the website.
Understanding the conditions of offsets and credits ensures that the company’s carbon offsetting practices are transparent, credible, and aligned with best practice. This helps prevent the misuse of offsetting as a way to mask continued high emissions rather than as part of a broader strategy to reduce overall carbon impact. It shows that the company is prioritising genuine emission reductions first and using offsets as a supplementary measure.
Reporting
Finally we looked at the reporting practices of the company. Understanding the way in which the companies are reporting shows the level of the transparency that the organisation has with their stakeholders and partners.
Alongside the categories for looking at how often they report we also consider whether the reporting includes just and equitable transitions. This refers to the process of transitioning towards a sustainable and low-carbon economy in a way that is fair and inclusive for all stakeholders and partners, particularly those who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of such changes. Companies might discuss the need for decarbonisation with the imperative to protect workers, customers, communities, and marginalised groups and create a more resilient and inclusive society.
Formal accountability was also assessed. We were interested to see who in the company was accountable for the emission targets and if the accountability was linked to remuneration. Accountability for emissions is essential for companies to manage their environmental impact, comply with regulations, build stakeholder trust, and ensure long-term financial and operational sustainability. Linking accountability to remuneration is a powerful mechanism for driving performance and ensuring that corporate KPIs and targets, e.g. emissions reductions, are met.
Finally, we looked at whether the company had described their engagement with Mana Whenua or Te Tiriti and evaluated how these relationships and commitments were reflected in their broader sustainability and emission reduction process and targets.
Overall scores
Overall scores for each company are calculated in order to help readers easily discern how a company is doing at a glance. Scores are given out of 10. Companies receive 1 point for each green indicator score, giving them a score out of 20. This is converted to a score out of 10 for the final overall score. Final scores between 1-3.9 are shown as red, scores between 4-6.9 are shown as orange and scores higher than 7 are shown as green.
| 1.0 - 3.9 | 4.0 - 6.9 | 7.0 - 10 |