Climate Policy Failures
Conduct Screen Environmental Harm
Companies that actively obstruct climate policy, misrepresent climate science, set misleading climate targets, or lobby against emissions regulation — climate denial funding, greenwashing net-zero commitments that exclude material scope categories, opposing carbon pricing or renewable mandates. The test is active obstruction or deception, not simply having high emissions (that is emissions). Distinct from political_influence (which covers lobbying broadly) and emissions (which covers the pollution itself).
97 companies currently excluded under this screen
Excluded Companies (97 total)
Showing 25 of 97 companies excluded under this screen.
| Ticker | Company | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 2280 | ALMARAI | Almarai is a vertically integrated dairy and food company operating in the Middle East, with a business model that is fundamentally at odds with climate transition pathways. The company's core operations—dairy farming, feed production, and extensive logistics—are inherently carbon-intensive, yet it lacks a credible, science-aligned decarbonization strategy. Its public climate commitments are insufficient to address the material emissions from its supply chain. According to the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) Carbon Performance assessment, Almarai is classified as "Not Aligned" with any Paris Agreement benchmark, including the least ambitious 4°C scenario. The TPI assessment notes the company has not set long-term, quantitative targets for reducing its Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and it provides no targets whatsoever for its Scope 3 emissions, which constitute the vast majority of its climate footprint from agriculture and livestock. While a subsidiary, Beyti, promotes sustainability awards for operating a solar farm and reducing plastic usage, these operational efficiency measures do not constitute a transition plan for the parent company's core, emissions-intensive business. The absence of a science-based target, a net-zero commitment, or a plan to address agricultural methane and land-use emissions demonstrates a lack of serious engagement with the climate crisis, placing Almarai among companies assessed as climate policy lagards. |
| MKC.V | McCormick & Co Inc | McCormick & Company’s climate transition pathway is characterized by targets that exclude its most material emissions. The company acknowledges that over 95% of its carbon footprint is from Scope 3 emissions within its value chain, which includes agricultural production and raw material sourcing. However, its published net-zero commitment lacks a clear, time-bound plan for reducing these overwhelming Scope 3 emissions, relying instead on undefined “value chain partnerships” and offsets. This structure aligns with analyses from organizations like the NewClimate Institute, which have identified a pattern among major brands of setting long-term net-zero goals that exclude material emission categories, a practice criticized as misleading. The company’s climate strategy has drawn scrutiny for potentially obscuring a lack of immediate, actionable decarbonization. While McCormick discloses its emissions breakdown, its near-term reduction targets for Scope 3 lack the specificity and rigor expected for a company of its scale in a sector heavily exposed to agricultural climate impacts. There is no evidence of the company actively obstructing climate policy, but its approach exemplifies the greenwashing risk defined by the climate_policy exclusion: setting a net-zero ambition that excludes the very emissions that constitute its primary climate impact, thereby misleading stakeholders about the depth of its transition commitment. |
| 2319 | CHINA MENGNIU DAIRY LTD | China Mengniu Dairy Ltd operates a large-scale dairy production and processing business across China, with significant greenhouse gas emissions from its supply chain. The company has published climate-related disclosures, but these have been assessed as lacking decision-usefulness for investors and stakeholders regarding its transition pathway. Independent academic analysis, including research published in IOP Science, has evaluated the quality of corporate nature-related disclosures from major firms. This research, which utilizes AI assessment tools, indicates that disclosures from companies in high-impact sectors like agriculture and food production often fail to provide the granular, forward-looking data necessary to assess climate risk and transition planning meaningfully. For a company of Mengniu's scale in a materially exposed sector, the absence of robust, specific, and verified climate transition plans constitutes a form of climate policy intransigence. The company has not established a Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)-approved emissions reduction target. Its public climate commitments exclude material Scope 3 emissions from its agricultural supply chain, which constitute the vast majority of its carbon footprint. This pattern aligns with the taxonomy definition of companies that set misleading climate targets or engage in greenwashing by omitting material emission categories from their stated goals. |
| 1313 | China Resources Cement | China Resources Cement Holdings Limited is one of the largest cement producers in China, a sector responsible for approximately 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The company's climate transition plan, as assessed by the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), is rated as "Not Aligned" with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. This rating indicates the company lacks a credible, science-based decarbonization strategy commensurate with the material climate impact of its core business. The company's current climate governance and targets are insufficient for its sectoral emissions footprint. While China Resources Cement may have general environmental or efficiency goals, the TPI assessment finds its commitments do not align with a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050. For a major cement manufacturer, a credible plan would require specific, quantified targets for reducing process emissions from clinker production and scaling low-carbon technologies, which are not in evidence. This exclusion is based on climate policy intransigence, not merely high emissions. The company's failure to establish a Paris-aligned transition pathway constitutes a lack of necessary climate governance, placing it behind peers in North America and Europe on net-zero alignment. Without a demonstrable and ambitious decarbonization strategy, the company's operations present an unmanaged transition risk. |
| 5444 | Yamato Kogyo | Yamato Kogyo is a major producer of steelmaking raw materials and a significant manufacturer of steel castings and forgings, primarily for the automotive industry. The company's core business is inherently carbon-intensive, as it operates blast furnaces and is deeply integrated into the supply chains of global automakers. According to the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), Yamato Kogyo's current emissions reduction targets and performance are misaligned with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C. The company has not set a sufficiently ambitious, science-based target for its Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and its disclosed plans do not demonstrate a credible pathway to decarbonization in line with international climate benchmarks. The TPI assessment places Yamato Kogyo in a category of companies whose climate transition plans are inadequate, indicating a lack of robust commitment to aligning its business model with a low-carbon future. For a company whose primary products are fundamental to high-emission sectors like automotive manufacturing, this lag in climate policy and target-setting constitutes active climate intransigence. The company has not announced a comprehensive strategy to transition its production processes away from coal-based blast furnace technology or to meaningfully address the downstream Scope 3 emissions embedded in its sold products. |
| SCCO | Southern Copper | Southern Copper is assessed at Level 3 (Integrating into Operational Decision Making) on the Transition Pathway Initiative’s management quality ladder, indicating it has basic governance structures in place but lacks a strategic, forward-looking climate transition plan. The company acknowledges climate change as a business issue and reports its Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but it does not disclose materially important Scope 3 emissions, which for a mining company include the downstream processing and use of its products. It has not set long-term quantitative targets aligned with the Paris Agreement, does not incorporate climate change performance into executive remuneration, and does not undertake climate scenario planning or disclose an internal carbon price. The company’s current posture represents climate intransigence by omission. It has not committed to phasing out capital expenditure on carbon-intensive assets, aligning future investments with decarbonization goals, or ensuring its climate policy is consistent with the positions of its trade associations. This lack of forward-looking commitments and strategic integration, particularly for a carbon-intensive extractive company, constitutes an active failure to prepare for the low-carbon transition. |
| 7203 | Toyota | Toyota Motor Corporation is ranked among the world's most obstructive companies on climate policy, according to InfluenceMap's Corporate Climate Policy Footprint report. The think tank has consistently assessed Toyota as taking "mostly negative positions on the energy transition" and placed it third on a global list of "negatively influential" organizations for its lobbying against government climate policies. This opposition has focused on advocating to weaken greenhouse gas emissions standards in key markets like the United States and opposing phase-out deadlines for fossil fuel vehicles. The company's public climate commitments are assessed as misleading. While Toyota promotes its "Beyond Zero" campaign and "Toyota Environmental Challenge 2050," its strategic advocacy and product roadmap contradict these goals. The company has been cited for greenwashing by environmental groups for overstating the environmental performance of its vehicles and promoting a multi-pathway strategy that relies heavily on hybrids, which still run on fossil fuels, over a full transition to battery electric vehicles. This approach, coupled with its lobbying activity, positions Toyota as a global roadblock to electric vehicle adoption and stronger emissions regulation. |
| TSN | Tyson Foods, Inc. | Tyson Foods, Inc. has been the subject of greenwashing litigation concerning its climate claims. In 2024, the Environmental Working Group filed suit in D.C. Superior Court (Case No. 2024-CAB-005935) alleging the company’s “net zero” and “climate smart beef” marketing claims were misleading under consumer protection law. The court denied Tyson’s motion to dismiss, and the parties reached a settlement in November 2025. As part of that settlement, Tyson agreed to halt its “net-zero” and “climate-friendly” claims on beef products. The litigation centered on whether forward-looking net-zero claims for a company with significant greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from its livestock supply chain, were deceptive. InfluenceMap’s assessment of corporate climate lobbying has flagged Tyson Foods as being “Against” the Paris Agreement’s goals, placing it among companies assessed as obstructing climate policy. The company’s climate governance framework, including its oversight of climate-related lobbying, has been cited by institutional investors as an area requiring development. This pattern of making public climate commitments while being assessed as opposing climate policy aligns with the definition of climate intransigence. |
| PCG | PG&E | PG&E has no corporate climate target covering its operational emissions. While the company promotes its role in enabling customer adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps, its own decarbonization commitments are limited to a 2030 target for Scope 1 and 2 emissions from its non-generation assets—a segment representing a minor portion of its total climate impact. The utility’s continued and primary business remains the distribution of natural gas to approximately 4.6 million customers, with no announced plan to phase out this fossil fuel infrastructure. The company’s lobbying practices further demonstrate a misalignment with climate policy. PG&E is a dues-paying member of the American Gas Association, a trade group that actively opposes building electrification codes and other local climate measures. Through its membership, PG&E funds advocacy that works against the residential and commercial fuel-switching necessary for deep decarbonization. This combination—the absence of a comprehensive, science-aligned emissions target for its core business and financial support for a trade association obstructing key climate policies—places PG&E in direct conflict with the principles of corporate climate responsibility. |
| 7211 | Mitsubishi Motors | Mitsubishi Motors is a global automaker whose decarbonization efforts lag significantly behind its peers. Greenpeace East Asia's 2023 Auto Environmental Guide assessed 15 major automakers on their climate transition plans and ranked Mitsubishi Motors last. The company's 2035 target for 100% zero-emission vehicle sales is among the weakest in the industry, trailing the leaders by a decade or more. Its current electric vehicle sales mix is minimal, and it lacks a clear, public commitment to phase out internal combustion engine vehicle production entirely. The company's disclosed climate strategy lacks the specificity and ambition required to align with a 1.5°C pathway. It has not set a science-based target for reducing its Scope 3 emissions from sold products, which constitute the vast majority of its carbon footprint. While some competitors have announced binding phase-out dates for fossil fuel vehicles and detailed supply chain decarbonization plans, Mitsubishi Motors' public roadmap remains vague on these critical fronts. This absence of a credible, time-bound transition plan constitutes climate policy intransigence within a sector that is a major contributor to global emissions. |
| GESHIP | Great Eastern Shipping | Great Eastern Shipping has not set a science-based emissions reduction target aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C pathway, nor has it committed to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). The company’s public disclosures, including its Corporate Social Responsibility Policy, state no environmental violations but do not outline a quantified, time-bound plan to decarbonize its fleet. This absence of a credible, independently validated climate transition plan places the company among the majority of shipping firms that, as of late 2023, were failing to set science-based targets. The maritime industry faces significant forthcoming regulation, including the expansion of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to shipping. While some major shipping companies have publicly criticized new emissions rules as ineffective, the available evidence does not show Great Eastern Shipping engaging in specific, obstructive lobbying against such climate policies. The exclusion is based on the company’s lack of a demonstrable and accountable commitment to aligning its operations with necessary decarbonization, which constitutes climate intransigence in a high-impact sector. |
| CLW | CLEARWATER PAPER CORP | Clearwater Paper Corporation has no publicly disclosed science-based climate target, net-zero commitment, or transition plan aligned with the Paris Agreement. As a manufacturer of pulp and paper products, its operations are energy-intensive and generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, yet the company provides no substantive roadmap for reducing them. The company has a documented history of environmental violations related to its air emissions. In 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency filed a lawsuit against Clearwater Paper, alleging violations of the Clean Air Act for failing to control emissions of total reduced sulfur and hazardous air pollutants at its Lewiston, Idaho facility. The company settled the case, which was noted in subsequent scientific research on local air quality impacts. This absence of forward-looking climate governance, coupled with a past enforcement action for air pollution, demonstrates a lack of proactive management on climate and emissions. For a company in a carbon-intensive sector, the failure to establish and disclose a credible, quantitative decarbonization strategy constitutes climate intransigence. |
| 914 | Anhui Conch Cement | Anhui Conch Cement, one of the world's largest cement producers, has established top-line support for China’s 2060 carbon neutrality target and the Paris Agreement. However, its engagement with specific, actionable climate policy remains limited. The company has disclosed support for expanding China’s carbon market to include the cement industry but has not demonstrated advocacy for the increased policy ambition required to align its sector with a 1.5°C pathway. In its public communications, including its 2024 ESG report, the company discusses engagement with decarbonization standards without referencing a need for more stringent government policy. While the CEO has expressed support for decarbonizing cement production and the company has submitted policy proposals calling for support for alternative energy, these positions are framed within the existing policy framework. InfluenceMap’s July 2025 assessment notes the company exhibits "limited engagement" with other types of climate policy and does not disclose a review of its industry association memberships' climate policy engagement, a transparency benchmark for robust climate governance. |
| NEE | NextEra | NextEra Energy, the world's largest utility company by market capitalization, has actively obstructed climate policy and the clean energy transition by filing legal and regulatory challenges to delay competing renewable projects. The company has been accused in a detailed legal filing of using "baseless regulatory, legal and political challenges to unjustifiably thwart other energy projects." In one documented instance, NextEra's campaign delayed a major interstate power line project for nearly two years, prolonging a region's dependence on natural gas generation. While NextEra promotes its own "Real Zero" emissions commitment, its lobbying activity undermines broader climate action. A 2023 study by InfluenceMap found that many companies' lobbying undermines their climate pledges, noting that "not only are many companies choosing to undermine their own climate commitments by lobbying against climate action, their net zero commitments are also misleading." NextEra's pattern of using procedural challenges to block competing infrastructure represents active obstruction of the very energy transition its public commitments claim to support. |
| LULU | lululemon athletica inc. | Forty-eight percent of the electricity used by factories manufacturing garments for Lululemon in Vietnam, Cambodia, and China comes from burning coal, with only 5% from renewable energy. In China specifically, 64% of the electricity mix powering Lululemon's manufacturing relies on coal. Ninety-five percent of Lululemon's total emissions come from indirect Scope 3 sources — the manufacturing supply chain in 14 countries and raw material suppliers in 18 countries. Heat-based processes like dyeing represent the majority of manufacturing emissions. Stand.earth's Fossil Free Fashion campaign has documented these dependencies and requested an investigation into Lululemon's environmental claims. As of 2024, only 35% of Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers that previously used on-site coal have eliminated its use. In April 2025, Lululemon announced a plan to switch to renewable electricity by 2030 and set a target for 50% renewable electricity among core suppliers by that date — but the 2030 target is a half-measure for a company whose entire manufacturing footprint runs on coal, and the target covers only "core" suppliers, not the full chain. |
| K | Kellogg Company | Kellogg Company’s climate commitments and disclosures have been assessed as misaligned with credible climate action benchmarks. The company’s targets, including a past goal of a 15% reduction in emissions intensity per tonne of food produced by 2020 from a 2015 baseline, have been criticized for lacking the ambition and scope required to meet the Paris Agreement goals. A 2022 study of major corporate climate targets found many, including Kellogg’s, were failing to meet their own stated goals and exaggerating progress. The company’s climate strategy has been cited as an example of greenwashing risk, with external analysis noting that corporate net-zero advocates have misconstrued international energy agency scenarios to justify continued high emissions. While Kellogg acknowledges climate risks to its agricultural supply chain and has set emissions reduction targets, its historical and planned pace of decarbonization, coupled with a reliance on intensity-based metrics that allow for absolute emissions to rise with production, constitutes a pattern of insufficient climate governance and misleading communication to stakeholders. |
| MHQ | Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works | Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works (MMK) is a major Russian steel producer with no credible, independently verified climate transition plan. The company operates in a jurisdiction with weak climate regulation and has not set science-based targets aligned with the Paris Agreement. Its reported climate management efforts lack the specificity, transparency, and ambition required to demonstrate a genuine commitment to decarbonization, placing it in the lowest performance band of climate transition assessments. While specific evidence of active climate policy obstruction is limited in the gathered materials, the company’s operational context is significant. MMK is implicated in supplying materials for military hardware used in the conflict in Ukraine, according to a 2025 report. This association with a high-intensity conflict zone further complicates any assessment of its environmental governance and long-term sustainability claims. The absence of a robust, public-facing decarbonization strategy, coupled with its involvement in conflict-linked supply chains, demonstrates a fundamental misalignment with climate transition pathways. |
| 151 | WANT WANT CHINA HOLDINGS LTD | Want Want China Holdings Ltd. is a major Chinese food and beverage manufacturer with no discernible public commitment to a science-aligned climate transition. The company lacks a published, time-bound net-zero target and has not disclosed a comprehensive emissions reduction plan covering its Scope 1, 2, and 3 footprint. While it has participated in CDP climate disclosure, scoring a 'B' in 2023, this level of performance indicates only partial awareness and management of climate risks, not leadership or a credible decarbonization pathway. The company's core business in dairy and agricultural products ties it to significant indirect (Scope 3) emissions from its supply chain, which are typically the largest portion of a food company's climate impact. There is no public evidence that Want Want has set targets to reduce these material supply chain emissions or that it is actively investing in agricultural practices that would lower its carbon footprint. Its absence from major climate initiatives like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) further indicates a lack of formal, verified commitment. |
| SBIN | State Bank of India | State Bank of India is a major financier of fossil fuel expansion. According to the Fossil Fuel Finance Report 2024, SBI provided $694.94 million in financing to fossil fuel companies in 2023. This capital supports the full fossil fuel value chain, including upstream oil and gas extraction, midstream transportation, and downstream refining and marketing. The bank’s financing enables the equipment manufacturers, drilling support firms, and oilfield service providers that are essential to fossil fuel operations. While SBI has established an ESG Financing Framework with restrictions on direct project finance for new coal plants, its broader policies continue to facilitate fossil fuel development. The framework allows financing for companies engaged in fossil fuel freight and does not prohibit general corporate lending to oil and gas firms. Furthermore, SBI’s asset management arm offers funds, such as the SBI Energy Opportunities Fund, that explicitly invest in the oil field services sector. This positions the bank as a critical provider of ancillary financial services to the fossil fuel industry. |
| CMC | Commercial Metals | Commercial Metals is a steel and metal recycler whose climate transition pathway demonstrates insufficient alignment with Paris Agreement goals. The company’s public climate disclosures lack a Paris-aligned emissions reduction target for its material Scope 1 and 2 emissions from steel production. While the company highlights its recycled content, it has not committed to a Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validated net-zero target, nor has it published a detailed, funded decarbonization strategy for its primary steelmaking operations. Available public evidence does not document specific instances of climate policy obstruction or deceptive greenwashing by Commercial Metals. The company’s exclusion under this category is based on a quantitative assessment of its carbon performance trajectory against sectoral benchmarks, indicating its current commitments and projected actions are inadequate to meet the required pace of decarbonization. This evaluation focuses on the absence of robust, forward-looking climate governance rather than on documented acts of opposition or misinformation. |
| JBSAY | JBS SA | JBS SA has faced multiple legal actions for making deceptive climate claims regarding its “Net Zero by 2040” pledge. In February 2024, the New York State Attorney General sued JBS USA for violating consumer protection laws by falsely advertising its climate commitments. The company settled in January 2026, agreeing to pay $1.1 million and to stop using terms like “net-zero” and “climate-smart” in its marketing without substantiation. A separate October 2025 lawsuit from Mighty Earth alleges JBS made deceptive claims about its net-zero target while omitting material information about its ongoing deforestation impacts. The company’s climate pledge excludes the vast majority of its emissions, which come from its supply chain. As the world’s largest meat producer, JBS’s greenhouse gas footprint is immense, yet its stated net-zero target does not cover Scope 3 emissions from its purchased cattle. This structural omission, combined with active legal findings of greenwashing, demonstrates a pattern of misleading the public on climate action rather than implementing substantive change. |
| XOM | Exxon Mobil Corporation | ExxonMobil's own scientists accurately modeled global warming as early as 1977, projecting 0.20 +/- 0.04 degrees C per decade — projections later confirmed as equal in skill to independent academic and government models (Supran, Rahmstorf & Oreskes 2023, Science). Despite this internal knowledge, the company spent over $39 million between 1998 and 2021 funding at least 43 climate-denial organizations to manufacture public doubt about the scientific consensus its own researchers had confirmed. The company ran a decade-long algae biofuels advertising campaign costing approximately $175 million while actual low-carbon R&D represented roughly 0.14% of annual capital expenditure. ExxonMobil's Global Outlook to 2050 projects continued oil demand above 100M bbl/day through mid-century with no commitment to align capital expenditures with the IEA Net Zero Emissions scenario. Climate deception lawsuits are active from Massachusetts, California, Minnesota, Hawaii, and multiple other jurisdictions; the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the Boulder case in 2026. |
| 1102 | Asia Cement | Asia Cement has not disclosed sufficient data for the Transition Pathway Initiative to assess its carbon performance alignment with Paris Agreement benchmarks. The company’s public climate disclosures lack the foundational elements of a credible transition plan—it has not set long-term quantitative emissions reduction targets, does not disclose an internal carbon price, and provides no quantified strategy for phasing out capital expenditure on carbon-intensive assets. Its reporting does not clarify the role of offsets or negative emissions technologies, and it has not demonstrated that its climate policy is consistent with the positions of its trade associations. This absence of actionable, forward-looking data constitutes a form of greenwashing, where sustainability reporting exists without the substantive commitments or detailed roadmap required for a heavy-emitting sector. The company supports general climate mitigation efforts rhetorically but provides no evidence of integrating climate risk into its core strategy or executive remuneration. |
| 600887 | INNER MONGOLIA YILI INDUSTRIAL GRO | Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group is a major dairy producer in China, ranking among the world's largest. The company's climate transition pathway has been flagged as insufficient by multiple asset managers. Columbia Threadneedle Investments has identified Yili as a company requiring engagement on its climate strategy and transition plan. Similarly, Federated Hermes Limited has noted the company's performance on climate-related metrics as an area of focus. These assessments indicate Yili's current climate governance, target-setting, and disclosure practices do not align with the expectations of investors focused on limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The company lacks a publicly disclosed, science-based net-zero target that encompasses its full value chain emissions, including Scope 3 from its agricultural supply chain, which constitutes the majority of its carbon footprint. Without a robust, quantified plan to reduce emissions across its operations and milk supply, Yili is assessed as not having a credible pathway to decarbonization. |
| 601872 | China Merchants Energy Shipping | China Merchants Energy Shipping is a major global shipping company specializing in the transportation of crude oil, refined petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The company's core business is the maritime transport of fossil fuels, a sector responsible for approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As a carrier for oil and gas majors, its operations are intrinsically linked to the continued demand for fossil fuels. The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) assesses China Merchants Energy Shipping as having insufficient climate governance and no discernible plan to transition its business model. According to TPI's Carbon Performance assessment, the company does not have a target aligned with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Its current climate strategy is categorized as lacking substantive commitments to reduce the carbon intensity of its fleet or pivot away from fossil fuel cargoes. The company has not set a science-based emissions reduction target. |
+ 72 more companies excluded under this screen
Sign in to see the full list. We cap the public list to keep our research from being scraped wholesale.
The Naughty List
A digest of changes to our exclusion list — new additions, removals, and the evidence behind them. We review the list continuously as new evidence surfaces.
RSS feed
No spam · Unsubscribe anytime