Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Conduct Screen Environmental Harm
Companies with outsized greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutant violations, or systematic failure to reduce emissions intensity — evaluated relative to industry peers, not in absolute terms. A retailer with an embarrassing carbon footprint relative to its apparel peers may be excluded even though its aggregate emissions are small compared to a power plant. The key questions: How does this company compare to its sector peers? Does leadership treat emissions governance as part of their job, or dismiss it? Documented by EPA enforcement, state air quality agencies, or emissions databases. Recency matters — genuine improvement trajectory should be weighed. Distinct from climate_policy (active obstruction/deception) and environmental_damage (non-air environmental harm).
102 companies currently excluded under this screen
Excluded Companies (102 total)
Showing 25 of 102 companies excluded under this screen.
| Ticker | Company | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 000625 | CHONGQING CHANGAN AUTOMOBILE LTD A | Chongqing Changan Automobile is a major state-owned automaker whose core business—producing and selling millions of internal combustion engine vehicles annually—is fundamentally misaligned with a low-carbon transition. The Transition Pathway Initiative assesses the company at Level 1, "Acknowledging Climate Change as a Business Issue," indicating a systematic failure to integrate climate governance into its operations. It has not set quantitative greenhouse gas reduction targets, does not disclose Scope 3 emissions—which constitute the vast majority of an automaker's footprint—and provides no evidence of board-level oversight or a transition plan for its product portfolio. This governance failure manifests in real-world regulatory violations. In January 2018, Beijing's environment authority fined the company and confiscated 12.6 million yuan in illegal gains after several of its Raeton sedans and CS75 SUV models failed to meet municipal emissions standards; the onboard diagnostics systems in the CS75s were also found to be non-functional. The company attributed the violations to "technical accidents," but the penalty was significant enough for industry observers to predict it would set a precedent for stricter nationwide enforcement. While the company has articulated a "new energy" vehicle strategy, its current performance lags critically behind sector peers. The World Benchmarking Alliance's Climate and Energy Benchmark scored the company 7.8 out of 20, ranking it 14th out of 25 global automakers, and noted its "current fleet emissions are high and its share of sales from low-carbon vehicles is low." The absence of quantified decarbonization targets, verified emissions data, and a capital expenditure plan aligned with phase-out goals underscores that its climate commitments remain aspirational against a business model still centered on high-emitting vehicles. |
| HEI | HeidelbergCement | HeidelbergCement (now Heidelberg Materials) operates one of the world’s largest cement and building materials businesses, an industry that accounts for approximately 8% of global CO₂ emissions. The company’s specific net CO₂ emissions were 527 kg per tonne of cementitious material in 2024, a figure that remains high relative to sector peers actively deploying carbon capture and alternative fuels. While the company reports annual reductions, its absolute emissions footprint and continued reliance on clinker production place it among the highest industrial emitters globally. The company has faced specific regulatory and legal challenges related to its emissions. In Georgia, subsidiary HeidelbergCement Georgia was cited by the Environmental Protection Ministry for numerous pollution violations between 2013 and 2022. In Germany, the company filed legal complaints seeking exemption for its Leimen plant from national emissions trading laws, a move that delays compliance. Furthermore, HeidelbergCement was named alongside RWE in a landmark 2025 German court case that established major emitters can be held liable for climate-related damages abroad, setting a precedent for its operational liability. Despite published sustainability reports and a 2050 carbon neutrality ambition, the company’s transition pace is contested. Its current roadmap relies heavily on future carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies, while present-day operations continue to generate outsized greenhouse gas emissions compared to feasible sector benchmarks. Leadership acknowledges the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality objective but the company’s litigation against emissions regulations and its high ongoing emissions intensity demonstrate that operational decarbonization is not yet treated as an immediate governance imperative. |
| MALRY | Mineral Resources | Mineral Resources is an Australian mining services company with a carbon footprint that is significantly misaligned with global climate targets and its own sector’s transition pathways. The company’s core operations—mining iron ore and lithium—are energy and emissions intensive. While mining for energy-transition minerals is not a dominant source of global greenhouse gas emissions at an aggregate level, Mineral Resources’ specific performance is a material outlier. The Climate Transition Pathway initiative, which benchmarks companies against the goals of the Paris Agreement, assesses Mineral Resources as failing to meet its criteria, indicating the company’s current trajectory is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The company’s emissions profile is driven by its reliance on diesel-powered mining fleets and gas-fired power generation. Its reported Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity remains high relative to mining peers, with no published, science-aligned plan to decarbonize these operational pillars. Furthermore, its significant involvement in midstream processing and shipping adds substantial Scope 3 emissions that are not accounted for in a Paris-aligned strategy. Leadership has not established emissions governance as a core strategic priority, with climate disclosures lagging behind the transparency and detail expected of a major extractive firm. This exclusion is based on a peer-relative assessment: within the mining and materials sector, companies are expected to manage the inherent carbon intensity of their operations through credible transition plans, adoption of renewable energy, and fleet electrification. Mineral Resources demonstrates a systematic failure to reduce its emissions intensity at the pace required, placing it among the laggards in its industry. |
| J36 | Jardine Matheson | Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd. is a diversified conglomerate whose operations span property, construction, retail, and automotive distribution across Asia. The company’s significant holdings in energy-intensive sectors, including its majority stake in Hongkong Land (property development and investment) and its control of Jardine Cycle & Carriage (which owns a major stake in Astra International, a large automotive and heavy equipment group in Indonesia), result in a substantial and structurally embedded carbon footprint. Its emissions profile is outsized relative to diversified peer groups, with no published, group-wide Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) commitment or a consolidated net-zero target that covers its sprawling operational scope. The company’s emissions trajectory is further complicated by its strategic focus. In its 2025 preliminary results, management emphasized a “heightened focus on shareholder returns” amid global uncertainty, rather than detailing a group-wide decarbonization strategy. This lack of a transparent, group-level climate transition plan has drawn institutional scrutiny. The Norges Bank Executive Board has excluded Jardine Matheson from investment due to “unacceptable greenhouse gas emissions,” citing the company’s failure to align with the Paris Agreement. While some individual subsidiaries may have environmental policies, there is no evidence that group leadership treats emissions governance as a core, consolidated responsibility. The absence of a verifiable, group-wide emissions reduction target or a credible decarbonization pathway for its highest-impact holdings places Jardine Matheson behind its sector peers on climate performance. |
| OGE | OGE Energy Corp | OGE Energy Corp operates one of the most carbon-intensive power generation fleets among U.S. investor-owned utilities. Its subsidiary, Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E), derives approximately 47% of its electricity from coal-fired generation, with natural gas accounting for most of the remainder. This fuel mix results in an emissions intensity that significantly exceeds the sector average for its regional peers. The company's integrated resource plan continues to rely on these legacy fossil fuel assets without a committed phase-out schedule aligned with climate science. The company has a history of regulatory conflicts concerning its emissions and compliance. In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency sued OG&E, alleging the company failed to properly estimate future emission increases before starting upgrades at its Sooner and Muskogee coal plants, a case that was later dismissed on procedural grounds. More recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the company in a 2025 case concerning service territory violations, reflecting ongoing governance challenges. Leadership's treatment of emissions as a regulatory compliance issue, rather than a strategic imperative, is evidenced by the absence of a Science Based Targets initiative commitment. The company's climate disclosures focus on incremental efficiency improvements at existing fossil fuel plants, rather than a fundamental transition of its generation portfolio. This lack of a credible, forward-looking decarbonization strategy places OGE Energy Corp materially behind its utility sector peers in carbon performance. |
| CVE | Cenovus Energy Inc. | Cenovus Energy operates a carbon-intensive portfolio of oil sands extraction and refining assets. In 2023, the company reported total Scope 1 and 2 emissions of approximately 26.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, with an emissions intensity of 0.20 tCO2e per barrel of production. This intensity is significantly higher than that of many conventional oil and gas peers, placing it among the most carbon-intensive producers in its sector. The company has faced substantial regulatory penalties for air pollution violations at its U.S. refineries. In September 2024, the U.S. EPA and Department of Justice announced a settlement with Cenovus’s Lima Refining subsidiary, which will pay a $19 million penalty and spend an estimated $150 million on capital investments to address violations of the Clean Air Act. The EPA stated the refinery had unlawfully exposed the surrounding community to toxic benzene emissions and other hazardous pollutants. Concurrently, the company’s Superior, Wisconsin, refinery is facing dozens of alleged air pollution violations from state regulators, with allegations suggesting a pattern of failing to meet permit requirements designed to protect public health. While Cenovus has set a 2035 emissions reduction target, its current trajectory and ongoing regulatory non-compliance indicate a systematic failure to manage its outsized emissions footprint. The company’s climate strategy remains heavily reliant on carbon capture and storage, a technology not yet deployed at the scale required to materially alter the emissions profile of its core oil sands operations. |
| CTRA | COTERRA ENERGY INC | Coterra Energy is an independent natural gas producer whose operational emissions intensity significantly exceeds its sector peers. The company’s 2025 Climate Transition Pathway assessment by the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) places it in the lowest performance category, indicating it is not aligned with any benchmarked climate scenario, including the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C. This reflects a systematic failure to implement a credible, managed transition away from high-emission operations. This poor performance is underscored by a pattern of serious environmental violations directly linked to its core extraction activities. In March 2025, Pennsylvania authorities filed 100 criminal charges against Coterra related to a 49-hour uncontrolled shale gas well incident during fracking operations, which involved significant methane and pollutant releases. This follows a November 2024 settlement where the company paid penalties for federal and state Clean Air Act violations. Further, Coterra pleaded no contest in 2022 for contaminating residential well water in Dimock, Pennsylvania, resulting in a $16.29 million settlement. ViolationTracker documents 13 environmental enforcement actions against the company, totaling over $17 million in penalties. Collectively, these incidents demonstrate that Coterra’s high emissions profile is coupled with operational failures causing direct community harm. The company’s trajectory shows neither the emissions governance nor the operational discipline required for a credible climate transition. |
| CHMF | Severstal | Severstal operates as a major integrated steel producer, with its primary emissions footprint tied to blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) production. The company’s reported greenhouse gas emission intensity is among the lowest within the global steel sector, a position it attributes to operational efficiency and the use of natural gas and electricity from hydropower. However, its absolute emissions remain significant due to the scale of its operations, and its primary production pathway remains inherently carbon-intensive. The company has announced targets to reduce specific air pollutant emissions by 13% and greenhouse gas emissions by over 2 million tonnes annually through 2030, linked to investments in new production technologies. These goals are framed within a broader commitment to align with the Paris Agreement. Despite these commitments, Severstal’s decarbonization trajectory remains anchored in incremental improvements to existing coal-based metallurgy, rather than a fundamental shift to green hydrogen or carbon capture technologies that are being pursued by sector leaders. Leadership acknowledges emissions governance as a core responsibility, with public reporting and supplier engagement on sustainability. The exclusion reflects a peer-relative assessment where, despite a comparatively efficient operation, the company’s core business model and medium-term plans remain dependent on coal-consuming processes, placing it behind the curve of the steel industry’s necessary transition to near-zero emissions. |
| HES | HESS CORP | Hess Corporation operates as an independent exploration and production company focused on crude oil and natural gas. Its primary assets are in the Bakken shale of North Dakota, offshore Guyana, and the Gulf of Mexico. The company’s core business is the extraction and sale of fossil fuels, placing its operational emissions intensity directly against peers in the upstream oil and gas sector. In 2012, Hess entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice to resolve Clean Air Act violations at its Port Reading, New Jersey refinery. The company agreed to pay an $850,000 civil penalty and spend more than $45 million to install new pollution controls and implement a program to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from its fluid catalytic cracking unit. While the company sold this refinery in 2013, this enforcement action documents a historical pattern of regulatory non-compliance concerning air emissions. The Climate Transition Pathway initiative assesses companies relative to their industry peers on emissions performance and governance. Hess’s business model remains centered on expanding oil production, notably from its high-growth offshore Guyana assets. Its stated climate commitments, including a net-zero ambition for operational emissions by 2050, do not address the Scope 3 emissions from the combustion of its sold products, which constitute the vast majority of its carbon footprint. This omission is material for a pure-play upstream producer. |
| WSOUF | Washington H. Soul Pattinson and Company Limited | Washington H. Soul Pattinson and Company Limited (Soul Patts) is an Australian investment holding company with a portfolio concentrated in carbon-intensive sectors, including mining, building materials, and agriculture. The company’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are reported, but its significant Scope 3 emissions from its extensive equity holdings are not fully accounted for in its public climate disclosures. Soul Patts’ emissions intensity and lack of a comprehensive, science-aligned decarbonization plan place it behind sector peers in the transition to a low-carbon economy. The company’s climate transition pathway, as assessed by external benchmarks, is insufficient relative to the goals of the Paris Agreement. While Soul Patts notes it monitors its greenhouse gas footprint and has commenced developing carbon measurement frameworks, these efforts lack the specificity, interim targets, and capital allocation commitments required to demonstrate leadership. Its portfolio remains heavily exposed to fossil fuel-linked and emissions-intensive assets without a published strategy to manage or reduce this exposure in line with a 1.5°C scenario. This performance gap is material for a financial holding company, where stewardship and capital allocation decisions directly influence real-world emissions. The absence of a robust, forward-looking emissions reduction strategy indicates that climate governance is not yet treated as a core component of the firm’s investment thesis and risk management. |
| OSH | Oil Search | Oil Search, now part of Santos following a 2021 merger, was an upstream oil and gas exploration and production company focused on Papua New Guinea. Its core business was the extraction and export of fossil fuels, with its primary asset being the PNG LNG project. As a pure-play upstream operator, the company’s entire revenue and business model were directly tied to the production of hydrocarbons, placing its emissions intensity and climate governance squarely against its sector peers. The company’s operational footprint was centered on large-scale, long-lived fossil fuel projects. The PNG LNG project, in which Oil Search was a major partner, is a liquefied natural gas export facility with a projected lifespan of decades. This locked in future greenhouse gas emissions from both production and the eventual combustion of the exported gas. There is no public evidence that the company had a credible, science-aligned strategy to transition away from fossil fuel extraction or to mitigate the downstream Scope 3 emissions that constitute the vast majority of its climate impact. While specific, recent emissions data for the standalone entity is limited due to the merger, the nature of its business model categorically placed it among the most carbon-intensive industrial sectors. Leadership treated the governance of its product’s climate effects as an external matter, with no indication of a plan to wind down its core fossil fuel operations in line with a 1.5°C pathway. |
| NTPC | NTPC Ltd | NTPC Limited is India’s largest power generation utility, operating a fleet that is overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels. As of its most recent disclosures, the company derives approximately 83% of its total installed capacity of over 73 gigawatts from coal-fired power plants. This makes its generation portfolio among the most carbon-intensive in the global utility sector. The company’s operational history is marked by significant regulatory penalties for environmental non-compliance. In February 2022, the National Green Tribunal directed an NTPC generating unit to pay ₹8.26 crore (approximately $1 million) for failures to comply with its environmental clearance and consent conditions. This penalty is part of a broader pattern documented over the past decade, including a 2018 investigative report that catalogued violations related to land acquisition, pollution, and community impact across multiple NTPC plants. Further, in 2020, NTPC was reported to be among state-run entities pushing to weaken rules requiring covered transportation of coal, a measure intended to reduce particulate emissions. While NTPC has announced carbon accounting and management initiatives, its fundamental business model remains anchored in coal. The company continues to develop new coal-fired capacity and has not announced a phase-out plan for its existing fleet, indicating a systematic failure to align its operations with the emissions reduction pathway required by its sector. |
| OVV | OVINTIV INC | Ovintiv is an independent North American oil and gas producer focused on unconventional resource plays in the Permian, Anadarko, and Montney basins. The company's operations are inherently emissions-intensive, and its environmental performance has drawn recent regulatory enforcement for systematic failures. In September 2024, the United States alleged that Ovintiv violated the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations at 22 oil and natural gas production facilities in Utah's Uinta Basin. These violations resulted in illegal emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to smog formation and public health impacts. The company agreed to a settlement requiring a $5.5 million civil penalty and facility upgrades to control emissions. The case was part of a broader enforcement action, with a final settlement in October 2024 totaling $16 million to resolve allegations that Ovintiv failed to properly capture and control emissions of VOCs and methane from its operations. This pattern of regulatory violations, resulting in one of the larger Clean Air Act penalties for a producer in recent years, demonstrates a systematic failure in emissions management at the operational level. When evaluated against sector peers, Ovintiv’s high-profile enforcement record and its core business model—extracting and producing fossil fuels with no announced transition plan away from these activities—place it among the poorer performers on emissions governance. |
| LKOH | Lukoil | Lukoil is a major integrated Russian oil and gas company, deriving the vast majority of its revenue from the exploration, production, refining, and sale of fossil fuels. It accounts for approximately 2% of global oil output. The company's core business is inherently emissions-intensive, and its disclosed climate targets are insufficient relative to the pace of decarbonization required by the Paris Agreement. Lukoil aims to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2030, using 2017 as a baseline. This target lacks the ambition of a science-aligned pathway and does not address the significantly larger Scope 3 emissions from the combustion of its sold products, which constitute the dominant portion of its carbon footprint. While the company publishes sustainability reports and has set some internal goals, its operational context and recent trajectory are concerning. In March 2026, Lukoil was targeted by a new round of U.S. sanctions, underscoring its role within the Russian energy sector. Furthermore, there is documented obstruction of public oversight into its environmental practices, with reports indicating that evidence collection regarding violations and damage is being hindered. This combination of a business model centered on high-emission products, a weak climate target that ignores sold emissions, and an operating environment lacking transparency places Lukoil poorly relative to sector peers on emissions governance. |
| YZCAY | Yankuang Energy Group Company Limited | Yankuang Energy Group Company Limited is a major Chinese coal mining and energy company whose core business is fundamentally incompatible with a low-carbon transition. The company’s primary operations involve the extraction and sale of thermal coal, a leading source of global greenhouse gas emissions. Its reported Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, while quantified in its sustainability disclosures, are intrinsically high due to the nature of its mining and coal-fired power generation activities. More critically, the vast majority of its climate impact stems from Scope 3 emissions—the combustion of the coal it sells—which the company acknowledges but does not control. Despite public statements about a vision for "low-carbon energy solutions," Yankuang’s business model remains anchored in fossil fuel extraction. Its strategic expansion and integration with Shandong Energy Group suggests a deepening commitment to coal as a primary energy source, rather than a managed decline. When evaluated relative to its sector peers in coal mining and integrated energy, Yankuang’s emissions profile is not an outlier but a direct consequence of its core activity. There is no evidence that company leadership treats the governance of its massive, value-chain emissions with the urgency required by climate science, as its operations continue to expand the global supply of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. |
| 639 | Shougang Fushan Resources | Shougang Fushan Resources Group is a Hong Kong-listed mining company primarily engaged in the production and sale of metallurgical coal, a key input for steelmaking. Its core business is the extraction and processing of coking coal from its operations in Mainland China, directly linking its revenue to one of the most emissions-intensive industrial processes globally. The company's operations are intrinsically tied to the steel industry's significant carbon footprint. Coking coal is essential in blast furnace steel production, a method responsible for approximately 7% of global CO₂ emissions. Shougang Fushan Resources does not publish a climate transition plan, Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) commitment, or detailed emissions data in its public financial reports. Its 2021 annual results presentation focuses exclusively on record financial performance—highlighting a 77% revenue increase to HK$7.076 billion—with no mention of decarbonization strategy, emission reduction targets, or environmental performance metrics. Evaluated against its sector peers, the company demonstrates no disclosed initiative to reduce its emissions intensity or manage its downstream Scope 3 emissions, which constitute the vast majority of its climate impact through the use of its product. Leadership treatment of emissions governance appears absent from its core operational and strategic communications. |
| DMC | DMCI Holdings Inc | DMCI Holdings Inc. is a Philippine conglomerate whose core businesses are inherently carbon-intensive. Its primary revenue drivers are Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, the largest coal producer in the Philippines, and DMCI Homes, a property developer. The company’s operational footprint is dominated by coal mining and coal-fired power generation, placing it among the most emissions-intensive industrial peers in its region. The company acknowledges the challenge, stating in its sustainability report that “the nature of our businesses may limit our ability to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” While it expresses a belief in contributing “meaningfully” to climate action, this is not supported by a science-based emissions reduction target or a disclosed plan to transition away from its fossil fuel-dependent assets. Its climate strategy appears focused on incremental efficiency improvements within a business model anchored in coal. DMCI’s emissions profile is further compounded by a history of environmental violations linked to its mining operations, including repeated suspensions of its nickel and coal mines. Without a credible, quantitative commitment to decarbonize its core energy and mining segments, DMCI’s climate transition pathway lags significantly behind global sector benchmarks and the pace of change required by the Paris Agreement. |
| 883 | CNOOC | CNOOC Limited is an integrated upstream oil and gas company, deriving its revenue from the exploration, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas. Its core business is the extraction of fossil fuels, making greenhouse gas emissions intrinsic to its operations. In 2024, the company reported total operational (Scope 1 and 2) greenhouse gas emissions of 12.8 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Its emissions intensity, a key peer-relative metric, is high; data from the Transition Pathway Initiative ranks CNOOC 56th out of 178 global companies for absolute emissions, while its oil production ranks 31st out of 85, indicating an emissions profile that is significant relative to its sector peers. The company has announced a net-zero ambition for 2050 and reports implementing energy-saving measures and developing carbon capture projects. However, its primary strategic focus remains on growing fossil fuel production. Its climate targets lack the granular, interim milestones characteristic of a robust transition plan, and the company has not committed to aligning its capital expenditures with the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions scenario. While CNOOC discloses emissions data and governance frameworks, its fundamental business model and growth trajectory are in direct tension with the rapid decarbonization required by the Paris Agreement. |
| 5406 | Kobe Steel | Kobe Steel is a major integrated steel producer whose core business is inherently carbon-intensive. The company operates blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) steelmaking, which relies on metallurgical coal as a reducing agent and is among the most emissions-heavy industrial processes. According to its own ESG Data Book, the Kobelco Group's total greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and 2) were approximately 17.2 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent in fiscal 2023. This places it among the higher-emitting entities within the global steel sector, an industry already responsible for roughly 7-9% of global CO2 emissions. While Kobe Steel has announced a 2050 carbon neutrality ambition and intermediate 2030 targets, its transition pathway relies heavily on technologies like carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) and hydrogen reduction that are not yet commercially proven at the scale required for primary steel production. The company's near-term plans do not indicate a phase-out of its coal-dependent blast furnace operations. Its emissions profile and decarbonization strategy lag behind sector leaders who are investing more aggressively in electric arc furnace capacity and green hydrogen. The Climate Transition Pathway assessment reflects this peer-relative underperformance, indicating the company's emissions trajectory is not aligned with a 1.5°C scenario. |
| 601111 | Air China | Air China reported total operational greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 27.9 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2024. As a major international airline, its core business of passenger and cargo air travel is inherently emissions-intensive, with Scope 1 emissions from jet fuel combustion constituting the vast majority of its footprint. The Climate Transition Pathway initiative assesses companies relative to their sector peers on emissions intensity and governance. Air China's reported emissions profile places it among the higher-emitting entities within the global aviation industry. The company's 2022 Corporate Social Responsibility Report outlines a response to China's national "dual carbon" strategy, citing specific operational initiatives such as the use of auxiliary power unit alternatives, which it estimated reduced CO2 emissions by 248,000 tonnes in 2022. It has also announced plans to introduce more fuel-efficient aircraft to support energy conservation and emissions reduction. However, the fundamental carbon intensity of its business model—long-haul air travel—remains significant, and its disclosed emissions trajectory must be evaluated against the aviation sector's alignment with a 1.5°C pathway. Leadership's treatment of emissions governance as a core operational mandate, beyond stated commitments, is a material factor in this assessment. |
| CPA | COPA HOLDINGS SA | Copa Holdings, through its principal subsidiary Copa Airlines, operates a fleet of approximately 100 aircraft providing passenger air travel across the Americas. The company’s core business is inherently emissions-intensive, deriving its revenue from the combustion of jet fuel. While the aviation industry faces systemic challenges in decarbonization, Copa’s disclosed climate strategy relies heavily on participation in the global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). This market-based mechanism focuses on offsetting emissions growth rather than achieving absolute reductions through fleet modernization or scalable alternative fuels. The company has stated an ambition to replace all traditional aviation fuel with sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in the long term, but has not published near- or medium-term targets aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, such as validated Science Based Targets. Its climate transition plan lacks the specificity on capital allocation, fleet renewal schedules, or SAF procurement commitments that would demonstrate leadership in emissions intensity reduction relative to airline sector peers. Without these concrete, time-bound plans, the company’s emissions trajectory remains tied to the overall growth of air travel, placing it behind airlines with more robust decarbonization strategies. |
| EPQDF | Electric Power Development Co Ltd | Electric Power Development Co., Ltd. (J-POWER) operates one of the most carbon-intensive power generation fleets among major Japanese utilities. Its primary business is coal-fired power generation, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of its electricity output. The company has been actively developing new coal-fired power plants, including the Takasago Hydrogen Power Plant, which it advertises as utilizing "gasified coal" technology. In August 2024, the company was named as a defendant in a youth-led climate accountability lawsuit filed with the Nagoya District Court, alleging that its emissions and business plans violate constitutional rights. An independent analysis from December 2023 specifically identified J-POWER's advertising of coal gasification technology as a potential case of greenwashing, questioning the environmental claims made for its ongoing fossil fuel investments. While the company publishes sustainability reports and has set a 2050 carbon neutrality target, its current trajectory and continued investment in coal-based generation infrastructure place it significantly behind the decarbonization pathway required by the Paris Agreement for the power sector. Its emissions intensity and strategic reliance on coal are outliers relative to global utility sector peers transitioning more aggressively to renewable energy. |
| EQT | EQT Corporation | EQT Corporation is the largest natural gas producer in the United States, with an upstream business model centered on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the Appalachian Basin. The company's core activity is the extraction and sale of fossil fuels, a sector with inherently high greenhouse gas intensity. EQT’s operational emissions profile is significant, with company-permitted equipment at a single West Virginia site authorized to release over 30 tons of volatile organic compounds and 34 tons of nitrous oxide annually. The company’s environmental compliance record demonstrates a pattern of regulatory failures directly tied to its emissions and pollution. Since the start of 2023 alone, EQT has accrued more than $4.5 million in penalties for four environment-related offenses, according to ViolationTracker data. This follows earlier violations, including a $294,000 settlement for water pollution in Pennsylvania in 2018. While EQT publishes sustainability reports and advocates for natural gas as a transition fuel, its forward-looking emissions and net-zero claims are not verified by an independent third party. This combination of a high-emission business model, repeated enforcement actions, and unverified climate commitments places EQT’s emissions governance and performance behind sector peers who are demonstrating verifiable reductions. |
| CPXWF | Capital Power Corp | Capital Power Corp operates a thermal generation fleet that is approximately 75% fossil-fueled, with coal and natural gas plants accounting for the vast majority of its electricity production. In 2023, the company reported Scope 1 emissions of over 16.2 million tonnes of CO2e, placing it among the most carbon-intensive power producers relative to its North American utility peers. The company's emissions trajectory is marked by significant setbacks. In May 2024, Capital Power canceled a $2.4-billion carbon capture and storage project at its Genesee coal plant, deeming it "not economically feasible," which dealt a blow to its stated decarbonization plans. Furthermore, the company has sought regulatory approval to renege on a prior commitment to cut greenhouse gas pollution from that same coal plant in half. This follows a history of air quality compliance issues, including a state fine for violations at its Southport plant prior to its closure in 2020. While Capital Power publishes sustainability reports and has a net-zero by 2045 goal, its recent actions demonstrate a systematic failure to execute on major emissions reduction projects. Leadership has treated these capital-intensive climate commitments as optional when economic conditions shift, rather than as non-negotiable governance priorities. |
| BTU | Peabody Energy Corp | Peabody Energy is the largest publicly traded coal company in the United States, deriving its core business from mining and selling thermal coal for power generation. Its operations result in outsized greenhouse gas emissions, as the combustion of its product is a primary source of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. power sector. The company has a documented history of systematic failure to address climate risk. In 2015, the New York Attorney General found that Peabody had made false and misleading statements to investors and the public about the financial risks climate change posed to its business, violating New York's Martin Act. Peabody settled the case, agreeing to amend its SEC disclosures. Furthermore, investigations revealed the company funded at least two dozen groups involved in climate science denial. While Peabody now states a company ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, this target pertains only to its direct operational emissions (Scope 1 and 2), which are a minor fraction of the total lifecycle emissions generated by the combustion of its coal (Scope 3). Leadership's historical dismissal of climate governance, coupled with a business model centered on the world's most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, places it severely at odds with a credible climate transition pathway. |
+ 77 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