A closer look at CCS: Problems and potential

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

  • Although carbon capture and storage (CCS) has potential to reduce emissions from sectors that are difficult to decarbonise, almost all of the world’s 41 operational CCS projects are connected to the production or use of oil and gas.
  • 82.5% of existing CCS capacity uses captured CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a process to extract less accessible oil from mature wells.
  • The International Energy Agency (IEA) notes in its latest Net Zero roadmap that CCS has a history of slow deployment and “unmet expectations”, and that “removing carbon from the atmosphere is costly and uncertain”.
  • A number of sectors beyond oil and gas are making some limited progress towards applying CCS technologies, led by power generation and chemicals production.

What is CCS?

Carbon capture refers to technologies that remove CO2 from the air and then transport it to be stored or used in other industrial processes.

Carbon capture is best viewed as an integrated infrastructure, which broadly consists of four components:

  • Capture: Technologies that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, either before or after burning.
  • Transportation: Moving captured CO2 by pipeline or ship to a new location for storage or use.
  • Use: CO2 can then be employed within a new industrial process, or
  • Storage: CO2 can be stored more permanently, typically underground in geological storage sites, such as deep saline formations – essentially underground rock formations – or in depleted oil and gas wells.
Fig. 1: Components of CCS infrastructure
Source: IEA 2023; The CCUS chain, Licence: CC BY 4.0

Different configurations of these components, with different applications, are referred to by specific acronyms:

  • Carbon capture and storage (CCS): A system where the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and put permanently underground.
  • Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU): Captured CO2 is used, either as CO2 or as its component parts, to produce chemicals or building materials.
  • Carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS): A system in which the use of captured CO2 also results in its storage. The main application of CCUS to date has been to maximise oil production.

For simplicity, this briefing will use CCS to refer to all three of these approaches, which collectively refer to the capture of emissions at source, rather than its application for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).1There are also technologies that directly extract CO2 from the atmosphere, known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR). These include direct air capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS).

History of CCS in the oil & gas sector

CCS technology was developed by the oil and gas industry in the 1970s to extend the life of oil fields. Carbon dioxide is the key component of enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a process used to access the hard-to-reach oil in older wells. When CO2 is injected into the reservoir, it mixes with any oil remaining in the subsurface rock. This displaces residual droplets of crude oil, which are then pushed towards the oil well and pumped to the surface.

Some sections of the oil and gas industry depend on a constant flow of CO2 for use in EOR activities. However, EOR can be an expensive process to establish and maintain. It is capital-intensive to build CO2 transportation infrastructure, drill into a well that is already in operation, and ensure all injected CO2 is completely used up. According to the United States Department of Energy, the cost of CO2 is often the “single largest project cost” in EOR, meaning that “operators strive to optimize and reduce the cost of its purchase and injection wherever possible”.

Box 1: US subsidies for CCS prioritise increased oil & gas production

High set up and running costs mean proposed CCS projects have historically often relied on government support to strengthen the business case for moving forward.2This study was funded by Chevron. Between 1972 and 2014, almost every CCS project in the world was located in the United States and directed at EOR. Since then, more CCS projects have become operational in Canada, Asia and the Middle East. State incentives were a key factor underpinning these projects. Starting in 1979, and codified in the 1986 US Federal EOR Tax Incentive, a 15% tax credit was applied to costs associated with CO2 capture and injection, effectively subsidising hydrocarbons exploitation.

In more recent years, these subsidies have been re-labelled as ‘climate action’, despite being a continuation of subsidies designed to maximise oil extraction. In 2008, Congress added Section 45Q to the Internal Revenue Code, which provided tax credits if captured carbon was injected as part of oil and gas extraction. The Inflation Reduction Act, approved in 2022, updated Section 45Q – the Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration – to provide a base credit of USD 12 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide that is injected for EOR. This can reach up to USD 60 if the CO2 is captured from an industrial facility and USD 130 if the CO2 is from DAC.

The motivations to initiate these subsidies in the 1970s and continue them in the 2020s are broadly the same: to increase domestic oil production to reduce reliance on imports, seeking to stabilise gasoline prices. Backing EOR has been presented as a way to reduce emissions and increase energy security by retrieving significant amounts of oil left in conventional reservoirs in mature oil fields.

Current state: Capturing carbon for EOR

Currently, the majority of operational CCS projects are related to producing oil or gas.3One of the only projects in operation that does not appear to have direct links to fossil fuels is the Orca DAC project in Iceland, with capacity to capture just 0.004 million tonnes of carbon per year. For perspective, the Yanchang Demonstration project in China, has a capacity to capture 0.05 million tonnes per year, which is then used in EOR. Industry body Global CCS Institute, which is closely linked to the hydrocarbons industry, reports 41 active CCS projects worldwide (Figure 2).4See full list of current CCS projects based on information provided by the Global CCS Institute. Within these projects:

  • 53% of overall capacity is used in natural gas processing, removing high CO2 content which would render the gas unsaleable for distribution through pipelines and unusable as liquified natural gas (LNG).
  • 82.5% of captured carbon is used to produce oil through EOR.

Although these processes both involve carbon capture technology, the gas or oil being produced will release CO2 emissions when it is used further down the line. These indirect emissions are known as Scope 3 emissions and make up 85% of the fossil fuel industry’s carbon footprint. This limits the overall value of CCS in terms of preventing emissions and marks a difference between how CCS is currently being used and its potential future uses focused on reducing emissions in other hard-to-abate sectors.

Figure 2: Operational CO2 capture & use capacity by activity (Mtpa)
Reframing CCS: Storing carbon to maintain oil & gas extraction

As awareness of climate change has increased, CCS has been increasingly presented as a way to store CO2 so that it is not released into the atmosphere, thereby ‘abating’, or reducing, emissions. CCS is now at the centre of the oil and gas industry’s pledges to decarbonise. Some in the oil industry have gone so far as to claim that capturing CO2 can result in “carbon neutral” oil. However, capturing emissions from fossil fuels continues to be a hugely controversial area in debates on how to tackle climate change. In deploying carbon storage to defend or enhance the profitability of natural gas processing and oil refining, the technology ensures the continuation of oil and gas extraction (see Box 2).

Box 2: Fossil fuel operations storing carbon so that extraction can continue

Sleipner, Norway

Equinor (previously Statoil) began the Sleipner CCS project in the North Sea to reduce the amount of tax it paid: “The reason for the decision was the carbon dioxide emission fee introduced by Norwegian authorities in 1993, which made it more profitable to capture and store the carbon dioxide than to pay the emission fee.”

The CCS project has saved the company millions of dollars in taxes, contributing to making extraction from the Sleipner West field financially viable. Since operations in the block began in 1996, almost all of the recoverable gas and reserves have been extracted (remaining gas reserves are just 8 million cubic metres oil equivalent, compared to the original amount of 154.1 million cubic metres).

Quest, Canada

Shell’s Quest CCS project began capturing CO2 from hydrogen manufacturing at the Scotford Upgrader processing facility in Alberta, Canada in 2015. The hydrogen is used to refine bitumen (thick, sticky black oil) from the tar sands to make synthetic crude oil.

Company statements reflect the financial incentive of CCS: “In North America, the adoption of CCS is stimulated by tax credits and the prospect of carbon taxes increasing significantly in decades to come.”

Shell refers to Quest as a key component of its abatement strategy to meet legal requirements to reduce its emissions intensity. As well as reducing company expenditure on the purchase of carbon offsets or energy-efficiency measures, the project generates increasing revenues through government funding and the sale of carbon credits.

This has contributed to the profitability and continuation of operations at the Scotford Upgrader which, in the past few years, increased its production capacity from 300,000 to 320,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent. Shell is considering building a second CCS project at the site.

Gorgon, Australia

The Gorgon gas field in Western Australia was discovered in 1980 and began exporting liquified natural gas (LNG) to Asia in 2016. The government licence for the project required the operators – Chevron and its partners, including ExxonMobil and Shell – to install a CCS project at the site and formed part of the final investment decision in 2009.

The Australian government provided AUD 60 million and agreed to take on liability for the stored CO2. The project has not captured sufficient CO2 since it began in 2019, leading operators to purchase 5.23 million carbon credits to offset non-captured emissions. Despite this poor track record of CO2 capture, net production of natural gas at the Gorgon processing facility has increased from 1,000 million cubic feet per day in 2020 to 1,336 million cubic feet in 2022.

Looking forward: Limits to CCS’s usefulness in oil & gas

The oil and gas industry continues to be a key developer of CCS technologies. Shell plans to build a second CCS project at Quest in Canada (see Box 2), and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) has announced a new large-scale CCS project for EOR at one of its gas-processing plants.

The known current and future plans for applying CCS in the oil and gas industry are primarily to support continued oil and gas extraction. However, if fossil fuels are increasingly replaced with renewable energies, there will be less need to capture emissions from the burning of oil, gas and coal at source.

In its latest Net Zero scenario from 2023, the IEA forecasts a reduced contribution of fossil fuels with CCUS citing the “slow pace of current progress on the development of CCUS” as one reason for the decline. The agency further notes that “reduced CCUS deployment is compensated by more renewables and electrification”.

Potential for applying CCS in other sectors

In recent years, CCS has shifted from being primarily a technology developed and used by the oil and gas industries to become part of the mainstream climate debate. One of the areas in which CCS could potentially have some impact is heavy industry. Sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals are often seen as difficult to decarbonise because they are energy-intensive, and there can be process emissions that are the result of chemical or physical reactions.

According to the IEA’s CCUS projects database, the areas expected to see the largest growth in CCS initiatives are ammonia production, power and heat, and biofuels.5Production of ammonia, which is an input for fertilisers, uses hydrogen; CO2 can be captured when the hydrogen is produced. A number of CCS projects are planned or being built across a range of sectors beyond oil and gas (Figure 3, and discussed sector-by-sector below). Several of these projects aim to capture CO2 for use in EOR.

Figure 3: Operational & planned carbon capture by sector, 2022 & 2030
Challenges: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness

In 2022, the IPCC considered the use of CCS across a range of sectors as part of its sixth assessment cycle, citing its abatement potential. However, the IPCC notes that “in contrast to the oil and gas sector, CCS is less mature in the power sector, as well as in cement and chemicals production, where it is a critical mitigation option”

It is unclear to what extent CCS will be a viable and effective technology for use in these sectors. Existing CCS projects have an uneven track record of CO2 capture rates. For example:

  • Boundary Dam, a coal power plant in Washington state, USA, has an estimated 65% capture rate (used for EOR).
  • Gorgon gas processing facility on Barrow Island, Australia, has an estimated 45% capture rate.
  • Quest oil refinery, in Alberta, Canada, has an estimated capture rate of 48%.
  • Century Gas Processing Plant in Texas, USA, has an estimated capture rate of under 10% (used for EOR).

The IPCC also finds that in terms of the measures that will do the most to reduce industrial emissions – and do so cheaply – CCS is less effective than actions such as fuel switching (electrification), improving energy efficiency, material efficiency and enhanced recycling (Figure 4).6Although electrification is currently a more viable option in light industry (for example, using electrothermal heating and heat pumps), the IPCC finds that “both light and heavy industry are potentially large and flexible users of electricity” (box TS.9, page 92) The IPCC analysis reflects net lifetime costs of avoided greenhouse gas emissions for each action or technology, broken down by cost categories, across the mitigation potential, and net greenhouse gas emission reductions that can be achieved by each option.

Figure 4: Technologies’ potential contribution to net emissions reduction in the industrial sector and projected costs in 2030

The inefficiency of CCS relative to its decarbonisation impact, in comparison to other options, is due to the high cost of project implementation. This reality led the IEA to observe in its latest net zero roadmap that “removing carbon from the atmosphere is costly and uncertain”. The report goes on to say that “so far, the history of CCUS has largely been one of unmet expectations. Progress has been slow and deployment relatively flat for years. This lack of progress has led to progressive downward revisions in the role of CCUS in climate mitigation scenarios,” including the IEA’s own Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, published in 2023.

Alongside low and inconsistent capture rates, CO2 storage presents another issue. The IPCC notes that “the regional availability of geological storage could be a limiting factor” to the use of CCS. This is a reality in many areas, including Europe. In its proposal for a Net Zero Industry Act of 2023, the European Commission identified that the “emergence of a CCS value chain in the EU is currently being hampered by a lack of CO2 storage sites”.

CCS uptake and potential by sector
Steel
  • Current use of CCS: One project in operation in the UAE
  • Future use of CCS: Unclear

Steel production is currently largely reliant on coal, both as a component of the production process and as a fuel to provide high-temperature heat. According to the IEA, the sector is responsible for around 7% of energy-related CO2 emissions. The IPCC finds that emissions from steel can be reduced through material efficiency, high-quality recycling and partial fuel switching, followed by using hydrogen or CCS to capture residual emissions.

The Al Reyadah CCS project in the UAE captures CO2 from Emirates Steel Arkan’s steel mill for use in local oil fields, where it is used for EOR. The project, commissioned in 2016, was reported to cost USD 122 million to set up, and aims to capture 0.8 million tonnes of CO2 (Mt CO2) per year, according to company statements. However, little is known about its effectiveness.

Cement
  • Current use of CCS: No projects in operation
  • Future use of CCS: One project under construction in Norway

CCS could be one way to decarbonise the cement sector, which is a major emitter, contributing between 7% and 8% of global emissions. These emissions come both from the fossil fuels used to generate the heat needed to make cement, but also from the chemical composition of the raw materials used.7Cement is made through a calcination process, during which CO2 is burned off limestone and released into the atmosphere, if it is not captured.

The IPCC finds cement production can be decarbonised through material efficiency (for example, using right-sized prefabricated components to reduce material waste) and introducing substitutes such as ground limestone. It concludes that, “CCS will be essential for eliminating the limestone calcination process emissions for making clinker, which currently represent 60% of GHG emissions in best-available technology plants”.

The Brevik CCS project in Norway, which is due to come on-line in 2024, aims to capture 400,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, transport this by ship, and store it in the sea bed.

Chemicals
  • Current use of CCS: Six projects in operation in China
  • Future use of CCS: One project under construction in the Netherlands and two in the United States

The chemicals industry is responsible for about 5% of global CO2 emissions. Some segments already capture CO2 from production processes, particularly those that release a relatively pure stream of CO2, such as ammonia, an input for fertilisers. According to the IPCC, chemical emissions can be reduced through increasing plastic recycling, fuel and feedstock switching, and “depending on availability” by using CCS technologies, including utilisation and removal.

Current CCS projects in the chemical industry are concentrated in China where collectively they have the capacity to capture 1.75 million tonnes of CO2 a year. These projects became operational between 2012 and 2022 and almost all of them capture CO2 which is then used in EOR. For example, Sinopec uses CO2 captured at Qilu Petrochemical for EOR at Shengli Oilfield, “thus turning waste into something valuable”, according to the company website.

Two CCS projects are under construction in the United States to capture CO2 from hydrogen produced from natural gas to make ammonia.

Power generation
  • Current use of CCS: Two coal power plants capturing CO2 for use in EOR, in Canada and the United States
  • Future use of CCS: Five projects are under construction in Australia, China, the Netherlands and Norway

The power sector is the biggest source of CO2 emissions globally. When a power station burns fossil fuels, CCS can be used to lessen the quantity of emissions released. However, CCS requires additional energy above and beyond the needs of the power plant. This is known as the energy penalty, and makes a CCS-equipped facility more expensive to operate.

CCS projects in the power sector to date have been associated with EOR activities at nearby oil fields, a practice which has served to offset the costs of CCS with the profits from EOR. This is the case with the Boundary Dam project in Saskatchewan, Canada, which has been operating since 2014, and the Petra Nova project in Houston, USA, operational since 2017.

However, this arrangement is contingent on oil prices being high enough to cover the costs of operating the CCS infrastructure. In 2020, the Petra Nova project was temporarily halted when oil prices crashed during the COVID-19 pandemic. A rise in oil prices in autumn 2023 has made the project financially viable once more and work has restarted.

Though CO2 capture rates at Petra Nova fell short of expectations, at 3.8 million tonnes in its first three years of operations against a targeted 4.6 million tonnes, the company running the project estimates the captured CO2 contributed to increasing oil production at the West Ranch oil field from 300 barrels per day to over 4,000.

This price differential of CCS-equipped coal plants is likely to be further exacerbated by the cost decline in renewables. In 2022, IPCC found that costs of solar and wind energy, and batteries have fallen by around 85% since 2010. With renewables expected to increase their share of electricity generation, it is unclear to what extent CCS would be needed in coal and gas power plants in the future

Hydrogen production
  • Current use of CCS: One project in Canada, capturing CO2 from hydrogen for use in EOR
  • Future use of CCS: One project under construction in Canada

CO2 is produced as a by-product when hydrogen is made using natural gas or coal, known as ‘blue hydrogen’. This hydrogen can then be used as a replacement for natural gas in some applications. However, blue hydrogen can have a greater impact on the climate than burning natural gas outright due to methane leaks in the supply chain. Blue hydrogen is also likely to face increasing competition from ‘green hydrogen’, which is made with renewable electricity, given the volatility of gas prices and residual emissions across its lifecycle production.

In Canada, the Quest CCS project captures CO2 from the hydrogen produced to refine Canada’s tar sands at the Scotford Upgrader in Alberta. Another hydrogen CCS facility in Alberta is under development and has received around USD 350 million in support from the Canadian government.

How to spot greenwashing in a sustainability report: A guide to spotting false environmental claims

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

This guide shows how to unpick a sustainability report and spot greenwashing in 11 areas. Each section explains a type of greenwashing that could be discovered in a sustainability report. This guide is intended for journalists, professionals working in climate and climate activists. At the end of each section, questions help to guide your judgement on a company’s greenwashing practices. If the answer to the majority of green questions 🟢 is no and the answer to most of the red questions 🔴 is yes, then a company may be greenwashing.

What is greenwashing?

Greenwashing is when companies portray themselves as sustainable or environmentally friendly despite their products or concrete actions not matching their claims. Greenwashing can take various forms, such as false advertising, misleading labelling or exaggerated environmental benefits or actions. It involves using corporate communications and marketing strategies to mislead consumers.1For more information, read Stop Funding Heat’s report on greenwashing in the fossil fuel industry.

Greenwashing is harmful to the environment, society and the company: Consumers feel discouraged from taking action, policymakers get the wrong signals about progress and investments decrease due to shareholder mistrust. It can also undermine other companies’ genuine action on climate, as greenwashing makes their progress look less ambitious.

Greenwashing is part of a broader concept called climate disinformation or misinformation. According to the global coalition Climate Action Against Disinformation, one aspect of climate disinformation is that it “falsely publicises efforts as supportive of climate goals that in fact contribute to climate warming or contravene the scientific consensus on mitigation or adaptation.”

What does the UN say about greenwashing?

The United Nations has warned that greenwashing is a major obstacle to tackling climate change. In 2022, a UN high-level expert group published a report named ‘Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions’. The report outlines 10 recommendations as “a roadmap to prevent net zero from being undermined by false claims, ambiguity and ‘greenwash’”. They include how to announce and set a net zero pledge, what role voluntary carbon offsets should play, and the importance of phasing out fossil fuels. Catherine McKenna, chair of the group, said: “We urgently need every business, (…) to walk the talk on their net-zero promises. We cannot afford slow movers, fake movers or any form of greenwashing.” The UN report and recommendations form the basis of this guide.

Where is the company positioned in rankings or reports?

Rankings can provide an understanding of whether and how a company is greenwashing. Rankings either aggregate different metrics to give an overall company score or focus on one aspect (such as deforestation). Screening rankings for your company of choice is the first step to understanding what the company’s problems are. Here is a non-exhaustive list of company rankings2https://greenwash.com/:

Is the company ranked poorly in terms of sustainability claims?

When and where to find sustainability reports

Companies publish annual reports and sustainability reports. Annual reports must be published by listed corporations every year to show shareholders how their operations and financial situations are evolving. Sustainability or Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) reports are optional in most jurisdictions. The US and the EU will soon require companies to publish some climate and sustainability information.

For publicly listed companies, annual reports are usually published in the so-called “proxy season” between mid-April and mid-June, when annual shareholder meetings are held. When a sustainability report is published usually depends on the schedule of the annual report and on the initiatives in which the company is engaged. Global disclosure system CDP, for instance, releases some of its results in Q4. Sustainability reports are usually found on a company’s website under a “sustainability”, “ESG” or “climate” tab. Rather than just reading examples of a company’s sustainability measures, it is important to look for greenhouse gas emissions data, usually under “climate”.

1. Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions

Sustainability reports are often designed to demonstrate the company’s positive environmental impact. However, those impacts have to be corroborated with emissions data. This data can be found in the appendix as an emissions table or by using Ctrl+F and typing “scope”. Three categories of emissions are typically used to measure a company’s overall emissions. The distinction is not based on a scientific definition but was established by the industry-led GHG Protocol.

  • Scope 1 emissions, often referred to as “direct emissions”, are all emissions that arise directly from the production process, e.g. from fuel combustion in furnaces.
  • Scope 2 emissions come from purchased energy, such as electricity, heating and cooling (often referred to as “indirect, from electricity purchased and consumed”).
  • Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions not included in Scope 2. Companies often call them “emissions from manufacturing sites”. Scope 3 emissions can represent 90% of a company’s total emissions. They are emissions generated both upstream and downstream:
  1. Upstream emissions are created in the supply chain during production. For example, the emissions of a motorbike producer would include those emitted during the production of wheels bought from a third party. Business flights and employee commuting also belong here.
  2. Downstream emissions are created from the use of a product and can include waste disposal, the energy used to maintain a product, and distribution to shops.

Companies usually report scope 1 and 2 emissions and sometimes scope 3 emissions, though often this is incomplete. Frequently, companies highlight the reductions achieved in the first two scope categories, as those usually represent a smaller portion of total emissions and their reduction is easier to achieve compared to scope 3.

A table with total emissions, often available in the appendix of a sustainability report, will give a more accurate view of a company’s emissions. Alternatively, former sustainability reports can be used to add up the emissions from each year to see if the total emissions have increased or decreased. There are usually two ways of accounting – market-based vs. location-based – and it is important that one method is used consistently.

Box 1: Market-based vs. location-based emissions accounting

For scope 2 emissions, most companies must provide emissions data based on both market-based and location-based calculations.

Market-based emissions are calculated from the company’s local power grid. The company may purchase certificates stating that its energy comes from a renewable source and then claim that it emits zero emissions. Scientists have criticised this method as evidence shows these purchases do not encourage more renewable energy investment. It also distorts the perception of real emissions mitigation measures taken by committed companies. A recent trend involves companies highlighting only ‘market-based’ data, resulting in a rosier picture for their emissions – but arguably a less honest one. One recent study published by Nature highlighted that “if this trend continues, 42% of committed scope 2 emission reductions will not result in real-world mitigation”.

Location-based emissions are calculated from contracts with the company’s electric utilities. Usually, the company provides the emissions average for the regional grid on which it is located.

The measure used for emissions is called CO2e, which takes all emissions that are produced as equivalent to carbon dioxide (CO2) so that it is possible to compare the quantities. If there is no “e” next to the CO2, a company is failing to account for methane and other greenhouse gases.

Are the company’s total emissions from scope 1, 2 and 3 increasing?
Does the company omit to report on CO2e or other greenhouse gas emissions by only reporting on CO2 emissions?
Box 2: The devil’s in the details: Find the small print

Headlines in a sustainability report are the big achievements the company wants the reader to focus on. The aspects of which they are less proud are often in the footnotes. That is where indicators of greenwashing might be found. The smaller the font, the more important it is to read. Moreover, as a guide by the journalism platform Clean Energy Wire outlines: “Sometimes when a company says their disclosure includes “all xyz”, consider what is excluded from XYZ rather than interpreting this at face value as a confirmation of comprehensiveness.” This is typically the case when a company describes what it has included in its scope 3 emissions.

2. Omitting parts of scope 3

There are 15 different categories of scope 3 emissions – indirect emissions emerging from a company’s value chain – which typically represent 90% of total emissions. The numbers relating to scope 3 emissions are important: while a company may not solely be responsible for these emissions, it can alter the products it offers, choose less polluting providers or collaborate with suppliers to reduce their emissions. For some companies (e.g. coal, oil and gas companies), Scope 3 emissions are predominantly from the use of their product and are relatively straightforward to measure. However, while pressure to report scope 3 emissions has increased, companies have not always responded in good faith.

A company will usually specify which scope 3 categories are included in its sustainability report. This is an opportunity to see if any categories are excluded. The 15 categories are:

  1. Purchased goods and services
  2. Capital goods
  3. Fuel- and energy-related activities not included in scope 1 or scope 2
  4. Upstream transportation and distribution
  5. Waste generated in operations
  6. Business travel
  7. Employee commuting
  8. Upstream leased assets
  9. Downstream transportation and distribution
  10. Processing of sold products
  11. Use of sold products
  12. End-of-life treatment of sold products
  13. Downstream leased assets
  14. Franchises
  15. Investments

As scope 3 emissions are diverse and harder to measure, the UN Integrity Matters report states: “Where data is missing for scope 3 emissions, businesses should explain how they are working on getting the data or what estimates they are using.” Figure 1 shows the sectors with a large share of scope 3 emissions among their overall emissions.

Fig. 1: Share of scope 3 emissions by sector
Source: WRI, CDP and Concordia University, Trends Show Companies Are Ready for Scope 3 Reporting with US Climate Disclosure Rule, 2022.
Does the company leave out several categories of scope 3 emissions without further explanation?
When scope 3 emissions are incomplete, does the company fail to explain how it will measure scope 3 emissions in the future?

3. Net-zero and interim targets

Corporate net-zero commitments continue to gain momentum. More than 4,000 companies, representing over a third of the global economy’s market capitalisation, had set net-zero targets by the end of 2022. The significance of a net-zero target for a company lies in its potential to reduce emissions and address climate change. Setting a net-zero target also offers a company the opportunity for transformational change. However, not every company will publish information on its environmental or climate performance, and many companies are reluctant to make their commitments public out of fear of being criticised by civil society. This omission of information on climate efforts is also a form of greenwashing, known as greenhushing.

The UN Integrity Matters report states: “Targets must account for all greenhouse gas emissions (based on internationally approved measures of warming effects) and include separate targets for material non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. fossil methane and biogenic methane).” For instance, if a company operates in one of the sectors listed below (Figure 2), it should have a methane target, as it most likely has high methane emissions.

Fig. 2: Methane emissions by sector in 2021, in million tonnes
Source: IEA, Sources of methane emissions, 2021.

Companies must achieve net-zero before 2050 to reach the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Interim targets are crucial as they serve as tangible commitments for early action and they can ensure companies stay on track by providing a transparent roadmap with checkpoints. By setting interim targets, companies can also measure their progress and improve or adjust their behaviour to achieve long-term goals.

The three types of interim targets to look out for are:

  1. Short-term targets: Rapid and significant reductions in value chain direct and indirect emissions are essential to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Companies must prioritise halving emissions by 2030.
  2. Medium-term targets: Company emissions reductions are set between 2026 and 2035 for a clearly defined scope of emissions. This target should cover at least 95% of scope 1 and 2 emissions and, where applicable, the most relevant scope 3 emissions.
  3. Long-term targets: Companies set a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier. This target should include at least 95% of scope 1 and 2 emissions as well as scope 3 emissions.
Does the company publish its commitments and targets?
Does the company have interim targets and detailed information on achieving them, including a regular review process?
If the company tends to emit greenhouse gases other than CO2, does it have a separate target, e.g. for methane?

4. Baseline year

When a company promises to reduce its emissions, it needs to decide on a baseline for the reduction. For instance, when a beverage company pledges to reduce its emissions by 10% – lower than what level? If a company chooses to reduce its emissions compared to 2019, when emissions were already very low due to COVID lockdowns, this will have a very different (and more ambitious) outcome than if it chooses 2023 as its baseline, when emissions were high due to the post-pandemic recovery.

The fictional example in Figure 3 shows a company aiming to reduce its emissions by 10% by 2025 using two years of reference. Using 2018 as a baseline, a 10% reduction would mean emitting 18,000 metric tons of CO2e in 2025. Using 2022, it would emit 54,000 metric tons of CO2e. In other words, the fewer emissions in a baseline year, the more is required to reduce emissions, and the more ambitious the target. In this example, using the 2018 baseline is much more ambitious than choosing 2022.

Fig. 3: 10% emissions reduction using two different baseline years, in metric tonnes

Other companies do not pledge to reduce emissions compared to their past emissions but to their future ones. Often, they use a business-as-usual scenario, promising to reduce emissions – e.g. by 10% in 2027 compared to the emissions they would have emitted in 2027 without any climate mitigation measures. These accounting methods are a way of allowing the company to continue emitting more than in previous years.

Does the baseline year have particularly high emissions?
Does the baseline year come from a business-as-usual scenario?

5. Intensity target

The intensity of emissions is the amount of greenhouse gases released every time a company manufactures and sells a product. In short, it is emissions by product. Intensity of emissions is seen as a problematic accounting metric. The UN Integrity Matters report states: “Non-state actors cannot focus on reducing the intensity of their emissions rather than their absolute emissions.”

Imagine a car company pledges to reduce its emissions intensity by 2% each year (green line in Figure 4). However, over the years, the car business has performed well and car production has increased (grey line). The company’s absolute emissions would increase as a result (yellow line). In other words, when a company sells more cars compared to the previous year, its overall emissions increase no matter how low the emissions intensity of car production is.

Fig. 4: Emissions intensity vs absolute emissions

In sustainability reports, intensity targets can be recognised when the company has, for example, a target of “-55% CO2 emissions per product sold”. However, if a company uses an intensity target in addition to an absolute emissions target, overall emissions should be reduced.

Does the company have an intensity target without an absolute emissions target?

6. Renewable energy targets

Energy plays a vital role in a company’s operations, contributing to costs and emissions. Renewable energy targets are becoming increasingly common. A company’s renewable energy target is set in order to achieve a specific amount of renewable energy production or consumption. Typically integrated into a company’s sustainability initiatives, the target actively contributes to reducing its carbon footprint and overall environmental impact.

In practice, companies’ renewable energy targets vary. Some set ambitious goals, aiming for 100% reliance on renewable energy or specific percentage targets, while others opt for partial commitments. Many companies are engaged in renewable energy transition initiatives such as RE100. This global corporate renewable energy initiative brings together numerous large businesses committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewables.

However, there is uncertainty around what exactly is included in the definition of renewable energy. This question is highly contested and debated, including by governments and the EU. Companies must explain what is covered in their renewable energy targets; for instance, is gas, biomass or hydrogen included? Or only wind and solar? The latter are universally accepted as renewable energy, whereas gas, biomass and hydrogen are far more controversial and have not been proven to reduce emissions effectively in their current forms.

Another key issue is whether the renewable energy a company purchases justifies the reporting of lower electricity emissions. A company can only claim zero emissions for its power consumption if it has been the primary cause for that renewable energy to be generated. “Renewable energy certificates” (RECs) are “very unlikely to contribute to additional renewable electricity supply capacity”, according to the New Climate Institute. Comparatively, power purchase agreements (PPAs) are more likely to do so but are still problematic, as the electricity still comes from the grid, where fossil fuels might still dominate. Ideally, a company will always prominently report its location-based ‘unfiltered’ power consumption emissions (see Box 1).

Does the company set clear-cut definitions for “renewable energy” in its targets?
Are the chosen renewable energy sources scientifically proven to reduce emissions effectively, such as wind and solar (vs. gas, biomass and non-green hydrogen)?
Does the company engage independent entities to verify or certify its energy production and consumption?
Does the company offer updates on its progress towards achieving its target?
Does the company provide detailed information on the additionality of its renewables purchases?

7. Carbon offsets

Carbon offsetting refers to the practice of a company compensating for its emissions by investing in projects that aim to reduce or remove an equivalent amount of emissions from the atmosphere. Companies seek to use carbon offsetting to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and may highlight them in public relations and marketing materials to create a positive image and attract eco-conscious consumers.

However, carbon offsetting has been criticised for creating opportunities for greenwashing. Companies may rely on this short-term tactic instead of sustainably mitigating emissions, for example, by switching to renewable energy. Offsets can result in accounting issues, environmentally damaging activities and social inequities. For instance, carbon offsets in the form of reforestation or afforestation require a lot of land, which is limited. Reforestation and afforestation are also not necessarily a permanent form of removal, as trees can burn or get diseases. A fashion company should not compensate for fossil fuels used in manufacturing with carbon offsets, as electrification of the manufacturing process is already a sustainable alternative.

In addition, the quality and transparency of carbon offsetting programmes vary greatly, leading to concerns about greenwashing and deceptive practices. One investigation found that 90% of offsets sold by the world’s leading certifier do not lead to genuine emissions reductions. The investigation also found human rights issues to be a “serious concern” in at least one of the offsetting projects. In the EU, carbon neutrality claims based on offsets will be banned from 2026 if the Green Claims Directive is approved ahead of EU elections in April.

Companies might refer to carbon offsetting with synonyms, such as:

  • Compensate: A direct synonym for ‘offset’.
  • Neutrality/neutralise: Carbon neutrality means that the amount of CO2 produced during a process equals zero, which companies might seek to achieve using carbon offsets. As a term, “carbon neutral” has been increasingly regulated worldwide.
  • Removal: This refers to offsetting that aims to remove CO2 from the atmosphere permanently.
  • Balancing: A term often used to describe the process of offsetting emissions. A company or organisation is said to be “carbon neutral” when it offsets, or balances, all of its emissions.
  • Insetting: A term used by companies such as Nestlé and Pepsi that usually refers to emissions offsetting in the value chain. This can be a highly untransparent practice and can lead to the double counting of emissions reductions.
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate a large chunk of its emissions?
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company claim to be “carbon neutral”?
After buying offsets, has the company implemented additional changes to sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)?
Has the company achieved a decrease in emissions due to these long-term, sustainable measures and not only the carbon offsets it purchased?
Does the company explain where by how much and through which method it is offsetting?

8. Hydrogen

Many auto companies are promoting hydrogen as the solution to replace fossil fuels. However, hydrogen production needs a large amount of electricity, and storing it is not easy. In most cases, it is easier to use already available electrification solutions, such as electric vehicles. In addition, for hydrogen to be green, the electricity used to produce it needs to be green too, but the majority of grid-distributed electricity globally is generated from fossil fuels. There are very few sectors in which the use of green hydrogen makes sense today due to the lack of electrified options. Areas of potential application are the production of fertilisers and steel, or powering ships and planes.

Does the company claim to use hydrogen as a mitigation solution in a sector or process where electrification is a better solution (such as automobiles or heating)?

9. CDR and geoengineering

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technology is designed to tackle excess CO2 in the atmosphere by capturing and sequestering carbon in various environments, such as the ocean, terrestrial biosphere or geological reservoirs. Geoengineering seeks to restore the balance in the climate system by either removing excess CO2 or reflecting solar radiation away from Earth.

Greenwashing in the fields of CDR and geoengineering can occur in the form of promoting these technologies as quick fixes or sustainable climate change measures to tackle a company’s emissions or environmental impacts. However, they have not been proven to be effective climate change solutions due to high scientific uncertainty and side effects.

Greenwashing could occur when a company commits to implementing these initiatives while actively expanding its carbon-intensive operations. This could include continued reliance on fossil fuels in the supply chain, or continued operations in the fossil fuel sector, while counting on these unproven technologies to deal with the outcomes afterwards.

Does the company rely on underdeveloped CDR to reduce its emissions?
Does the company use CDR to compensate for emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?

10. Gas

Some companies claim to be environmentally friendly by switching high-emitting energy operations to ‘green’ sources of power that ultimately turn out to be gas, also known as natural gas or fossil gas. Gas is currently being heavily promoted as a ‘transition fuel’ that can replace coal in the energy transition or help companies meet emissions reduction targets.

However, gas is still a fossil fuel and burning gas produces emissions, primarily CO2 and methane, making it a significant contributor to climate change. Therefore, promoting gas as a clean alternative is a form of greenwashing. It diverts the focus of companies or other entities away from more sustainable and renewable energy sources that are proven to reduce emissions. It is also misleading to the public, who can be led to believe gas is a clean and sustainable energy source when, in fact, it is not as environmentally friendly as renewable energy sources like solar or wind.

Does the company include gas in its emissions reduction strategy and present it as a “cleaner alternative” or “’transition fuel”?
Does the company invest in gas production and related infrastructure?

11. CCS

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology used to capture CO2 from power plants and various industrial processes, preventing its release into the atmosphere. For example, CO2 is captured at large stationary sources, such as fossil fuel-fired power plants, and injected into the deep subsurface for long-time storage. Only 30 CCS plants are currently operating worldwide. UN secretary-general António Guterres has criticised CCS as greenwashing, since it does not address the root cause of emissions, but allows industries to continue emitting CO2 by burning fossil fuels while claiming to be engaging in climate measures.

Additionally, CCS requires significant energy resources to operate, meaning that using fossil fuels to power it can eliminate the environmental benefits it claims to provide. The effectiveness and safety of CCS has also been questioned, with the leakage of stored emissions potentially having harmful effects on the environment.

Does the company use CCS to compensate for emissions when low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company report specific and quantifiable carbon capture and storage metrics, such as the amount of CO2 captured and stored annually, and are these metrics independently verified or audited?
Is the company using CCS in addition to using other measures to substantially and sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)?

Summary of questions

Is the company ranked poorly in terms of sustainability claims?
Are the company’s total emissions from scope 1, 2 and 3 increasing?
Does the company omit to report on CO2e or other greenhouse gas emissions by only reporting on CO2 emissions?
Does the company leave out several categories of scope 3 emissions without further explanation?
When scope 3 emissions are incomplete, does the company fail to explain how it will measure scope 3 emissions in the future?
Does the company publish its commitments and targets?
Does the company have interim targets and detailed information on achieving them, including a regular review process?
If the company tends to emit greenhouse gases other than CO2, does it have a separate target, e.g. for methane?
Does the baseline year have particularly high emissions?
Does the baseline year come from a business-as-usual scenario?
Does the company have an intensity target without an absolute emissions target?
Does the company set clear-cut definitions for “renewable energy” in its targets?
Are the chosen renewable energy sources scientifically proven to reduce emissions effectively, such as wind and solar (vs. gas, biomass and non-green hydrogen)?
Does the company engage independent entities to verify or certify its energy production and consumption?
Does the company offer updates on its progress towards achieving its target?
Does the company provide detailed information on the additionality of its renewables purchases?
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate a large chunk of its emissions?
Does the company use carbon offsets to compensate emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company claim to be “carbon neutral”?
After buying offsets, has the company implemented additional changes to sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)? Has the company achieved a decrease of emissions due to these long-term, sustainable measures and not only the carbon offsets it purchased?
Does the company explain where by how much and through which method it is offsetting?
Does the company claim to use hydrogen as a mitigation solution in a sector or process where electrification is a better solution (such as automobiles or heating)?
Does the company rely on underdeveloped CDR for reducing its emissions?
Does the company use CDR to compensate for emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company include gas in its emissions reduction strategy and present it as a “cleaner alternative” or “transition fuel”?
Does the company invest in gas production and related infrastructure?
Does the company use CCS to compensate for emissions for which low-carbon alternatives exist?
Does the company report specific and quantifiable carbon capture and storage metrics, such as the amount of CO2 captured and stored annually, and are these metrics independently verified or audited?
Is the company using CCS in addition to using other measures to substantially and sustainably reduce emissions (such as installing solar panels, making processes more energy efficient or electrifying machines)?

Other tools & resources to spot greenwashing

Follow Us