See Another Assessment
Click dropdown to search for another company’s assessment
Download the Assessments
Download the complete set of the Disclosure Framework assessments in excel format
Company Information
Sector
Energy
ISIN
CA5527041084
Year Added To Focus List
2022
Legend
Yes, meets all criteria
No, does not meet any criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
Not Available
Not Currently Assessed
Previous Assessments
Notes
Sub-indicator 5.2 of the Disclosure Framework was omitted from the assessment this year as the Canadian Transition Taxonomy has not yet been published and is required to assess this indicator.
Legend
Yes, meets all criteria
No, does not meet any criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
Not Available
Not Currently Assessed
No, does not meet any criteria*
*Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages.
The disclosure benchmark evaluates corporate disclosure in relation to key actions companies can take to align their businesses with the Climate Engagement Canada and Paris Agreement goals. The benchmark reflects publicly disclosed information as of June 1st, 2024.
The company has set an ambition to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner.
The company has made a qualitative net zero GHG emissions ambition statement that includes all (or nearly all) Scope 1 and 2 emissions (i.e.,
direct operations).
The company’s net-zero GHG emissions ambition covers the most relevant Scope 3 GHG emissions categories for the company’s sector, where applicable.
Long-term target: The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions between 2036 and 2050.
Scope of long-term target: The long-term (2036 to 2050) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable)
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
Where applicable, the company’s Scope 3 GHG emissions target covers at least the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the sector, and the company has published the methodology used to establish the Scope 3 target.
Long-term alignment to 1.5°C: The company’s last disclosed carbon intensity OR its short-term or medium-term targeted carbon intensity OR the company’s expected carbon intensity derived from their long-term GHG target is aligned with or below the relevant sector trajectory needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius with low or no overshoot in 2050.
In the case of electricity utility companies, the relevant year of long-term alignment is 2040. This is equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net zero emissions by 2050.
Medium-term target: The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2027 and 2035.
Scope of medium-term target: The medium-term (2027 to 2035) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
The company has specified that the target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
Medium-term alignment to 1.5°C: The company’s last disclosed carbon intensity OR its short-term or medium-term targeted carbon intensity OR the company’s expected carbon intensity derived from their long-term GHG target is aligned with or below the relevant sector trajectory needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius with low or no overshoot in 2035.
This is equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net zero emissions by 2050.
Short-term target: The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions between 2023 and 2026.
Scope of short-term target: The short-term (up to 2026) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
The company has specified that the target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
Short-term alignment to 1.5°C: The company’s last disclosed carbon intensity OR the company’s expected carbon intensity derived from their short-term GHG target is aligned with or below the trajectory (for its respective sector) to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°Celsius with low or no overshoot (equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net zero emissions by 2050) in 2026.
Strategy to meet GHG reduction targets: The company has a decarbonisation strategy that explains how it intends to meet its long and medium-term GHG reduction targets.
The company identifies the set of actions it intends to take to achieve its GHG reduction targets over the targeted timeframe. These measures clearly refer to the main sources of its GHG emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable.
The company quantifies key elements of this strategy with respect to the major sources of its emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable (e.g. changing technology or product mix, supply chain measures, R&D spending).
Climate solutions commitment: The company’s decarbonisation strategy specifies the role of climate solutions (i.e., low-carbon technologies, infrastructure or other activities which help displace fossil fuels).
The company discloses the revenue it already generates from climate solutions and discloses their share in overall sales.
The company has set a target to increase the share of revenue from climate solutions in its overall sales.
Future capex alignment: The company is working to decarbonise its capital expenditures.
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with its long-term GHG reduction target OR to phase out planned expenditure in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius AND to phase out investment in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.
Methodology for alignment: The company discloses the methodology used to determine the Paris alignment of its future capital expenditures.
The company discloses the methodology and criteria it uses to assess the alignment of its capital expenditure plans with decarbonisation goals, including key assumptions and key performance indicators (KPIs).
The methodology quantifies key outcomes, including the percentage share of its capital expenditures that is invested in carbon intensive assets or products, and the year in which capital expenditures in such assets will peak.
Advocacy position aligned with Paris Agreement: The company has a Paris Agreement-aligned climate advocacy position and all of its direct advocacy activities are aligned with this.
The company has a specific commitment/position statement to conduct all of its advocacy in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The company lists its climate-related lobbying activities, e.g. meetings, policy submissions, etc.
Trade association advocacy consistency: The company has Paris Agreement-aligned advocacy expectations for its trade associations, and it discloses its trade association memberships.
The company has a specific commitment to ensure that the trade associations the company is a member of lobby in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The company discloses its trade associations memberships, policy submissions, and grassroots lobbying communications.
Process to ensure trade association Paris Agreement alignment: The company has a process to ensure its trade associations lobby in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
The company conducts and publishes a review of its trade associations’ climate positions/alignment with the Paris Agreement
The company explains what actions it took as a result of this review.
Board oversight: The company’s board has clear oversight of climate change.
The company discloses evidence of board or board committee oversight of the management of climate change risks. See the detailed methodology for more information.
The company has named a position at the board level with responsibility for climate change. See the detailed Methodology document for more information.
Remuneration arrangements: The company’s executive remuneration scheme incorporates climate change performance elements.
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements specifically incorporate climate change performance as a KPI determining performance-linked compensation (reference to ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainability performance’ are insufficient).
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements incorporate progress towards achieving the company’s GHG reduction targets as a KPI determining performance linked compensation (requires meeting relevant target indicators 2, 3, and/or 4).
Board climate-related capabilities/competencies: The board has sufficient capabilities/competencies to assess and manage climate related risks and opportunities.
The company has assessed its board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and discloses the results of the assessment.
The company provides details on the criteria it uses to assess the board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and/or the measures it is taking to enhance these competencies.
Acknowledgment: The company has made a formal statement recognising the social impacts of their decarbonization strategy – the Just Transition – as relevant for its business. It has also acknowledged potential impacts on Indigenous peoples.
The company has publicly acknowledged that implementation of its decarbonization strategy may have impacts on Indigenous communities, Indigenous governments, and/or Indigenous businesses and contractors.
The company has publicly acknowledged that implementation of its decarbonization strategy may have impacts on its workers (including contractors), unions, communities, suppliers, and/or customers.
Planning and Engagement: The company provides evidence of just transition planning and engages with relevant rights holders and stakeholders on the development of these plans.
In the development of its decarbonization strategy, the company has engaged or has a process in place to engage with the Indigenous communities, governments, and/or Indigenous businesses and contractors that may be affected by the implementation of its strategy.
In the development of its decarbonization strategy, the company has engaged or has a process in place to engage with workers (including contractors), unions, communities, suppliers and/or customers that may be affected by the implementation of its strategy.
Commitment: The company has committed to Just Transition principles.
The company has committed to addressing adverse impacts of the implementation of its decarbonization strategy on Indigenous communities, Indigenous governments, and/or Indigenous businesses and contractors.
The company has made a public statement committing to the principles of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) where Indigenous peoples are affected by its decarbonization strategy. Further, the company has outlined a process to ensure the participation of Indigenous peoples in decisions affecting them is consistent with the effective protection of their fundamental rights.
The company has committed to decarbonize in line with Just Transition principles as set out in the International Labour Organization’s Just Transition Guidelines.
The company has committed to retain, retrain, redeploy, and/or compensate workers (including contractors) affected by implementation of its decarbonization strategy.
The company discloses the quantifiable Key Performance Indicators it uses to track its commitment to a Just Transition.
Support for TCFD recommendations: The company has publicly committed to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
The company explicitly commits to align its disclosures with the TCFD recommendations OR it is listed as a supporter on the TCFD website.
The company explicitly sign-posts TCFD aligned disclosures in its annual reporting or publish es them in a TCFD report.
Scenario analysis: The company employs climate-scenario planning to test its strategic and operational resilience.
The company has conducted a climate-related scenario analysis including quantitative elements and disclosed its results.
The quantitative scenario analysis explicitly includes a 1.5° Celsius scenario, covers the entire company, discloses key assumptions and variables used, and reports on the key risks and opportunities identified.
D+
Partially Aligned
Direct Climate Policy Engagement (Organization Score): The company’s direct engagement supports climate policy required to deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement.
?
This Organization Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or opposed the company's direct policy engagement is towards Paris-Agreement aligned climate policy, with 0 being fully opposed and 100 being fully supportive. If the company's Engagement Intensity is below 5% (meaning limited direct policy engagement by the company) InfluenceMap does not compute a score and the company receives an N/A.
49%
Misaligned
Indirect Climate Policy Engagement via Industry Associations (Relationship Score): The company’s industry associations support climate policy required to deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement
?
This Relationship Score (expressed as a percentage score from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company's industry associations are towards climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0 being fully opposed and 100 being fully supportive. If there is limited evidence of a company's links to industry associations engaging on climate policy, InfluenceMap indicates this with N/A.
46%
Misaligned
Intensity Score: Expressed as a percentage score from 0 to 100 this is a measure of the level of policy engagement by the company irrespective of alignment with the Paris Agreement
no, does not meet any criteria
The financial statements demonstrate how material climate-related matters are incorporated.
Examples of affected accounting line items may include:
?
This metric evaluates whether the company’s audited financial statements clearly show how material climate-related issues are reflected in its accounting. These issues may include the physical impacts of climate change (e.g. extreme weather) and the financial effects of the energy transition (e.g. regulatory or market shifts). The metric also considers whether the company’s own climate targets or decarbonization plans affect asset valuations or liabilities.
Examples of affected accounting line items may include:
- Property, plant and equipment
- Intangible assets
- Inventory and investments
- Environmental or decommissioning provisions
- Tax-related assets or liabilities
no, does not meet any criteria
The financial statements disclose the quantitative climate-related assumptions and estimates.
The assumptions that are disclosed should be sufficiently comprehensive to provide a meaningful picture of climate-exposed amounts in the financial statements, in the context of the company’s climate risks, emissions targets and strategy.
The focus is on transparency. Disclosing these inputs help investors assess potential exposure. The assessment does not evaluate whether the assumptions reflect climate risks—only whether they are disclosed in a way that investors can evaluate their relevance and sensitivity.
?
This metric evaluates whether the company discloses key quantitative assumptions and estimates in its financial statements that could be affected by climate-related risks, such as projected oil prices, carbon costs, or asset lifespans.
The assumptions that are disclosed should be sufficiently comprehensive to provide a meaningful picture of climate-exposed amounts in the financial statements, in the context of the company’s climate risks, emissions targets and strategy.
The focus is on transparency. Disclosing these inputs help investors assess potential exposure. The assessment does not evaluate whether the assumptions reflect climate risks—only whether they are disclosed in a way that investors can evaluate their relevance and sensitivity.
no, does not meet any criteria
The financial statements are consistent with the company’s other reporting.
To be assessed as ’Yes’, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ for Metric 1.a. To be assessed as ‘Partial’ for this Metric, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ or ‘Partial’ for Metric 1.a.
The focus remains on the financial statements; other reporting is reviewed only to provide context.
?
The assessment considers whether there are gaps or contradictions between what the company reports in its financial statements and what it says elsewhere—for example, in sustainability reports, TCFD disclosures, analyst presentations, or on its website. The financial statements should reflect climate-related issues the company acknowledges in other reporting.
To be assessed as ’Yes’, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ for Metric 1.a. To be assessed as ‘Partial’ for this Metric, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ or ‘Partial’ for Metric 1.a.
The focus remains on the financial statements; other reporting is reviewed only to provide context.
no, does not meet any criteria
no, does not meet any criteria
The audit report identifies how the auditor has assessed the material impacts of climate-related matters.
The assessment looks for references to climate in Key or Critical Audit Matters (K/CAMs), either in a dedicated section or within discussions of topics like asset valuation or impairments.
If not included in K/CAMs, the auditor can still meet this metric by explaining how climate risks were considered in the audit approach.
The goal is to help investors understand whether and how the auditor addressed climate-related risks.
?
This metric evaluates whether the auditor clearly explains how they considered climate-related risks in the audit.
The assessment looks for references to climate in Key or Critical Audit Matters (K/CAMs), either in a dedicated section or within discussions of topics like asset valuation or impairments.
If not included in K/CAMs, the auditor can still meet this metric by explaining how climate risks were considered in the audit approach.
The goal is to help investors understand whether and how the auditor addressed climate-related risks.
no, does not meet any criteria
Any inconsistencies between the financial statements and ‘other information’ are identified in the audit report, where applicable.
Auditing standards require auditors to review certain "other information"—such as the management report, strategy disclosures, or risk factors—to ensure it is consistent with the audited financial statements.
If inconsistencies are found, the auditor should note them in the audit report. If Metric 1.c is assessed as "Yes," this metric will often also result in a "Yes."
?
This metric evaluates whether the auditor identifies any inconsistencies between the financial statements and other company information included in the annual report or similar filings.
Auditing standards require auditors to review certain "other information"—such as the management report, strategy disclosures, or risk factors—to ensure it is consistent with the audited financial statements.
If inconsistencies are found, the auditor should note them in the audit report. If Metric 1.c is assessed as "Yes," this metric will often also result in a "Yes."
no, does not meet any criteria
no, does not meet any criteria
The financial statements use, or disclose sensitivity analysis(es) to, assumptions and estimates aligned with net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner).
This includes testing the financial impact of a lower-carbon future using data like commodity price assumptions from credible sources and scenarios. This helps investors understand how resilient the company’s financial position is in a world that is transitioning to meet global climate goals.
Companies can meet this metric either by using these aligned assumptions directly or by providing clear, quantitative sensitivity analyses to show how their financials would be affected under such a scenario.
?
This metric evaluates whether a company’s financial statements reflect assumptions aligned with a transition to net zero emissions by 2050, or whether they disclose sensitivity analyses based on such assumptions.
This includes testing the financial impact of a lower-carbon future using data like commodity price assumptions from credible sources and scenarios. This helps investors understand how resilient the company’s financial position is in a world that is transitioning to meet global climate goals.
Companies can meet this metric either by using these aligned assumptions directly or by providing clear, quantitative sensitivity analyses to show how their financials would be affected under such a scenario.
no, does not meet any criteria
The audit report identifies that the assumptions and estimates that the company used in the financial statements or sensitivity analysis(es) were aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner), or provides sensitivity analysis(es) on the potential implications.
The goal is to ensure the auditor plays an active role in evaluating climate-related financial assumptions, providing investors with greater assurance about the company’s potential exposure to transition risks.
?
This metric is independent from Metric 3.a. While Metric 3.a considers whether the company uses or discloses assumptions aligned with a net zero pathway, Metric 3.b assesses whether the auditor has independently evaluated those assumptions. Specifically, it examines whether the auditor has confirmed their alignment with a credible net zero scenario or conducted its own sensitivity analysis using such assumptions.
The goal is to ensure the auditor plays an active role in evaluating climate-related financial assumptions, providing investors with greater assurance about the company’s potential exposure to transition risks.
no, does not meet any criteria
Recent Investments:
Compatibility of the company’s recent upstream oil and gas investment with a Paris-aligned pathway.
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C) / No new recent investments identified
Upstream investments sanctioned in the most recent year are assessed as economically viable under the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C), which reflects a low-demand pathway aligned with the Paris Agreement.
Companies may also receive a green assessment where no new recent investments have been identified.
Amber: Potentially compatible with APS (1.7°C)
Sanctioned investments are not aligned with NZE but may be compatible with the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario (APS – 1.7°C), which assumes full implementation of current government commitments.
Red: Incompatible with both NZE (1.5°C) and APS (1.7°C)
One or more investments are only considered economically viable under the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS – 2.5–2.7°C), which assumes no further policy measures beyond those already in place. This may indicate a larger share of capital expenditure—beyond the thresholds of APS—being allocated to projects exposed to higher transition risk.
Tan: Incompatible with both NZE (1.5°C) and APS (1.7°C)
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. One or more investments are only considered economically viable under the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS – 2.5–2.7°C), which assumes no further policy measures beyond those already in place. This may indicate a larger share of capital expenditure—beyond the thresholds of APS—being allocated to projects exposed to higher transition risk.
?
This indicator looks at whether a company’s upstream oil and gas investments, sanctioned in the most recent full year, are aligned with low-carbon demand scenarios. This indicator helps identify whether companies are committing capital to new upstream projects that are likely to remain competitive in lower-demand futures.
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C) / No new recent investments identified
Upstream investments sanctioned in the most recent year are assessed as economically viable under the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C), which reflects a low-demand pathway aligned with the Paris Agreement.
Companies may also receive a green assessment where no new recent investments have been identified.
Amber: Potentially compatible with APS (1.7°C)
Sanctioned investments are not aligned with NZE but may be compatible with the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario (APS – 1.7°C), which assumes full implementation of current government commitments.
Red: Incompatible with both NZE (1.5°C) and APS (1.7°C)
One or more investments are only considered economically viable under the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS – 2.5–2.7°C), which assumes no further policy measures beyond those already in place. This may indicate a larger share of capital expenditure—beyond the thresholds of APS—being allocated to projects exposed to higher transition risk.
Tan: Incompatible with both NZE (1.5°C) and APS (1.7°C)
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. One or more investments are only considered economically viable under the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS – 2.5–2.7°C), which assumes no further policy measures beyond those already in place. This may indicate a larger share of capital expenditure—beyond the thresholds of APS—being allocated to projects exposed to higher transition risk.
No new recent investments identified
Future Investments:
Compatibility of the company’s potential future investment in new upstream oil and gas projects with a Paris-aligned pathway.
Project compatibility is determined based on breakeven cost thresholds. Projects with higher costs than those required to meet demand in lower-emissions scenarios are considered more likely to be exposed to financial risk as demand shifts. The higher the share of potential investment outside APS thresholds, the greater the transition risk.
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C) / No new recent investments identified
All potential upstream capital expenditures are considered as economically viable under the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C).
Companies may also receive a green assessment where no new field-scale investments have been identified.
Amber: ＜ 50% incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Less than 50% of potential upstream capital expenditures are expected to fall outside the range of projects considered economically viable under the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario (APS – 1.7°C).
Red: ＞ 50% incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
50% or more of potential upstream capital expenditures are considered not economically viable under APS.
Tan: ＞ 50% incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. 50% or more of potential upstream capital expenditures are considered not economically viable under APS.
?
This indicator assesses whether a company’s potential future investments in upstream oil and gas projects are aligned with long-term demand scenarios. It focuses on unsanctioned field-scale projects—not yet approved for development—and evaluates whether these projects are likely to be economically viable in a lower-demand future.
Project compatibility is determined based on breakeven cost thresholds. Projects with higher costs than those required to meet demand in lower-emissions scenarios are considered more likely to be exposed to financial risk as demand shifts. The higher the share of potential investment outside APS thresholds, the greater the transition risk.
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C) / No new recent investments identified
All potential upstream capital expenditures are considered as economically viable under the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C).
Companies may also receive a green assessment where no new field-scale investments have been identified.
Amber: ＜ 50% incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Less than 50% of potential upstream capital expenditures are expected to fall outside the range of projects considered economically viable under the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario (APS – 1.7°C).
Red: ＞ 50% incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
50% or more of potential upstream capital expenditures are considered not economically viable under APS.
Tan: ＞ 50% incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. 50% or more of potential upstream capital expenditures are considered not economically viable under APS.
No potential investments identified
Future Production Sensitivity:
Compatibility of the company’s potential future upstream oil and gas production with a Paris-aligned pathway.
CTI models a company’s potential future production using supply data from Rystad Energy and compares it to the volume that would be expected if the company only developed projects assessed as economically viable under the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C).
The greater the extent to which future production exceeds that from NZE-compatible projects, the less the company can be viewed as being Paris-aligned, and the more it may be exposed to longer-term commodity price fluctuations and transition risks.
The indicator reflects the degree to which a company’s business-as-usual production would exceed the levels consistent with a Paris-aligned pathway:
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C)
Future upstream production does not exceed the level associated with NZE-aligned projects.
Amber: Exceeds NZE (1.5°C) compatible production by <50%
Future production exceeds the NZE-aligned level by up to 50%.
Red: Exceeds NZE (1.5°C) compatible production by 50-100%
Future production exceeds the NZE-aligned level by more than 50%.
Tan: Exceeds NZE (1.5°C) compatible production by 50-100%
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. Future production exceeds the NZE-aligned level by more than 50%.
The percentage of future production that exceeds NZE-aligned levels is included within the ‘Red’ and 'Tan' score.
?
This indicator assesses whether a company’s projected future oil and gas production levels are aligned with long-term energy demand scenarios. It focuses on production expected in the 2030s under a business-as-usual investment strategy.
CTI models a company’s potential future production using supply data from Rystad Energy and compares it to the volume that would be expected if the company only developed projects assessed as economically viable under the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE – 1.5°C).
The greater the extent to which future production exceeds that from NZE-compatible projects, the less the company can be viewed as being Paris-aligned, and the more it may be exposed to longer-term commodity price fluctuations and transition risks.
The indicator reflects the degree to which a company’s business-as-usual production would exceed the levels consistent with a Paris-aligned pathway:
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C)
Future upstream production does not exceed the level associated with NZE-aligned projects.
Amber: Exceeds NZE (1.5°C) compatible production by <50%
Future production exceeds the NZE-aligned level by up to 50%.
Red: Exceeds NZE (1.5°C) compatible production by 50-100%
Future production exceeds the NZE-aligned level by more than 50%.
Tan: Exceeds NZE (1.5°C) compatible production by 50-100%
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. Future production exceeds the NZE-aligned level by more than 50%.
The percentage of future production that exceeds NZE-aligned levels is included within the ‘Red’ and 'Tan' score.
Exceeds NZE (1.5°C) compatible production by ＜50%
Commodity (Oil) Prices:
Compatibility of the company’s oil price forecasts with a Paris-aligned pathway.
NZE (1.5°C): $42/barrel in 2030, $25/barrel in 2050
APS (1.7°C): $72/barrel in 2030, $58/barrel in 2050
Higher long-term oil price assumptions can signal greater exposure to transition-related risks, such as asset impairments or stranded investments. CTI characterises the shape of each company’s oil price forecast curve—declining, flat, increasing, or other patterns—which helps signal whether the company expects sustained or falling demand. Supplementary text may include the maximum forecasted price and the date of the company’s projection.
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C)
Price forecasts is aligned with—or below—NZE levels. The company’s price curve assumptions are aligned with—or below—NZE – 1.5°C levels. The company’s price curve is generally declining.
Amber: Potentially compatible with APS (1.7°C)
Price assumptions exceed NZE – 1.5°C levels but remain within the APS – 1.7°C range. The company’s price curve is generally flat or moderately increasing and includes assumptions that fall within the range of APS forecasts.
Red:Incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Price assumptions are higher than both the NZE – 1.5°C and APS – 1.7°C scenarios, suggesting limited consideration of potential demand decline. The company’s price curve is generally increasing, or prices are not disclosed.
Tan:Incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. Price assumptions are higher than both the NZE – 1.5°C and APS – 1.7°C scenarios, suggesting limited consideration of potential demand decline. The company’s price curve is generally increasing, or prices are not disclosed.
?
This indicator assesses whether a company’s long-term oil price forecasts reflect expectations consistent with lower demand under Paris-aligned scenarios. The commodity price forecasts used are as follows:
NZE (1.5°C): $42/barrel in 2030, $25/barrel in 2050
APS (1.7°C): $72/barrel in 2030, $58/barrel in 2050
Higher long-term oil price assumptions can signal greater exposure to transition-related risks, such as asset impairments or stranded investments. CTI characterises the shape of each company’s oil price forecast curve—declining, flat, increasing, or other patterns—which helps signal whether the company expects sustained or falling demand. Supplementary text may include the maximum forecasted price and the date of the company’s projection.
Green: Compatible with NZE (1.5°C)
Price forecasts is aligned with—or below—NZE levels. The company’s price curve assumptions are aligned with—or below—NZE – 1.5°C levels. The company’s price curve is generally declining.
Amber: Potentially compatible with APS (1.7°C)
Price assumptions exceed NZE – 1.5°C levels but remain within the APS – 1.7°C range. The company’s price curve is generally flat or moderately increasing and includes assumptions that fall within the range of APS forecasts.
Red:Incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Price assumptions are higher than both the NZE – 1.5°C and APS – 1.7°C scenarios, suggesting limited consideration of potential demand decline. The company’s price curve is generally increasing, or prices are not disclosed.
Tan:Incompatible with APS (1.7°C)
Indicates Year 1—recognizing investor engagement is in its early stages. Price assumptions are higher than both the NZE – 1.5°C and APS – 1.7°C scenarios, suggesting limited consideration of potential demand decline. The company’s price curve is generally increasing, or prices are not disclosed.
Incompatible with APS (1.7°C) - Not disclosed
Disclaimer: The information presented is meant for the purposes of information only and is not intended to be investment, legal, tax or other advice, nor is it intended to be relied upon in making an investment or other decision. This information is provided with the understanding that no organization or entity, including Climate Engagement Canada, its partner organizations, data providers, or participating investors, are providing advice on legal, economic, investment, or other professional issues and services. The inclusion of companies does not in any way constitute an endorsement of these organizations by any party. Neither Climate Engagement Canada nor any other party is responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any decision made or action taken based on information contained in this section or for any loss or damage arising from or caused by such decision or action. All information in this section is provided “as-is,” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied as to the accuracy, fairness or sufficiency of the information contained in this section. Save in the case of fraud, no liability is accepted for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this section.
After publication and the company review period deadline, CEC makes no updates to company scores nor incorporates new information into the Benchmark assessments. However, CEC Benchmark data may be edited when a specific technical error is found. These edits only address specific technical errors and do not constitute new, out-of-cycle feedback. By accessing these assessments, you agree to be bound by the data usage terms and conditions. In case of any discrepancy between the information displayed on this website and the corresponding downloadable assessment results, users should refer to the most recent version of the downloadable document. Please refer to the Version Log located on the final tab of the document and version number located on the Overview tab. CEC’s full operational disclaimer can be found here.