Published

4 months ago

February 11, 2026

Alice Rush

A new report from MSCI shows that many listed companies are still not aligned with the world’s most ambitious climate goal. The findings suggest that progress is uneven. Some companies are moving in the right direction. Many are not yet cutting emissions fast enough.

According to MSCI’s latest Transition Finance Tracker, about 38% of companies in the MSCI All Country World Investable Market Index (ACWI IMI) have emissions trajectories that are aligned with limiting global warming to 2°C or below. This includes 12% aligned with 1.5°C or less and 26% aligned between 1.5°C and 2°C.

However, only about 12% of companies are aligned with the stricter 1.5°C goal set under the Paris Agreement. The remaining companies are on pathways that imply warming above 2°C.

In fact, 36% of companies fall in the range above 2°C but below 3.2°C, while 26% exceed 3.2°C. Overall, the median listed company trajectory implies 3°C (5.4°F) of warming above preindustrial levels this century.

Projected temperature alignment of the world’s listed companies — Source: MSCI

MSCI uses a tool called the Implied Temperature Rise (ITR) metric. This tool estimates how much global temperatures would rise if the whole economy followed the same emissions pathway as a given company. It looks at aggregate emissions, sector-specific carbon budgets, and corporate climate targets.

Inside the ITR: Measuring Corporate Warming Impact

MSCI’s ITR metric helps investors understand climate risk. It compares a company’s projected emissions with global carbon budgets that align with temperature goals. The dataset used in this estimate covers roughly 95% of ACWI IMI constituents, as about 5% lack sufficient data for the calculation.

If a company’s emissions plan fits within a 1.5°C carbon budget, it is considered aligned with the most ambitious Paris goal. If it fits within a 2°C budget, it is considered moderately aligned. If not, it implies higher warming.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, and preferably to 1.5°C, compared with pre-industrial levels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global emissions must fall by about 43% by 2030, compared with 2019 levels, to keep 1.5°C within reach.

MSCI’s data shows that most companies are not reducing emissions at that pace. The report also notes that its latest warming estimate is three-tenths of a degree higher than the previous quarter due to a methodological update that removed a cap on how much companies could exceed their carbon budgets.

This gap matters because corporate emissions play a major role in global totals. The MSCI ACWI IMI includes 8,225 companies and captures about 99% of the global equity investment opportunity set as of Dec. 31, 2025.

Winners and Laggards: How Sectors Stack Up on Climate

The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) gives a clear look at how corporate climate performance differs by industry.

The TPI report looked at more than 2,000 major companies. These companies have a total market value of about US$87 trillion. The focus was on their climate governance and progress on emissions. It found that 98% of companies lack credible plans to shift capital away from carbon-intensive assets.

corporate climate by sector TPI — Source: TPI

The report warns that 554 companies in 12 high-emitting sectors are on a dangerous path. Their current emissions are on track to overshoot the 1.5°C carbon budget by 61% between 2020 and 2050. These same pathways will also likely exceed the 2°C budget by 13% during that same period.

The analysis suggests that many firms consider climate issues in daily decisions. However, few have solid long-term transition plans.

TPI also shows clear differences in sector progress. For example, automotive and electricity companies reduced emissions intensity nearly five times faster between 2020 and 2023 than cement and steel firms. Conversely, sectors such as oil & gas, aluminum, and coal mining remain among the most misaligned with Paris goals.

This highlights that while some industries are beginning to cut emissions and improve governance, most still need stronger transition plans and clearer capital alignment to meet global climate targets.

Climate Alignment Is Now a Financial Risk Indicator

Findings reveal that climate alignment is not only an environmental issue. It is also a financial one.

Governments are tightening climate policies. Carbon pricing systems now cover about 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing report.

More countries are setting net-zero targets. Regulations are increasing disclosure requirements. Investors face growing pressure to measure climate risk in portfolios.

The MSCI report also shows that 19% of listed companies had a climate target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as of Dec. 31, 2025, up from 14% a year earlier. Meanwhile, 32% of companies have set a companywide net-zero target, and 60% have published some form of climate commitment.

Companies that are not aligned with global climate goals may face higher regulatory costs, stranded assets, or weaker demand in the future. On the other hand, companies aligned with 1.5°C or 2°C pathways may benefit from new markets and lower transition risk.

MSCI’s data helps investors compare companies on this basis. The 38% alignment figure gives a broad snapshot of progress across global markets.

Progress, But Not Fast Enough

The fact that 38% of companies align with 2°C or below shows improvement compared with past years. Corporate climate reporting has expanded. More companies now set net-zero targets, and many publish science-based targets.

Disclosure rates have also improved. As of Dec. 31, 2024, 79% of listed companies disclosed Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions, up from 76% a year earlier. A majority, 56%, reported at least some Scope 3 emissions, up from 51%.

Emissions disclosure by listed companies — Source: MSCI

Still, MSCI’s findings show that ambition and action are not always the same. Some companies set long-term targets but delay near-term reductions. Others rely heavily on carbon offsets instead of direct emissions cuts. In some cases, emissions intensity improves while absolute emissions remain high.

The IPCC has made clear that global emissions must fall sharply this decade. Delayed action increases future costs and transition risks.

A Fossil-Fuel-Heavy World Complicates the Shift

Global energy-related CO₂ emissions reached a record 37.8 billion tonnes in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency. While renewable energy growth has accelerated, fossil fuels still account for around 80% of global primary energy supply.

These global figures explain why corporate alignment remains challenging. Many companies operate in economies that still depend on fossil energy.

MSCI’s report reflects this broader reality. Corporate alignment depends on system-wide change, not just company-level pledges. Moreover, the report’s findings come as corporate climate pledges continue to rise sharply.

According to the SBTi, the number of companies setting both near-term and net-zero science-based targets surged 227% between late 2023 and mid-2025. Companies setting near-term targets alone grew by nearly 97% over the same period.

Companies with SBTi commitments or targets — Source: SBTi

By the end of 2023, only 17% of companies with validated targets had both near-term and net-zero commitments. That share rose to 33% in 2024 and reached 38% by mid-2025.

The figures show that more companies are formalizing climate commitments. However, MSCI’s data indicates that only 12% of listed firms align with 1.5°C, while 38% align with 2°C or below — highlighting a gap between target-setting and full emissions alignment.

The Road Ahead: Bridging the 1.5°C Gap

The headline figure shows that more than one-third of listed firms are moving in a direction consistent with global climate goals. That gap is significant.

To meet the Paris Agreement’s goals, alignment will need to increase quickly across all sectors. This means faster emissions cuts, clearer short-term targets, and stronger capital allocation toward low-carbon technologies. Today’s alignment rate suggests progress is underway, but it also shows that most companies still have to work harder to be on track to a 1.5°C path.

READ MORE: Corporate Climate Pledges Surge 227% as SBTi Net Zero Standards Tighten

The post Climate Reality Check: Only 12% of Global Companies Align With 1.5°C Goal, MSCI Reports appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Footprint

The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares

Published

6 days ago

May 28, 2026

Alice Rush

Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.

Carbon Footprint

Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain

Published

2 weeks ago

May 20, 2026

Alice Rush

“…Protecting nature makes our business more resilient…”

Julie Brown, Chief Financial Officer, GSK, and Co-Chair, A4S CFO Leadership Network (Europe)

Tweet

For companies with land, water, food, fiber, or commodity exposure, the supply chain may be the most practical place to turn nature from a risk into an operating asset.

Your supply chain already has a nature strategy. It may be undocumented. It may live in procurement files, supplier contracts, commodity maps, and one spreadsheet nobody opens without coffee. But it exists.

If your business depends on farms, forests, water, soil, packaging, rubber, timber, fibers, minerals, or food ingredients, nature is part of your operating system. The question is whether you manage that system with intent, or discover it during a disruption, audit, or difficult board question.

That is why more companies are asking how to find Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain. Do not begin by shopping for offsets. Begin by asking where nature already affects cost, continuity, emissions, regulatory exposure, and supplier resilience.

What Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain Means

The European Commission defines nature-based solutions as approaches inspired and supported by nature that are cost-effective, deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits, and help build resilience. They should also benefit biodiversity and support ecosystem services.

In supply-chain terms, that becomes practical. Nature-based solutions in your supply chain can include agroforestry in cocoa, coffee, rubber, or palm supply chains. They can include soil health programs for food ingredients, watershed restoration near water-intensive operations, mangrove restoration linked to coastal sourcing regions, and avoided deforestation in forest-linked commodities.

The key test is business relevance. If your procurement team relies on a landscape, watershed, crop, or supplier base, that is where opportunity may sit. The best projects do not hover outside the business like a framed certificate. They plug into the system that already produces your revenue.

Why the Boardroom Should Care

For many companies, the largest climate and nature exposure sits outside direct operations. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard gives companies a method to account for and report value-chain emissions across sectors. Purchased goods, land use, transport, supplier energy, and product use can make direct emissions look like the visible tip of a very large iceberg.

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures notes that many nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities arise upstream and downstream. That is why nature-based supply chain investments matter to boards. You are managing supply security, audit readiness, investor confidence, and regulatory preparedness.

For companies exposed to EU markets, this also connects to rules and expectations such as CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and SBTi FLAG.

Step One: Map Where You Touch Land, Water, and Living Systems

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain starts with mapping, not marketing.

Begin with procurement and Scope 3 data. Which categories carry high spend, high emissions, or high sourcing risk? Which suppliers depend on agriculture, forestry, mining, water-intensive processing, or land conversion? Which regions face water stress, heat, flood risk, soil degradation, deforestation, or biodiversity pressure?

The Science Based Targets Network uses a clear process for companies: assess, prioritize, set targets, act, and track. That sequence keeps companies from treating nature as a mood board. You identify where the business has exposure, then decide where intervention can create measurable value.

Step Two: Look for Operational Value Before Carbon Value

This is the center of CCC’s Dual-Value Model. A nature-based supply chain investment should do useful work for the business before anyone counts the carbon.

Agroforestry may improve farmer resilience, shade crops, protect soil, and reduce pressure on forests. Watershed restoration may reduce water risk for beverage, textile, or manufacturing sites. Soil health programs may improve the stability of agricultural inputs.

Carbon and sustainability value can still be created. In some cases, the project may support Scope 3 insetting. In others, it may generate verified carbon credits. Sometimes the main value may be resilience, readiness, and better supplier data.

The IPCC has found that ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce climate risks to people, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, with multiple co-benefits, while also warning that effectiveness declines as warming increases. That is a sober argument for acting early.

Step Three: Separate Insetting, Offsetting, and Resilience

Nature-based solutions in your supply chain are not automatically carbon credits. They are not automatically Scope 3 reductions either.

An insetting opportunity usually sits inside or close to your value chain. It may support Scope 3 reporting if the accounting rules, project boundaries, supplier connection, and data quality are strong enough.

An offsetting opportunity usually involves verified credits outside your value chain. High-quality credits can still play a role for residual emissions, but they should not distract from direct reductions or credible value-chain work.

A resilience opportunity may deliver business value even if you cannot claim a Scope 3 reduction immediately. That may include water security, supplier capacity, land restoration, biodiversity protection, or regulatory readiness.

Gold Standard’s Scope 3 value-chain guidance focuses on reporting emissions reductions from interventions in purchased goods and services. Verra’s Scope 3 Standard Program is being developed to certify value-chain interventions and issue units for companies’ emissions accounting. The direction is clear: stronger evidence, tighter boundaries, and more disciplined claims.

Step Four: Design for Audit-Readiness From the Beginning

Weak data is where promising nature projects go to become expensive anecdotes.

Before public claims are made, you need to know the baseline. What would have happened without the project? Who owns or manages the land? Which suppliers are involved? How will outcomes be measured? How will leakage, permanence, and double counting be addressed?

The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard gives companies methods to quantify, report, and track land emissions, CO2 removals, and related metrics. This matters because land projects are rarely neat. Farms change practices. Suppliers shift volumes. Weather changes outcomes.

What Recent Corporate Examples Show

Recent case studies show that supply-chain nature work is becoming more serious, and more scrutinized.

Reuters has reported on insetting to reduce emissions within supply chains, including examples linked to Reckitt, Danone, Nestlé, Earthworm Foundation, and Nature-based Insights. The same article highlights familiar problems: measurement, double counting, supplier incentives, and credibility.

Reuters has also reported on companies using the Science Based Targets Network process to examine nature impacts. GSK, Holcim, and Kering were among the first companies with validated science-based targets for nature.

The Financial Times has covered the promise and difficulty of soil carbon in corporate supply chains, including a PepsiCo example in India where yields reportedly increased while greenhouse gas emissions fell. The lesson is that carbon, soil, biodiversity, farmer economics, and measurement need to be handled together.

A Practical Screening Checklist

A supply-chain nature-based solution deserves deeper review when you can answer yes to most of these questions:

Does it sit in or near a material supply-chain hotspot?
Does it address a real business risk?
Can you connect it to supplier behavior, land management, or sourcing practices?
Can the outcomes be measured?
Are the claim boundaries clear?
Does it support Scope 3 strategy, SBTi FLAG, CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, or investor reporting needs?
Are permanence, leakage, land rights, and community issues addressed?

Build the Asset, Then Make the Claim

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain is about identifying where your business already depends on living systems, then designing interventions that make those systems more resilient, measurable, and commercially useful.

For companies with material Scope 3 exposure, the right project can support supplier resilience, emissions strategy, regulatory readiness, and credible climate communication. The wrong project can become a glossy story with a weak audit trail.

Carbon Credit Capital helps companies design nature-based carbon and sustainability assets that embed directly into corporate supply chains. Through CCC’s Dual-Value Model, you can assess where sustainability investment may support operational resilience, Scope 3 insetting eligibility, regulatory readiness, and high-quality carbon or sustainability value.

Schedule your consultation with the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital to explore how nature-based supply chain investments can support your next stage of climate strategy.

Sources

Carbon Footprint

How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living

Published

2 weeks ago

May 19, 2026

Alice Rush

Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.

For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.

Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.

The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.

More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)

Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.

Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.

Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:

Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs

The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?

How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs

There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.

Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)

According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)

In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)

The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)

After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)

For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.

How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

A light bulb, a pen, a calculator and some copper euro cent coins lie on top of an electricity bill

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.

Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.

Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)

As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)

These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)

Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)

For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.

How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates

On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.

Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.

As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)

While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.

How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes

Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.

The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.

These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.

Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action

While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.

While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.

For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:

Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.

Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.

Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.

The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.