Nonprofit research group Environmental Investment Organization set up the poll to rank firms based on their carbon intensity and transparency in reporting emissions output.
Carbon intensity is computed by accounting for all direct emissions, known as Scope 1, and indirect Scope 2 emissions divided by the company’s relative size as determined by its shares.
Amlin topped the rankings with the lowest emissions intensity of 1.21 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for every million dollars of turnover representing number of shares traded. It was followed by financial services company Aviva with 1.36 metric tons.
There was a distinguishable gap between the scores of two top performers and the rest of the top five. Investment manager Man Group, ranked third, had a carbon intensity of 6.29 metric tons, followed by British broadcasting firm BSkyB with 6.69 metric tons and energy consultancy company AMEC with 8.31 metric tons.
Gold miner Randgold Resources was at the bottom, with a carbon intensity score of 3,477.34, more than double the carbon intensity of the top 30 firms combined.
Among sectors, materials had the highest average emissions intensity at 967 tons per million dollars of turnover, which is also more than double the carbon intensity of the energy sector which had 399.43 tons.
Royal Dutch Shell P.L.C., having a carbon intensity figure of 273.20, was the only British oil major that made it into the top category at 29th place.
Inconsistent reports
The poll tried to use the most recently available emissions data for each company. But Environmental Investment Organization admits that carbon reporting was “extremely inconsistent” since some firms did not follow the guidelines provided by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, an internationally recognized standard for emissions reporting.
The nonprofit association noted that following the reporting guidelines can greatly affect a firm’s rankings, as it actually did.
For instance, achieving intensities of 0.27 and 0.82 respectively, Legal & General and insurance firm Prudential would have been in first and second place had their emissions data been verified by an independent third party.
All top five companies in the rankings are among the 35 percent of companies that had publicly disclosed, completed, and independently verified their emissions data. In comparison, the bottom five are among the 13 percent that did not disclose their emissions at all.
«The rankings show that it is less about what industry a company is in and more about individual attitudes towards transparency,» said Sam Gill, Environmental Investment Organization director. «How can Shell and BP be at opposite ends of the table, or Lloyds and Standard Chartered?»
«Given that each company listed in the [poll] is one of the biggest in Britain, if not the world, keeping this information out of the public domain is no longer excusable,» said Mr. Gill.
The nonprofit organization plans to expand beyond the FTSE 100 and create a global environmental tracking system, including ET Global 800, Europe 300, North America 300, Asia-Pacific 300 and BRICS 100.
The rankings will in turn be used to establish the ET Index Series later this year, indices designed to put pressure on companies to lower emissions by influencing share prices.
