(Adds comment)
By Guy Faulconbridge
LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - Nearly half of the 100 biggest
companies listed on Britain's FTSE Index have no net-zero target
at all and just 23 have a scientifically approved plan,
according to ESG investment research and asset manager
Arabesque.
Britain wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the
economy to net-zero by 2050 while Prime Minister Boris Johnson
has expressed enthusiasm for leading a green revolution to force
Western economies to kick their addiction to fossil fuels.
Arabesque research found that 45 companies on the FTSE-100
Index had no net zero target. Just 23 companies had set net zero
targets meeting the standards of the Science Based Targets
Initiative (SBTi), which defines best practice in such targets.
The research found that 28 FTSE companies are on course to
contribute to a global temperature rise of 2.7 degrees Celsius
or above by 2050. Scientists believe such a rise would lead to a
worst-case climate scenario.
The results of the research are a potential embarrassment
for the British government just days before it hosts a major
climate summit, known as COP26, in Glasgow, Scotland.
"These findings show a wide gulf between where the FTSE 100
stands today, and where it needs to be to deliver on the UK’s
net zero target," Daniel Klier, president of Arabesque, said.
"Most of the UK’s biggest firms are not on a path to reach
net zero by 2050 and we will need to see a significant change in
business models and capital allocation."
Among the best performing 20 British FTSE-100 companies on
climate were AstraZeneca, British American Tobacco
, Burberry, Rolls-Royce and Unilever
, Arabesque said. The worst performing companies,
according to Arabesque, were miners and energy companies.
Klier said Britain’s top firms were performing worse on
climate than comparative companies in the United States, Japan,
Germany and France.
"The performance of our biggest businesses will be one of
our greatest challenges to achieving net zero, but also, where
one of our biggest opportunities to reduce emissions will lie,"
Klier said.
"The time for commitments is now passing, however, and 2022
must be a year of action."
(Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Kate Holton)