Published 1 year ago.
About a 4 minute read.
A new report analyzes the executive compensation packages of 47 of the US’s most carbon-emitting companies. Where climate-related compensation ties were
claimed, most were negligible, non-quantitative and lacked specific, climate-related pay incentives.
Shareholder advocacy organization As You Sow (AYS) has released a report
finding that, while more and more companies say they link CEO pay to
climate-change-mitigation and emissions-reduction goals, such incentives
generally lack meaningful metrics or sufficient compensation to incentivize
The percentage of companies integrating ESG goals in compensation is rising
rapidly as investors push for climate progress. While a positive sign, such
generalized linkages and a lack of rigorous metrics are generally insufficient
to drive significant climate
As more companies begin to link GHG emissions reduction to compensation, it is
important that it be done in the most transparent and impactful way. In the past
year, companies including Chipotle,
Mars, Ralph Lauren, Microsoft and
have declared a new link between their executive compensation and various social
and environmental KPIs — but how rigorous are their metrics?
As You Sow’s Pay for Climate Performance
report grades 47 of the largest carbon-emitting companies in the US on their
use of CEO climate-related pay incentives and the quality of such incentives,
and found a notable lack of measurable incentives across these companies. A
whopping 89 percent of the assessed companies received D or F grades for failing
to include a quantitative or any type of climate-related incentive. Where
climate-related compensation ties were claimed, most were negligible,
non-quantitative and lacked specific, climate-related pay incentives.
“Climate metrics included in CEO pay can either incentivize timely progress on
emissions reduction or can be another form of company greenwashing,” said lead
author Melissa Walton, executive compensation and Say on Climate associate
at As You Sow. “This report allows investors to understand the difference
between the two. Of the companies that did link CEO pay to a climate-related
metric, we generally found the metric to be formulated in such a way as to not
adequately incentivize emissions-reduction performance.”
Unlock customer insights on sustainability & your brand’s unique performance! Submit your brand (or any brand) into the 2024 annual study and receive unparalleled insights on customer perception of that brand’s performance. Benchmark how your customers rate your brand on social and environmental sustainability and overall brand trust, while seeing how your brand compares to others in the study. Space is limited! The deadline to become part of the study is January 15, 2024.
As You Sow analyzed the 2021 CEO compensation packages of the 47 US
companies included in Climate Action 100+
(CA100+) — an investor-led initiative with $68 trillion in assets under
management working to ensure that the world’s largest corporate GHG emitters
take action to reduce emissions. The 166 CA100+ companies are responsible for 80
percent of global corporate emissions; thus, incentivization for
emissions-reduction performance in these companies is particularly timely.
The companies were assessed on three indicators:
inclusion of a climate metric in the 2021 CEO pay package, with higher
grades for incentives tied to emissions reductions and alignment with 1.5° C
inclusion of a measurable climate metric and measurable pay; and
inclusion of a climate metric in the long-term incentive plan.
AYS found the 47 US companies assessed either have no linkage between CEO pay
and climate metrics or do not adequately tie CEO pay to climate performance
metrics at the level of incentivization required to achieve alignment with
global 1.5° C emissions-reduction goals. While having a specific emissions
reduction incentive is an important step for companies, not all
emissions-reduction metrics are equal. Investors should pay particular attention
to the interaction of compensation design and the rigor of the climate metric.
None of the assessed companies received an A grade — which requires linking CEO
compensation to a 1.5° C-aligned, emissions-reduction target — across all
relevant emissions sources in the long-term incentive package. Xcel Energy
earned the highest score, a B, for linking CEO pay to quantitative
“It is not enough to develop science-based, emissions-reduction efforts and
‘net zero by 2050’
said David Shugar, Say on Climate initiative manager at As You Sow.
“Companies should also properly incentivize leadership to accomplish these
goals, through clear metrics based on actual emissions reductions aligned with
Investors need to pay particular attention to the amount of pay associated with
climate metrics and if these metrics are included in long-term incentive plans,
which often represent the majority of the pay package. To meaningfully
incentivize emission reductions, climate metrics should constitute a motivating,
well-defined portion of CEO pay. The report found the amount of pay tied to
climate metrics was often negligible, relative to the overall pay package.
“Many executive compensation plans are complicated and confusing,” said
Weaver, wage justice
and executive pay program senior manager at As You Sow. “It takes a thorough
understanding of both executive compensation and climate change to evaluate
these pay metrics. This report is intended to help investors understand best
practices in incentivizing the attainment of strong climate goals.”
Published Oct 3, 2022 2pm EDT / 11am PDT / 7pm BST / 8pm CEST