Air NZ, Mitre 10 get lowest climate scores in Otago University rankings

Researchers at the University of Otago have rated 21 big companies on their climate targets, with Air New Zealand and Mitre 10 among the worst and Fonterra among the best.

The ratings were based on whether the companies' plans were transparent and in keeping with putting the brakes on global heating before the planet hits 2C hotter.

Companies were rated on whether they had set goals to cut carbon, how clear and detailed their steps were to reach those goals, and whether the goals were compatible with the international push to keep heating at manageable levels.

Climate Action Tracker Aotearoa assessed the major banks, electricity companies, some retailers and major oil companies.

Companies scored better if they included emissions from their supply chains in their targets. For example, a supermarket would score better if it tried to shrink the greenhouse gases from farmers growing the food it sells, rather than just from lighting and cooling its own stores.

Air New Zealand (which recently abandoned its climate target for 2030), Mitre 10 and meat producer Alliance each scored 1.5 out of 10, making them the poorest-rated of the 21 companies.

Air NZ said it disagrees with the findings, and has more information on its website than the rating suggests

In the middle, hovering at 5 or 6, were Z Energy, The Warehouse, Silver Fern Farms, oil and gas producer Todd Corporation, fertiliser maker Ravensdown, Kiwibank, ExxonMobil and Westpac, Genesis Energy, ASB and BNZ.

Meridian Energy and Fonterra were the best rated on 8, followed by Woolworths, Contact Energy, OMV, ANZ bank and BP.

Project leader Professor Sara Walton said the scoring method allowed big oil companies to do fairly well, because it did not count the sheer size of planet-heating emissions a company had created.

Some fossil fuel companies had hundreds of pages of climate plans, she said.

"If you can set your targets clearly and you have got some plans and you're reporting, you're actually going okay in that scoring.

"Some of the oil companies are international, and they have international reporting as well, particularly our BPs and Exxon Mobils.

"That's where we want to be reporting on more than we're doing."

The researchers had started collecting historical emissions data whenever there was public information available, and hoped to publish that this year.

"We will be adding that in, and looking at what companies are actually emitting and whether that increases or decreases over the years. That will start to show us the impact we are missing at the moment."

Supermarket giant Foodstuffs and other big retailers could not be rated for lack of time, Walton said.

The work received no outside funding and other companies' ratings were in danger of becoming out of date, so the authors decided to publish what they had and add more soon, she said.

"We wanted to try and get our big emitters and then get a few others in that sector. Foodstuffs is an obvious one that's missing ... and that's probably the next one to do.

"This is just one moment in time."

Banking was a particular focus of the report, since the banks were grappling with the climate impact of their loan books and new climate reporting laws.

"Each time we want to try and add a different sector, so we're thinking of adding the building sector as a big emitter across the motu."

Walton said she wanted to use public information to help people demystify the confusing world of corporate climate reporting.

"It's hard to know if they are working in a way that is needed to keep global temperatures at a manageable level, and to also figure out if they are greenwashing or actually making an impact that will meet their targets."

The university said the Climate Action Tracker was a collaboration between Otago, the Eastern Institute of Technology, and John Lang, of the UK's Net Zero Tracker.