State of Green Business: Corporate carbon emissions fell in 2016

26 January 2018

Editor

Latest News

Australia narrows climate reporting scope mid‑rollout

Minerva Proxy Update

Follow This challenges Shell days before key vote

SRD III is Europe’s chance to fix proxy plumbing

SEC Steps Closer to Unwinding Climate Disclosure Rules

Minerva Proxy Update

Featured Briefings

Australia Proxy Season Review 2025

2026 Proxy Season Preview

Diversity Divergence: Shareholders Steadfast Amid Pervasive Political Posturing

The 2018 State of Green Business Report - produced by GreenBiz and Trucost - stated that the corporate carbon emissions of the largest 1,200 global companies and the largest 500 US companies fell in 2016 reaching the lowest level in the past five years, as a result of a switch to cleaner fuels.

There have also been modest improvements globally in water use and waste management. The numbers of companies setting carbon and water reduction targets have increased by around 10 percent over the past five years. However, the State of Green Business report stated that the carbon reduction targets set by the companies in 2016 accounted for only around a fifth of their share of the reductions needed by 2050.

Companies use natural resources and generate pollution as a result of their business activities. Every year, Trucost estimates the costs associated with these impacts by the top companies in the United States and the world. Richard Mattison, chief executive wrote in the report that worryingly the research found that while the natural capital costs of companies had previously been falling, the latest year’s results (2016) showed a sharp increase.

The total cost in 2016 was approximately 24 percent higher than 2015. As a result, the natural capital cost generated by the largest global companies was nearly two times higher than their net income.

The cause seemed to be increased production of agricultural commodities and, hence, increased farming-related environmental impacts, in particular, water pollution from fertilizer and pesticide use. These impacts occur in the supply chains of large global companies, increasing their overall natural capital costs. This is more evidence of the failure of markets to price in the natural capital costs of production, Mattison said.

He noted however that by far the majority of environmental impacts are embedded in the supply chains of companies rather than their direct operations. This posed serious risks for companies as climate-related impacts such as droughts disrupt supplies of water-intensive commodities. So he said it was positive that more companies were disclosing supply chain carbon emissions and water use.

Meanwhile, Libby Bernick, global head of corporate business at Trucost, predicted that 2018 would be the year that the term non-financial reporting would stop being used to describe ESG issues as more and more investors
understood its financial implications and demanded that it be integrated into company decision-making.

Related Stories

Texas Climate Investing Blacklist Stays on Ice

April 17, 2026
Read More

Regulating the Raters: The FCA’s ESG Regulatory Proposals, Minerva’s Response, and What the Market Should Watch

April 16, 2026
Read More

FCA Sustainability Disclosure Proposals: A Turning Point for UK Market Transparency

April 10, 2026
Read More

Why Switzerland’s Proposed Sustainability Bill Matters for Investors

April 9, 2026
Read More

Quarterly Reporting: The Next Target in the SEC’s Stewardship Retreat

April 7, 2026
Read More

ISSB Prepares for Final SASB Updates with New Proposals

April 2, 2026

Alex Whitebrook

Read More