International Paper Co.

A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 1.1.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Metric 1.1.a.

The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 1.1.b.

A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 2.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 2.1.

A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 2.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 2.1.

The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 2.2.b.

A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 3.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 3.1.

A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 3.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 3.1.

The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 3.2.b.

A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 4.2.a if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 4.1.

A company cannot score a ‘Yes’ on Metric 4.2.b if it has not scored a ‘Yes’ on Sub-indicator 4.1.

The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 4.2.b.

Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Sub-indicators 2.1 and 3.1. For companies that have targets meeting Sub-indicators 2.3 and 3.1, any disclosures about specific actions to achieve these targets are assessed.

To score on this Metric, a company’s disclosures should relate to its GHG reduction targets, clearly address the main sources of its GHG emissions, and lay out a concrete set of measures to deliver its decarbonisation targets.

The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 5.1.a.

Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.a. Where 5.1.a is met, this Metric assesses whether key actions disclosed in the company’s decarbonisation strategy have been quantified in terms of the approximate proportion of the overall GHG reduction target that they will account for.

The applicability of Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that are produced in a company’s value chain) as assessed in the Disclosure Framework varies by sector. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 5.1.b.

Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.b.

If a company explicitly states that it does not plan on using carbon offsetting and negative emissions technologies to meet its GHG reduction targets, it will not be assessed against this Metric, and will instead receive a ‘Not Applicable’ label.

Companies disclosing that offsets will only be considered for residual emissions are also expected to meet the criteria for scoring on this Metric.

Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 5.1.b.

Where 5.1.b is met, this Metric assesses which of the individual decarbonisation levers that the company has identified in Metric 5.1.b are technologically feasible under current economic conditions.

This Metric evaluates a company’s disclosures on its current deployment of climate solutions. Companies are required to define climate solutions associated with their revenues or products clearly and in detail.

Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will receive a ‘Not Applicable’ label.

This Metric evaluates a company’s disclosures on its commitment to scaling up its deployment of climate solutions in prospective and quantitative terms.

Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will receive a ‘Not Applicable’ label.

Unabated carbon-intensive assets here refer to assets or products with a high carbon footprint relative to their output that do not use any carbon removal technologies.

To score on this Metric, the company’s commitment needs to apply to all of its capital expenditures.

Unabated carbon-intensive assets here refer to assets or products with a high carbon footprint relative to their output that do not use any carbon removal technologies.

A company that has clearly stated in its public disclosures that it has not allocated any capital expenditure towards unabated carbon-intensive assets or products will score ‘Yes’ on this Metric.

This Metric assesses a company’s transparency and commitment to climate solutions by evaluating their public disclosures of capital expenditures. This includes a clear definition of what is considered to be climate solutions, using a formal taxonomy or classification system in the disclosures.

Companies publicly stating that they do not intend to invest in climate solutions will not be evaluated on this Metric and will instead receive a ‘Not Applicable’ label.

The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) should be concrete and measurable, and should specifically focus on the company’s climate change-related performance. KPIs that measure broader ‘Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)’ or ‘sustainability’ targets or objectives, energy efficiency targets, CDP scores or the like do not meet the requirements for this Metric.

Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 8.2.a and on one of Sub-indicators 2.1, 3.1 or 4.1.

In addition, the CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements should be determined by the company’s performance against its disclosed company-wide emissions targets.

A company will not meet the requirements of this Metric if only ‘sustainability’ or ‘environment’ or ‘ESG’ is covered in relation to Board competency assessments. Further, the existence of a climate expert on the Board cannot be used as a proxy for having conducted a Board climate competency assessment.

Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 8.3.a. In addition, the company needs to disclose detail on what specific criteria have been used to assess the Board’s climate-related competencies.

Measures aimed at enhancing ‘sustainability’, ‘environment’, or ‘ESG’ competencies do not fulfill the requirements of this Metric.

To score positively on this Metric, the company should:

• Explicitly state its commitment to Just Transition principles, either defined by itself or by an external score.
• Define what it means when referring to ‘Just Transition’.

Simply acknowledging or supporting a Just Transition or external frameworks is not sufficient to score ‘Yes’ on this Metric.

To score positively on this Metric, companies should explicitly commit to specific forms of support, such as job retention, training, reskilling and access to job search programmes, or external frameworks with similar commitments.

The commitment should be company-wide, explicitly linked to decarbonisation and apply to current employees of the company.

Simply acknowledging the impact of decarbonisation on workers is not enough to score positively.

This Metric evaluates whether companies have a company-wide commitment to engage with and seek consent from the communities that are affected by their decarbonisation actions.

It also requires companies to provide details on how they have implemented this commitment, such as who they have consulted with, what issues they have addressed, and what outcomes they have achieved.

Companies that only inform or acknowledge communities, or that do not specify affected communities among their stakeholders, will not score ‘Yes’ on this Metric.

To contribute to a positive score on this Metric, the plan should be company-wide and related to the company’s decarbonisation efforts.

These plans can only be on an asset level (e.g., power plant or a mine) insofar as the company explicitly states that it will carry out this plan for all other relevant assets.

This Metric is only assessed if the company scored ‘Yes’ on Metric 9.2.a, indicating that it has disclosed a concrete plan to implement its Just Transition commitments.

Score is contingent on the company meeting the criteria of Metric 10.2.a. In addition, the company is required to:

• Explicitly include a 1.5°C scenario in its analysis; and
• Disclose a quantitative scenario explicitly covering the entire company (rather than a specific product, business line or geography); and
• Disclose key assumptions and variables used in its scenario analysis; and
• Report on key risks and opportunities that have been identified in the scenario analysis.

Given the expansion of credible 1.5°C scenarios in recent years, from 2023 onwards, companies are no longer able to score on Metric 10.2.b using the IEA’s Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS), which was possible in previous Benchmark iterations.

This Metric uses TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies to measure companies’ carbon intensity over the past 3 years.

If the company is assessed by TPI to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago, the company will score a ‘No’ on this Metric.

Companies that are part of a sector where the Transition Pathway Initiative’s
methodology is yet to be published will be scored as ‘Not Assessed’.

The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.1.a.

This Metric is met if the company’s emission intensity has decreased over the last three years of company reporting, on an averaged basis.

If the company is assessed by TPI to have insufficient emissions data or if the last usable data was published more than two years ago, the company will score a ‘No’ on this Metric.

Companies that are part of a sector where the Transition Pathway Initiative’s
methodology is yet to be published will be scored as ‘Not Assessed’.

The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.1.b.

Note that at this stage TPI are only considering Scope 1 and 2 emissions for Metric 11.2.

Carbon intensities are measured against a relevant sector trajectory needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot in 2050.

Companies that are part of a sector where the Transition Pathway Initiative’s methodology is yet to be published will be scored as ‘Not Assessed’.

The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.1.c.

Companies that only report on a partial scope of their emissions are not eligible to score on this Metric.

Companies that only report on a subset of their emissions will not be able to score on this Metric. The relevance of a company’s Scope 3 emissions affects its assessment against Metric 11.3.b.

To score on this Metric, companies should disclose the quantity, type, verification system of offsets and vintage (year of carbon credit origination) used in the last financial year.

Carbon offsets disclosed due to legal compliance are insufficient to score on this Metric.

Companies that explicitly state that they do not use offsets and have not done so in the last financial year may also score on this Metric.