Carbon Footprint Mentions in Chemical Company Annual Reports

2020 annual reports of thirty-seven global chemical companies were examined to determine:

•       The number of times the word “footprint” is mentioned in the annual report, and
•       The mention was in relation to the company discussing carbon emissions.

The number of mentions for each company is shown in the following table:

 

company	number of carbon-related footprint mentions in 2020 annual report	CO2 equivalent emissions in million metric tons responsible for; reported in 2020 annual report
air products	0	not reported
akzo nobel	23	12.8
albemarle	0	not reported
arkema	5	not reported
asahi kasei	1	not reported
basf	30	92
celanese	0	not reported
chemours	6	not reported
clariant	23	not reported
covestro	10	5.45
dow	1	not reported
dsm	48	13.2
dupont	0	not reported
eastman	4	not reported
evonik	6	23.2
fmc	3	not reported
huntsman	0	not reported
kemira	2	0.9
lanxess	7	17
linde	2	not reported
lyondellbasell	1	not reported
mitsubishi	0	not reported
mitsui	5	not reported
mosaic	0	not reported
nitto denko	0	not reported
olin	4	not reported
ppg	4	not reported
sekisui	0	not reported
shin-etsu	1	not reported
solvay	9	not reported
sumitomo	0	not reported
toray	0	not reported
trinseo	1	not reported
umicore	20	0.7
wacker	5	not reported
westlake	0	not reported
yara	7	17.7

 

Also, each annual report was examined for the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions that the company reported it was associated with in 2020. Amounts that companies gave are shown in the above table.

The number of carbon-related footprints in annual reports might be an indication of a company’s resources applied to reducing CO2 emissions. Those companies that have higher carbon-related footprint mentions seem to me to be more expansive in reporting (in their annual reports) the accomplishments they are making in improving their “environmental” profiles.

The CO2 equivalent emissions in million metric tons reported by nine of the companies (see table above for these companies) seems to be a monumental measurement criterion, which, if used (required, e.g., like an accounting standard), would be extremely valuable in characterizing a company, and perhaps incentivizing companies to reduce their emissions over time.

Based on the data in the above table, European chemical companies (compared to American and Japanese) provide the most extensive information on their carbon dioxide emissions. This is consistent with my perception that the European Union (of the three areas:  Europe, America, and Japan) have the most requirements for company reporting on environmental impacts. The European chemical companies responses to the European Union requirements might will result in these companies having more advantageous profiles with customers.