How do you select which publicly listed equities to include in your analysis?
Corporate company selection for all TPI products is undertaken in a sector-agnostic manner based on company market cap and an assessment of scope 1 & 2 emissions (disclosed or estimated). For MQ, this is done in association with TPI's data partner LSEG. Unfortunately, we’re unable to increase company coverage to fulfil requests from specific companies or investors.

When looking at a given company via the CP & MQ Tool, I can see on the pathway whether an intensity datapoint is reported or targeted/estimated. Is there a way to see whether a datapoint on the pathway in the Company Assessment CSV file is based on reported or targeted data as well?
Within the Company Assessment Excel (CSV) file, there is a column indicating the History to Projection cutoff year for each company. 

How do you classify which companies are considered as high impact?
The MQ assessments undertaken by TPI originally focussed exclusively on economic sectors with high direct or value chain emissions: Oil & Gas producers, Cement producers, Automobile manufacturers, etc. Since 2023, given the high coverage of companies from these sectors and the opportunities to increase coverage substantially, companies have been added to the MQ universe in a sector agnostic manner, weighting companies by both market capitalisation and Scope 1 & 2 emissions. The result of this has been an increase in coverage of high market cap companies from sectors which don’t necessarily have high emissions, such as Financial Services or Consumer Goods and Services. In short, the tool is being used to cover a greater percentage of global listed companies, and as such it is at the users discretion to decide which they consider to be high impact.

When is the MQ data on your platform expected to be updated?
While we are looking into the process of providing more regular MQ score updates, along with LSEG, TPI's data provider, in 2025, MQ score uploads will be aligned with the process in previous years, with a single upload of data in Q4 of 2025.

Is TCDF aligned disclosure/or similar part of your assessment?
Whether a company’s disclosure is TCFD-aligned is not assessed as part of the MQ framework. However, certain indicators look for disclosure recommended within the four pillars of the TCFD, e.g. MQ6, MQ15 broadly look at the thematic area of Governance and MQ11, MQ17 broadly look at Risk Management. but companies can score against these indicators without reporting in a way which is completely aligned with TCFD/ISSB. You can find the full list of indicators here.

Some of the issuers of the Banks dataset are also included in the 'Company Latest Assessments' file. Do you therefore leverage information collected in the Banks dataset to obtain the MQ level of these issuers?
The MQ assessments are done in a sector-agnostic way based on market cap and are independent of the banking framework. As such, no, we do not leverage information from the Banking dataset for MQ.

If we want to request a change of industry for our company in Management Quality, how do we do this?
The sector a company is placed in is derived from LSEG's ICB classification of the company. If the company can tell us which sector better fits the nature of the business we can look, with LSEG, at reclassifying the company to a sector which is more appropriate. 

Can we share a preliminary target with you to explore whether this would fit within your "well-below 2°C" pathway?
While we’re very happy to stay connected and discuss general points on our methodology, we unfortunately aren’t able to review company-specific targets outside of our formal CP assessment cycle, in order to ensure fairness and transparency across all companies. That said, you might find it helpful to refer to our published resources, including the methodology notes, which outline how we assess alignment with our 1.5°C and “well-below 2°C” pathways.

In your methodology, it is stated that companies’ emission intensity paths are “compared with each other and with the relevant sectoral benchmark pathway”. How are companies' performance compared to the industry benchmark?
The TPI Centre employs the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA) to assess companies' CP. This approach involves the following steps:

We typically compare company pathways against three key scenarios: 1.5°C, Below 2°C, and National Pledges. For more details on how this comparison is applied, you can refer to our methodology report.

Do the sector-specific carbon performance pathways include scopes 1 and 2 emissions or scopes 1,2 and 3?
TPI Centre's CP assessment aims to measure the most material emissions in a given sector. In many sectors, Scope 1 and 2 emissions represent 80-90% of company emissions; however, in others, Scope 3 emissions represent the majority of emissions. Where a sector's material emissions lie in Scope 3 categories, TPI includes these within its CP assessments. For example, we currently assess Scope 3 emissions in the following sectors:

For the Oil & Gas and Diversified Mining sectors, TPI Centre calculates the company's Scope 3 emissions (in the relevant categories) in-house. This is due to a lack of reporting and standardisation within the respective sectors. For Food Producers, the centre relies entirely on company disclosures and for Autos it is a mixture of regulator and company reported data.

When is the CP data on your platform expected to be updated?
Please refer to the document for further information on the complete delivery for the 2025 assessment cycle.

How do I see more detailed information on which specific companies are 1.5°C aligned in your assessment, and which are least aligned?
In the the TPI online Tool you can download the data related to the CP assessments. The file named ‘CP_Assessments_date’ contains the relevant data points for companies and the TPI universe more broadly. You can add "Filters" (Data > Filters) to the first row to output the desired list of companies by sector and/or alignment scores.   

Are the CP assessments for oil & gas companies based on your new net zero standard?
The assessments for oil & gas companies will continue to be based on the same methodology. The introduction of the new net zero standard does not affect how CP assessments are carried out.

In your oil & has methodology note, are you essentially assessing each company’s scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions against global benchmarks for 2025, 2035, and 2050 derived from the IEA NZE 2021 for the oil and gas sector?
Yes, our intensity metric corresponds to Scope 1, 2, and 3 (use of sold product) greenhouse gas emissions from energy products sold externally. We use those timeframes as proxies for the short-, medium, and long-term alignment.
 
Do you have a view on scope 3 emissions from oil & gas, for example, whether oil & gas companies  should reduce production?
We acknowledge that companies have a suite of options in reducing their scope 3 emissions. Reducing production is one low-risk method to reduce companies’ scope 3 emissions and, as stated by the IEA, will be necessary to keep the world in line with a Paris-aligned emissions pathway. Other approaches often rely heavily on technologies that are not currently available at the cost required for large-scale abatement and are not falling sufficiently quickly for them to be relied upon as viable long-term solutions. Different companies will face different challenges during the transition and this may change the transition strategies they employ. TPI believes that companies and investors need to be realistic about the risks embodied in different transition strategies.

Do you have a defined a decarbonisation pathway for the consumer goods and other industrials sectors? If not, is this something you’re working on/have plans to do?
The team is currently working on a methodology which is sector agnostic and can be applied to companies outside the 11 sectors currently covered on CP. The research is still preliminary and subject to resources and other project priorities. However, it is certainly something on our radar.

Where can I find the unit of measurement used to compute the emission intensities in Electricity Utilities, Steel and Cement?
The unit for the emissions intensity metric is detailed in the specific methodology note. We do not adjust for non-CO2 GHG gases in their respective low-carbon benchmarks, given their negligible contribution to GHG emissions in the corresponding production processes. In these sectors, we generally permit a comparison of a company’s emissions intensity with the benchmarks, considering all GHGs, as they should be nearly equivalent. For Electricity Utilities, emissions intensity is measured in terms of GHG emissions per unit of electricity produced, in units of (metric) tonnes of CO2 equivalent per megawatt hour. For Steel, emissions intensity is measured in terms of CO2 emissions from steelmaking per unit of crude steel. For Cement, emissions intensity is measured in terms of specific net tCO2 per unit of cementitious product.

Why are some companies not updated yet?
There are companies that are part of the CA100+ initiative, which have a separate assessment cycle. Please refer to the CP Explainer for timelines. 
 
Do you factor in the impact of a company's pension scheme assets in your CP assessments?
Our assessments are based on sector specific activities of companies rather than on their financial assets, so at this stage we do not include companies pension scheme assets.

How are emissions scopes determined in CP?
Emissions scopes are determined based on the most material emissions in each sector and intensity denominators are similarly sector specific.

What does it mean when a company has multiple CP assessments?
Some companies operate in more than one sector assessed by TPI: we conduct a sector-specific assessment for each of the sectors in which a company operates. For example, a company may produce both crude steel and aluminium. In this company’s steel assessment, TPI would evaluate only the emissions and production data from steelmaking and compare the company's steel-specific pathway to TPI's steel-specific benchmarks. Other activities undertaken by this company, for example aluminium production, would be assessed separately considering only the emissions and production data from those separate activities. Targets adopted by the company that are specific to a particular activity are incorporated into TPI's appropriate sector-specific assessment. We take a case by case approach to the interpretation of company-wide targets to evaluate whether targets can reasonably be assumed to apply in proportion to the emissions of the activity under consideration. Investors may want to consider all sector-specific assessments of a given company to understand its overall CP. Multi-sector companies can be easily identified in the dropdown list or in TPI's downloadable file.

Do you have data on equity / bonds emission by country?
We don’t have emissions data tied to specific financial instruments – the TPI Centre’s assessments are all focused at the entity-level (i.e. we assess a given company, bank or country as an entity). You can see our Carbon Performance and Management Quality assessments of the world’s largest emitters here, which can be downloaded and filtered by country/geography.  

What is TPI’s data source / material?

The data for the management quality assessment is provided by LSEG, one of the world’s leading data providers for investors. Data for the carbon performance assessment is gathered from publicly available information.

How did TPI come about?

TPI was initiated by a group of asset owners, including National Investing Bodies (NIBs) of the Church of England which, in its May 2015 Climate Change Policy had committed to developing a tool to assess the progress of companies’ transition to the global low carbon economy. These organisations are recognised as responsible investors and regard the issue of climate change as one of the most pressing of our times, seeking to support investors’ understanding of climate change risk and opportunity. The Environment Agency Pension Fund (EAPF) and Church of England Pensions Board co-founded the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) in 2016 to provide information on transition risk for free to investors. In 2021, the TPI turned from a voluntary initiative by asset owners into a not-for-profit limited company, which oversees the research by the LSE. EAPF is the vice-chair and Treasurer of the new limited company.

TPI identifies gaps in data that companies should be disclosing to enable their shareholders to make informed, robust decisions about transition risk. Better disclosure is key to enabling investors to make decisions about companies’ quality of management, and is necessary for the performance assessment. Companies owe it to their investors to give them the full picture, and this tool enables that to happen.

No. TPI is a way of assessing companies’ performance against internationally agreed benchmarks. Any action asset owners wish to take is a decision for them, and not in any way mandated by TPI.

Many data providers hold information on companies’ progress on carbon reduction, however, TPI’s framework, as devised by the LSE, means the data can be used to inform engagement and bring to life in a clear and public way future individual company performance. This fills a knowledge gap for asset owners, providing a robust framework within which companies can be assessed, compared to their peers and, if appropriate, engaged with.

Can we use the TPI logo on our webpage and in publications?
Official supporters that are listed on the TPI website are allowed to use the TPI logo in their publications and on their websites. Companies assessed by TPI are prohibited from using the logo, but are free to discuss and present their assessments. We would encourage reference to both Management Quality and Carbon Performance assessments were applicable as these analyses provide complementary information on corporate progress on climate.