Emmi convert SBTi-validated absolute reduction commitments into emissions trajectories, then recalculate Transition Value at Risk (TVaR) to show how much risk falls if a company delivers.
Target-aligned emissions trajectories, by Scope
Recalculated Transition Value at Risk (TVaR)
Remaining reduction requirements after targets are met
Temperature alignment under the target-achieved pathway
Business-as-usual comparison, side by side
Full source identifiers, versioned for traceability
Model the target as fully achieved, partially achieved, or missed, and see how TVaR moves in each case, calculated against the company's own baseline. The spread across those outcomes is where the risk sits.
Compare target coverage and strength across sectors and regions, on a consistent scenario-adjusted basis. The gaps show where commitments are concentrated, and where they're largely absent.
Rank every holding by how much TVaR would fall if its target were delivered. The holdings with the largest fall are where stewardship conversations matter most.
We use each company's own reported emissions, weighting recent years more heavily, to estimate a direction and a typical year-to-year variability by Scope. That runs through a Monte Carlo simulation to produce a median emissions level and an explicit uncertainty band, rather than a single point forecast.
Companies without at least three years of clean reported data, or whose recent behavior is too volatile to model reliably, aren't force-fit into a forecast. Accuracy is highest for larger companies, whose emissions and reporting tend to be more stable. We'd rather flag a gap than publish a number that implies more confidence than the data supports.
A target is a statement of intent. Whether a company gets there depends on what it has actually been doing, and the two often diverge.
Emissions forecasts are built from observed behavior alone, with no reference to any stated commitment. Run alongside the target trajectory, the gap between them tells you whether the target is supported by the trend.
We modeled 4,053 absolute reduction targets matched to 1,775 companies, covering close to 20% of global public equity emissions.
One finding stood out. A.P. Moller-Maersk's transition risk tells two different stories depending on which pathway you use. On a business-as-usual basis, TVaR stays material across every scenario. Modelled against its own published targets, TVaR falls to effectively zero in every scenario except IPCC Net Zero 2050. The difference between those two results is the risk that corporate delivery, not disclosure, would remove.
The future isn’t static
How Science-Based Targets change forward-looking transition risk, and how much disappears when a company delivers on them.
Request access to our detailed documents
