Call  us cynical but those are characteristics of bigger companies (in the OECD) who can afford the best public relations.

Once you get past the PR and dig into the details one similarity and several real differences begin to emerge. The similarity is that almost nothing is actually measured – there is much extrapolation (and assumptions) from how equipment behaved in idealised laboratory tests.

There are many differences.  For example, the components included in their respective Energy Transition ambitions vary greatly (which energy sources, what %, by when), the reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (different units; only Scopes 1 &2, or 1, 2 & 3), what they are going to do to reduce to Zero Emissions (there’s a difference between Zero and Net Zero, between absolute emissions and emissions intensity), how, and by when – 2035, 2040, 2050, 2060?  

Scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse (GHG) emissions that occur from sources that are controlled or owned by an organisation (e.g., emissions associated with fuel combustion in boilers, furnaces, vehicles). Scope 2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling. Although scope 2 emissions physically occur at the facility where they are generated, they are accounted for in an organisation’s GHG inventory because they are a result of the organisation’s energy use. See figure 1 below.

Scope 3 emissions are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organisation, but that the organisation indirectly impacts in its value chain. They are also referred to as value chain emissions, often representing the majority of an organisation’s total GHG emissions. Scope 3 emissions can represent the largest source of emissions for companies and present the most significant opportunities to influence GHG reductions and achieve a variety of GHG-related business objectives, these sources include emissions both upstream and downstream of the organisation’s activities.