Board scorecard: the
performance of the boards
facing the climate impacts
and the net zero strategy
São Paulo | 2022
pesquisa
Board of directors
Chairperson
Gabriela Baumgart
Deputy Board Chairs
Leonardo Pereira
Leonardo Wengrover
Board members
Alberto Messano
Cristina Lucia Duarte Pinho
Deborah Patricia Wright
Eduardo Shakir Carone
João Laudo de Camargo
Sergio Ephim Mindlin
Executive Board
Pedro Melo
Adriane de Almeida
Márcia Aguiar
Reginaldo Ricioli
Valeria Café
Founded on November 27, 1995, the Brazilian Institute of Corporate Governance
(IBGC), a civil organization, is the Brazilian reference and one among the main
reference organizations for corporate governance worldwide. Its purpose is to generate
and disseminate knowledge on the best corporate governance practices and influence
the most diverse agents in its adoption, contributing to the sustainable development of
organizations and, consequently, to a better society.
Credits
This Survey was developed by Camila Cristina da Silva and Luiz Fernando da Costa Dalla Martha.
Production
Writing: Camila Cristina da Silva; Spelling and grammar review: Juliana Caldas; Proofreading:
Camila Cristina da Silva; Translator: Marcos dos Santos; Supervision of virtual identity: Diogo
Siqueira; Graphic design, layout and cover: Kato Editorial; Cover image: Shutterstock.
I59b Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa – IBGC
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the
net zero strategy / Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa – IBGC ; translated by
Marcos dos Santos. - São Paulo, SP : Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa - IBGC,
2022.
46 p. ; 18cm x 25,5cm. – (IBGC Pesquisa)
Includes bibliography and index.
ISBN: 978-65-86366-81-5
1. Corporate Governance. 2. Board Scorecard. 3. Climate impacts. I. Santos, Marcos
dos. II. Title. III. Series.
CDD 658.4
2022-3362 CDU 658.114
Prepared by Odilio Hilario Moreira Junior – CRB-8/9949
Index for systematic catalog:
1. Governança Corporativa 658.4
2. Governança Corporativa 658.114
International Cataloging Data in Publication (CIP) according ISBD
Summary
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Main results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Profile of the respondents . . . . . 10
3. Analysis of the answers
considering the position occupied
by the respondents . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Block I - Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. Block II - Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Block III - Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4. Block IV - Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Analysis of responses
considering the organizations'
billing range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1. Block I – Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2. Block II – Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3. Block III – Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4. Block IV – Mesuarement. . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5. Analysis of responses
considering the corporate type
of organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.1. Block I – Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2. Block II – Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.3. Block III – Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.4 Block IV – Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
The Board Scorecard Survey: the performance of boards facing the climate impacts
and the net zero strategy emerged from the need to understand how boards, both
of directors and advisory, have dealt with the issue of climate changes and the
commitment to transition to the net zero strategy.
The Survey questionnaire is based on the Board Scorecard1
, a tool of Chapter Zero
in the UK, composed of twenty questions that aim to indicate how well boards of
directors are responding to the challenges of climate change.
After making some adaptations to the questions and expanding the focus to the
performance of the advisory boards, in addition to the boards of directors, the
Survey was structured in four thematic areas: leadership, ownership, strategy and
measurement. Board members, advisory board members, fiscal board members and
executive management (c-level) were invited to reflect on the organization in which
they work and, thus, assess how well prepared their organizations' boards are regarding
the issue of climate change and transition to net zero strategy.
It should be noted that the present study was developed by the IBGC in partnership
with Chapter Zero Brazil. Chapter Zero Brazil – the IBGC Climate Forum is the Brazilian
chapter of the Climate Governance Initiative (CGI), Chapter Zero Brasil was launched
by IBGC in 2021 with the aim of mobilizing boards of directors around the world to
address climate change in their businesses.
Enjoy your reading!
1. To learn more, access: https://chapterzero.org.uk/board-scorecard-introduction/.
Introduction
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 7
The survey sample included the
participation of 104 respondents
(n = 104) who work in organizations
with a board of directors or advisory
board. Among the respondents are
board of director members (41.3%);
advisory board members (19.2%); fiscal
council members (8.7%) and executive
management (30.8%).
The results highlighted as follow,
consolidate the answers "agree" and
"strongly agree" as agreement and
"disagree" and "strongly disagree" as
disagreement. The answer "neither
agree nor disagree (neutral)" is
presented as a position of neutrality,
which may indicates unawareness
of the topic, non-applicability to
the organization or even noncompliance with the practice stated by
the organization.
When analyzing the Leadership
thematic block, whose objective is
to ensure that the board is informed,
prepared and ready to drive changes
and take responsibility for establishing
a net zero strategy, it became clear that
there is still a lot to advance in terms
of the board's agenda, because, only
35.6% of the respondents indicated
that it is a practice to put the theme at
least four times a year on the board's
agenda, having clear objectives for the
discussion, in addition to robust data
and information. There are also flaws in
communication and disclosure of the
importance of meeting the climate goal
established for the organization in the
view of 49% of respondents.
Still in the Leadership block, only 28.9%
of the respondents indicated that the
advisory committees consider climate
change in their discussions. It is also
worth noting the fact that for 40.4% of
the respondents there is no clarity about
the responsibility of the board and the
senior management team for decisions
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
whereas 19.2% of the respondents
1. Main results
8 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
indicated a position of neutrality in
relation to this issue.
The Ownership thematic block aims to
ensure that the board is accountable
for engagement, governance and
driving change to achieve established
climate goals. The results of this
block indicate the need for greater
mobilization on the part of boards on
the subject, as 65.4% of respondents
indicated that climate-related goals
are not incorporated into incentives
and executive remuneration in a
significant and measurable way. In
addition, 43.3% of the respondents
stated that the climate issue is not
incorporated in the assessment of
risks and opportunities and in the
core business strategy, added to the
fact that 14.4% of the respondents
showed a neutral position in relation
to this question.
The answers also showed that
responsibility for data and information
on climate changes and targets
is not shared by all areas of the
organization, sometimes limited to the
area of sustainability or a specific area,
according to 48.1% of respondents. Still
in this issue 17.3% of the respondents
showed a neutral position in relation to
the topic.
Still in the Ownership block,
attention is drawn to the fact that
organizations do not guarantee that
the necessary skills and resources
are available to fulfill their climate
ambition in the view of 45.2% of
respondents against 33.6% of those
who indicated that organizations have
ensured the availability of these skills
and resources.
Finally, for 50% of the respondents,
there is no comprehensive work plan
that involves the entire workforce
in the vision on the topic and the
necessary changes in organizations.
Added to this is the fact that 17.3% of
the respondents showed a neutral
stance in relation to the topic.
The Strategy block aims to develop
and assess strategy, plans and
resources in place to reduce carbon
emissions and adapt to climate
changes, as well as incorporate them
into the organization's overall business
strategy and purpose. Again, the
results presented are critical and show
that the topic has not been prioritized
by the boards.
When asked if the board analyzed the
business strategy considering at least
two climate changes scenarios, 58.6%
of the respondents indicated that they
did not, when they disagreed with
the proposition.
In the same line, 58.6% of the
respondents indicated that the board
did not establish a net zero target for
the emission of greenhouse gases, nor
is it aligned with the commitment to
reach the goal of limiting the increase
in global temperature to 1.5ºC.
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 9
Still in the Strategy block, 57.7%
of respondents pointed out that
ambition in relation to climate
changes does not translate into
short-term goals or a five-year action
plan. Physical impacts resulting
from climate change are also not
considered by the boards in the view
of 53.8% of respondents.
The block ends with 60.6% of
respondents declaring that the board
in which they work does not consider
the climate issue in all investment
decisions, nor does it make use of a
quantification tool, such as carbon
pricing. In this question, 16.3% of the
respondents showed a neutral stance.
The fourth and final thematic block
Measurement seeks to understand
and assess the organization's
carbon emissions, reducing the
carbon footprint, reviewing and
communicating progress and
impacts. The tendency of this block
in terms of results is similar to the
others, showing that both companies
and boards have not been dedicated
to the commitment to transition
to the net zero strategy nor to the
climate impacts resulting from
climate changes.
For 30.7% of respondents, the company
they work for assesses the impacts
of the net zero transition in all its
operations and investment decisions
in accordance with scopes 1 and 2
established by the GHG Protocol.
However, 51.9% of respondents
disagreed with this statement.
Still in relation to the GHG Protocol,
the topic seems to be unknown to
companies and their boards, as 59.6%
of the respondents indicated that the
organization in which they work does
not have its emissions framed in scope
3 of the GHG Protocol and does not
have a specific approach that covers
all products and services.
Short- and long-term measures
aligned with greenhouse gas emission
reduction plans and the regular review
of these plans are not monitored
by the board in the view of 57.7%
of respondents.
Disclosure of climate ambition,
action plans and the progress of
these actions based on scientific
methods and metrics is not a business
practice in the view of 55.8% of
respondents. In this question, 14.4%
of the respondents showed a neutral
position in relation to the theme.
10 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
3.8%
Chairperson
Board members (41.3%), advisory board members (19.2%), fiscal council members
(8.7%) and executive management (30.8%) participated in this study.
Graph 1 Position that the respondent occupies in the organization in which he works
n = 104
2. Profile of the respondents
5.8%
CEO
37.5%
Board member
25.0%
Executive
management
16.3%
Advisory board
member
2.9%
Advisory
board chair
8.7%
Fiscal council
member
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 11
Graph 2 Type of board existing in the organization where the respondent works
n = 104
Graph 3 Range of annual billing of the organization in which the respondent works
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
n = 104
71.2%
Yes, a Board
of Directors
28.8%
Yes, an
Advisory Board
Over R$ 1 Billion Over 300 million
up to 1Billion
Over 100 million
up to 300 million
From 20 million to
a 100 million
Up to 20 millions
39.4%
25.0%
11.5% 12.5% 11.5%
12 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Graph 4 Corporate type of the organization in which the respondent operates
n = 104
Table 1 Sector of operation of the organization in which the respondent works
Sector of activity % of respondents
Financial (banks, insurance companies, investment funds, etc.) 16.3%
Industry 14.4%
Health or hospital 6.7%
Food and beverages 5.8%
Infrastructure 5.8%
Logistics and/or distribution 5.8%
Consumption or retail 4.8%
Agriculture and livestock 4.8%
Auditing and/or consulting 3.8%
Services in general 2.9%
Technology 2.9%
Third sector 2.9%
Pharmaceutical 2.9%
Education 2.9%
Construction 2.9%
Advocacy 1.9%
Petroleum, oil, gas or biofuel 1.9%
Business 1.0%
Others 9.6%
Total 100.0%
n = 104
Association Co-Operative Foundation Publicly traded
companies
Privately held
company
Limited Liability
Company (LLC)
Others
4,8% 5,8% 1,9%
28,8%
33,7%
23,1%
1,9%
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 13
This section presents the answers stratified according to the position occupied by
the respondents. The Advisory Council position includes respondents who have
indicated that they are Chair of the Advisory Board or Advisory Board Member. The
position of board member directors covers respondents who indicated that they are
board chair or board member. The executive management/c-level position includes
respondents who declared to hold the position of CEO/managing director or
executive management /c-level in the organizations in which they work.
The position of the respondents is presented in alphabetical order, not indicating or
having any relation with hierarchy or degree of importance.
For each of the twenty statements presented, the respondents selected a single
answer among the following options: agree; strongly agree; disagree; strongly
disagree; and neither agree nor disagree (neutral).
The results are presented by thematic blocks: leadership, ownership, strategy, and
measurement. Each block contains five questions and one specific objective.
3. Analysis of the answers
considering the position
occupied by the respondents
14 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
3.1. Block I – Leadership
Objective: Ensure the board is informed, prepared and ready to drive changes and
be responsible for establishing a net zero strategy.
Table 2 All board members understand the implications of climate change and there are
board members who have the most latent climate competence.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 35.0% 5.0% 25.0% 0.0% 35.0%
Board member 39.5% 11.6% 14.0% 9.3% 25.6%
Fiscal council member 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 33.3%
Executive management/c-level 37.5% 6.3% 25.0% 6.3% 25.0%
Grand total 38.5% 8.7% 19.2% 5.8% 27.9%
n = 104
Table 3 The topic is included in the board's agenda at least four times a year, with clear
objectives for the discussion, in addition to robust data and information to inform it.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 25.0% 5.0% 50.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Board member 20.9% 14.0% 39.5% 11.6% 14.0%
Fiscal council member 11.1% 11.1% 55.6% 0.0% 22.2%
Executive management/c-level 37.5% 6.3% 37.5% 12.5% 6.3%
Grand total 26.0% 9.6% 42.3% 10.6% 11.5%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 15
Table 4 All advisory committees to the board take climate changes into account in their
discussions.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 20.0% 0.0% 50.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Board member 30.2% 4.7% 30.2% 11.6% 23.3%
Fiscal council member 22.2% 0.0% 55.6% 0.0% 22.2%
Executive management/c-level 25.0% 3.1% 40.6% 12.5% 18.8%
Grand total 26.0% 2.9% 39.4% 11.5% 20.2%
n = 104
Table 5 Responsibility for decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is clear for both the
board and the executive team.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Board member 27.9% 9.3% 18.6% 16.3% 27.9%
Fiscal council member 33.3% 11.1% 44.4% 0.0% 11.1%
Executive management/c-level 43.8% 6.3% 31.3% 12.5% 6.3%
Grand total 31.7% 8.7% 25.0% 15.4% 19.2%
n = 104
Table 6 The CEO, the chairperson and the members of the board of directors or advisory
board communicate and disclose to employees and executives, through the
organization's official communication channels, the importance of meeting the
climate goal established for the organization.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 20.0% 5.0% 45.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Board member 27.9% 11.6% 30.2% 18.6% 11.6%
Fiscal council member 22.2% 11.1% 22.2% 0.0% 44.4%
Executive management/c-level 37.5% 6.3% 21.9% 28.1% 6.3%
Grand total 28.8% 8.7% 29.8% 19.2% 13.5%
n = 104
16 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
3.2. Block II - Ownership
Objective: Ensure the board is accountable for engagement, governance and
driving change to achieve established climate goals.
Table 7 Climate-related targets are incorporated into incentives and executive remuneration
in a significant and measurable manner.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 15.0% 0.0% 50.0% 30.0% 5.0%
Board member 18.6% 11.6% 18.6% 32.6% 18.6%
Fiscal council member 22.2% 0.0% 44.4% 22.2% 11.1%
Executive management/c-level 15.6% 0.0% 31.3% 43.8% 9.4%
Grand total 17.3% 4.8% 30.8% 34.6% 12.5%
n = 104
Table 8 The climate issue is incorporated in the assessment of risks and opportunities and in
the core business strategy.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 35.0% 5.0% 45.0% 5.0% 10.0%
Board member 34.9% 20.9% 18.6% 14.0% 11.6%
Fiscal council member 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% 0.0% 55.6%
Executive management/c-level 31.3% 0.0% 37.5% 21.9% 9.4%
Grand total 31.7% 10.6% 29.8% 13.5% 14.4%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 17
Table 9 Responsibility for data and information on climate changes and goals belongs to all
areas of the organization, not limited to the area of sustainability or a specific area,
but also permeating areas such as finance and all organizational management.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 25.0% 15.0%
Board member 32.6% 11.6% 18.6% 14.0% 23.3%
Fiscal council member 22.2% 11.1% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1%
Executive management/c-level 31.3% 0.0% 37.5% 18.8% 12.5%
Grand total 28.8% 5.8% 30.8% 17.3% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 10 There is a comprehensive work plan to involve the entire workforce in the vision on
the topic and the necessary changes.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 10.0% 5.0% 40.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Board member 34.9% 14.0% 27.9% 14.0% 9.3%
Fiscal council member 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3%
Executive management/c-level 21.9% 0.0% 40.6% 18.8% 18.8%
Grand total 26.0% 6.7% 34.6% 15.4% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 11 The organization is ensuring that the necessary skills and resources are available to
accomplish its climate ambition.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 20.0% 5.0% 40.0% 20.0% 15.0%
Board member 34.9% 14.0% 25.6% 7.0% 18.6%
Fiscal council member 33.3% 0.0% 55.6% 0.0% 11.1%
Executive management/c-level 18.8% 0.0% 34.4% 15.6% 31.3%
Grand total 26.9% 6.7% 33.7% 11.5% 21.2%
n = 104
18 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
3.3. Block III - Strategy
Objective: Develop and assess strategy, plans and resources in place to reduce
carbon emissions and adapt to climate changes, as well as incorporate them into the
organization's overall business strategy and purpose.
Table 12 The board analyzed the business strategy considering at least two climate changes
scenarios.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 25.0% 0.0% 45.0% 5.0% 25.0%
Board member 23.3% 7.0% 39.5% 16.3% 14.0%
Fiscal council member 11.1% 11.1% 44.4% 0.0% 33.3%
Executive management/c-level 15.6% 0.0% 43.8% 28.1% 12.5%
Grand total 20.2% 3.8% 42.3% 16.3% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 13 The board has set a net zero target for the emission of greenhouse gases and is
aligned with the commitment to achieve the target of limiting global temperature
rise to 1.5°C.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 15.0% 0.0% 55.0% 10.0% 20.0%
Board member 16.3% 14.0% 23.3% 25.6% 20.9%
Fiscal council member 22.2% 0.0% 33.3% 11.1% 33.3%
Executive management/c-level 15.6% 0.0% 37.5% 34.4% 12.5%
Grand total 16.3% 5.8% 34.6% 24.0% 19.2%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 19
Table 14 Ambition was translated into short-term goals and a five-year action plan.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 10.0% 0.0% 55.0% 20.0% 15.0%
Board member 32.6% 7.0% 18.6% 23.3% 18.6%
Fiscal council member 11.1% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 22.2%
Executive management/c-level 15.6% 3.1% 37.5% 28.1% 15.6%
Grand total 21.2% 3.8% 35.6% 22.1% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 15 The board considers the likely physical impacts of climate changes on the
organization and has an adaptation plan to deal with them.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 15.0% 25.0%
Board member 23.3% 9.3% 25.6% 18.6% 23.3%
Fiscal council member 11.1% 11.1% 66.7% 0.0% 11.1%
Executive management/c-level 15.6% 0.0% 40.6% 28.1% 15.6%
Grand total 21.2% 4.8% 34.6% 19.2% 20.2%
n = 104
Table 16 The council considers the climate issue in all investment decisions and makes use of
a quantification tool, such as carbon pricing.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 15.0% 0.0% 30.0% 20.0% 35.0%
Board member 16.3% 9.3% 32.6% 30.2% 11.6%
Fiscal council member 33.3% 0.0% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1%
Executive management/c-level 18.8% 3.1% 31.3% 34.4% 12.5%
Grand total 18.3% 4.8% 32.7% 27.9% 16.3%
n = 104
20 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
3.4. Block IV - Measurement
Objective: Understand and assess the organization's carbon emissions, reducing the
carbon footprint, reviewing and communicating progress and impacts.
Table 17 The company assesses the impacts of the net zero transition on all its operations
and investment decisions according to scopes 12
and 23
established by the GHG
Protocol.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 15.0% 0.0% 45.0% 30.0% 10.0%
Board member 25.6% 14.0% 18.6% 25.6% 16.3%
Fiscal council member 22.2% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 33.3%
Executive management/c-level 28.1% 3.1% 15.6% 34.4% 18.8%
Grand total 24.0% 6.7% 25.0% 26.9% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 18 The company understands its emissions fall under scope 34
of the GHG Protocol
and has a specific approach that covers all its products and services.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 15.0% 0.0% 55.0% 25.0% 5.0%
Board member 18.6% 7.0% 23.3% 27.9% 23.3%
Fiscal council member 11.1% 0.0% 55.6% 0.0% 33.3%
Executive management/c-level 18.8% 3.1% 21.9% 37.5% 18.8%
Grand total 17.3% 3.8% 31.7% 27.9% 19.2%
n = 104
2. Scope 1 of the GHG Protocol: eliminate emissions for which the organization is responsible.
3. Scope 2 of the GHG Protocol: eliminate emissions generated by purchasing electricity, heat and steam.
4. Scope 3 of the GHG Protocol: includes the elimination of gases generated by goods and services purchased,
third-party distributors, products sold, production chain.
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 21
Table 19 The board agreed on a set of short-term and long-term measures aligned with
greenhouse gas emission reduction plans and reviews the performance of these
plans regularly.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 10.0% 0.0% 50.0% 20.0% 20.0%
Board member 27.9% 7.0% 23.3% 27.9% 14.0%
Fiscal council member 33.3% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 22.2%
Executive management/c-level 28.1% 3.1% 31.3% 31.3% 6.3%
Grand total 25.0% 3.8% 32.7% 25.0% 13.5%
n = 104
Table 20 The board fully understands the requirements of investors related to climate and
climate change and how they will assess the issue and its progress over time.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 30.0% 10.0% 35.0% 5.0% 20.0%
Board member 25.6% 14.0% 18.6% 20.9% 20.9%
Fiscal council member 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% 22.2% 33.3%
Executive management/c-level 31.3% 6.3% 28.1% 18.8% 15.6%
Grand total 26.9% 10.6% 25.0% 17.3% 20.2%
n = 104
Table 21 The company discloses its climate ambition, action plans and the progress of its
actions based on scientific methods and metrics.
Position Agree Strongly
agree
Disagree Strongly
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Advisory board member 10.0% 0.0% 60.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Board member 30.2% 11.6% 20.9% 23.3% 14.0%
Fiscal council member 22.2% 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 22.2%
Executive management/c-level 21.9% 3.1% 31.3% 31.3% 12.5%
Grand total 23.1% 6.7% 32.7% 23.1% 14.4%
n = 104
22 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
In this section, the Survey results are presented, considering the billing range of the
organizations in which the respondents declared to work.
For each of the twenty statements presented, the respondents selected a single
answer among the following options: agree; fully agree; disagree; totally disagree;
and neither agree nor disagree (neutral).
The results are presented by thematic blocks: leadership, ownership, strategy and
measurement. Each block contains five questions and one specific objective.
4. Analysis of answers
considering the organizations'
billing range
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 23
4.1. Block I – Leadership
Objective: Ensure the board is informed, prepared and ready to drive change and be
responsible for establishing a net zero strategy.
Table 22 All board members understand the implications of climate changes and there are
board members who have the most latent climate competence.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 43.9% 12.2% 17.1% 2.4% 24.4%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 30.8% 7.7% 11.5% 11.5% 38.5%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 41.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 25.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 23.1% 7.7% 38.5% 7.7% 23.1%
Up to R$ 20 million 50.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 25.0%
Grand total 38.5% 8.7% 19.2% 5.8% 27.9%
n = 104
Table 23 The topic is included in the board's agenda at least four times a year, with clear
objectives for the discussion, in addition to robust data and information to inform it.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 34.1% 9.8% 36.6% 9.8% 9.8%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 15.4% 3.8% 50.0% 11.5% 19.2%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 8.3% 16.7% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 38.5% 0.0% 23.1% 23.1% 15.4%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 25.0% 33.3% 8.3% 8.3%
Grand total 26.0% 9.6% 42.3% 10.6% 11.5%
n = 104
24 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Table 24 All board advisory committees take climate change into account in their
discussions.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 34.1% 2.4% 24.4% 12.2% 26.8%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 15.4% 0.0% 53.8% 11.5% 19.2%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 25.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 8.3%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 23.1% 0.0% 30.8% 30.8% 15.4%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 16.7% 41.7% 0.0% 16.7%
Grand total 26.0% 2.9% 39.4% 11.5% 20.2%
n = 104
Table 25 The Responsibility for decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is clear to
both the board and the executive team.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 31.7% 14.6% 14.6% 9.8% 29.3%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 26.9% 3.8% 53.8% 11.5% 3.8%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 25.0% 8.3% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 38.5% 0.0% 7.7% 53.8% 0.0%
Up to R$ 20 million 41.7% 8.3% 8.3% 16.7% 25.0%
Grand total 31.7% 8.7% 25.0% 15.4% 19.2%
n = 104
Table 26 The CEO, the chairperson and the members of the board of directors or advisory
board communicate and disclose to employees and executives, through the
organization's official communication channels, the importance of meeting the
climate goal established for the organization.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 29.3% 14.6% 31.7% 12.2% 12.2%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 34.6% 0.0% 19.2% 30.8% 15.4%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 25.0% 8.3% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 30.8% 0.0% 15.4% 46.2% 7.7%
Up to R$ 20 million 16.7% 16.7% 41.7% 8.3% 16.7%
Grand total 28.8% 8.7% 29.8% 19.2% 13.5%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 25
4.2. Block II – Ownership
Objective: Ensure the board is accountable for engagement, governance and
driving change to achieve established climate goals.
Table 27 Climate-related targets are incorporated into incentives and executive
remuneration in a significant and measurable manner.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 26.8% 7.3% 22.0% 29.3% 14.6%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 3.8% 0.0% 42.3% 46.2% 7.7%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 33.3% 0.0% 41.7% 25.0% 0.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 53.8% 23.1%
Up to R$ 20 million 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7%
Grand total 17.3% 4.8% 30.8% 34.6% 12.5%
n = 104
Table 28 The climate issue is incorporated in the assessment of risks and opportunities and
in the core business strategy.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 41.5% 12.2% 22.0% 9.8% 14.6%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 15.4% 7.7% 38.5% 19.2% 19.2%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 41.7% 8.3% 41.7% 8.3% 0.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 30.8% 0.0% 30.8% 23.1% 15.4%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3% 16.7%
Grand total 31.7% 10.6% 29.8% 13.5% 14.4%
n = 104
26 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Table 29 The responsibility for data and information on climate change and goals belongs
to all areas of the organization, not limited only to the area of sustainability or
a specific area, also permeating areas such as finance and all organizational
management.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 39.0% 7.3% 26.8% 7.3% 19.5%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 19.2% 3.8% 38.5% 26.9% 11.5%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 30.8% 0.0% 7.7% 46.2% 15.4%
Up to R$ 20 million 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7%
Grand total 28.8% 5.8% 30.8% 17.3% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 30 There is a comprehensive work plan to involve the entire workforce in the vision on
the topic and the necessary changes.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 43.9% 7.3% 26.8% 7.3% 14.6%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 19.2% 3.8% 38.5% 23.1% 15.4%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 0.0% 8.3% 75.0% 0.0% 16.7%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 15.4% 0.0% 15.4% 46.2% 23.1%
Up to R$ 20 million 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 8.3% 25.0%
Grand total 26.0% 6.7% 34.6% 15.4% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 31 The organization is ensuring that the necessary skills and resources are available to
accomplish its climate ambition.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 36.6% 12.2% 22.0% 4.9% 24.4%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 23.1% 0.0% 53.8% 7.7% 15.4%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 15.4% 0.0% 15.4% 46.2% 23.1%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 25.0%
Grand total 26.9% 6.7% 33.7% 11.5% 21.2%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 27
4.3. Block III – Strategy
Objective: Develop and assess strategy, plans and resources in place to reduce
carbon emissions and adapt to climate change, as well as incorporate them into the
organization's overall business strategy and purpose.
Table 32 The board analyzed the business strategy considering at least two climate changes
scenarios.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 29.3% 2.4% 34.1% 12.2% 22.0%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 7.7% 0.0% 61.5% 15.4% 15.4%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 8.3% 8.3% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 23.1% 0.0% 23.1% 38.5% 15.4%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 16.7% 41.7% 8.3% 8.3%
Grand total 20.2% 3.8% 42.3% 16.3% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 33 The board established a net zero target for the emission of greenhouse gases and
is aligned with the commitment to reach the target of limiting the increase in global
temperature to 1.5ºC.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 24.4% 7.3% 29.3% 24.4% 14.6%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 11.5% 3.8% 46.2% 26.9% 11.5%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 0.0% 8.3% 50.0% 16.7% 25.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 30.8% 38.5%
Up to R$ 20 million 33.3% 8.3% 16.7% 16.7% 25.0%
Grand total 16.3% 5.8% 34.6% 24.0% 19.2%
n = 104
28 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Table 34 Ambition was translated into short-term goals and a five-year action plan.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 26.8% 7.3% 22.0% 24.4% 19.5%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 15.4% 0.0% 53.8% 19.2% 11.5%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 8.3% 0.0% 58.3% 8.3% 25.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 7.7% 0.0% 23.1% 46.2% 23.1%
Up to R$ 20 million 41.7% 8.3% 33.3% 8.3% 8.3%
Grand total 21.2% 3.8% 35.6% 22.1% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 35 The board considers the likely physical impacts5
of climate changes on the
organization and has an adaptation plan to deal with them.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 26.8% 7.3% 24.4% 19.5% 22.0%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 15.4% 0.0% 53.8% 15.4% 15.4%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 16.7% 0.0% 58.3% 16.7% 8.3%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 15.4% 0.0% 15.4% 38.5% 30.8%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 16.7% 25.0% 8.3% 25.0%
Grand total 21.2% 4.8% 34.6% 19.2% 20.2%
n = 104
5. Physical risks arising from climate change can be caused by (acute) events, such as increasing severity of
extreme weather events (egg cyclones, droughts, floods and fires). They may also be related to long-term
(chronic) changes in precipitation and temperature and increased variability in weather patterns (e.g., sea
level rise). To learn more, access: https://www.openriskmanual.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Physical_Risk.
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 29
Table 36 The board considers the climate issue in all investment decisions and makes use of
a quantification tool, such as carbon pricing.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 26.8% 4.9% 31.7% 24.4% 12.2%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 7.7% 0.0% 42.3% 30.8% 19.2%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 8.3% 25.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 7.7% 7.7% 23.1% 46.2% 15.4%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 16.7% 8.3% 33.3% 16.7%
Grand total 18.3% 4.8% 32.7% 27.9% 16.3%
n = 104
30 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
4.4. Block IV – Measurement
Objective: Understand and assess the organization's carbon emissions, reducing the
carbon footprint, reviewing and communicating progress and impacts.
Table 37 The company assesses the impacts of the net zero transition on all its operations
and investment decisions according to scopes 16
and 27
established by the GHG
Protocol.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 29.3% 7.3% 17.1% 17.1% 29.3%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 15.4% 3.8% 34.6% 34.6% 11.5%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 8.3% 16.7%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 15.4% 7.7% 15.4% 53.8% 7.7%
Up to R$ 20 million 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0%
Grand total 24.0% 6.7% 25.0% 26.9% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 38 The company understands its emissions fall under scope 38
of the GHG Protocol
and has a specific approach that covers all its products and services.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 26.8% 2.4% 22.0% 22.0% 26.8%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 3.8% 3.8% 42.3% 34.6% 15.4%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 16.7% 0.0% 58.3% 8.3% 16.7%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 7.7% 7.7% 30.8% 46.2% 7.7%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 8.3% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7%
Grand total 17.3% 3.8% 31.7% 27.9% 19.2%
n = 104
6. Scope 1 of the GHG Protocol: eliminate emissions for which the organization is responsible.
7. Scope 2 of the GHG Protocol: eliminate emissions generated by purchasing electricity, heat and steam.
8. Scope 3 of the GHG Protocol: includes the elimination of gases generated by goods and services purchased,
third-party distributors, products sold, production chain.
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 31
Table 39 The board agreed on a set of short-term and long-term measures aligned with
greenhouse gas emission reduction plans and reviews the performance of these
plans regularly.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 41.5% 2.4% 22.0% 19.5% 14.6%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 11.5% 0.0% 50.0% 26.9% 11.5%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 16.7% 0.0% 58.3% 8.3% 16.7%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 15.4% 7.7% 15.4% 53.8% 7.7%
Up to R$ 20 million 16.7% 16.7% 25.0% 25.0% 16.7%
Grand total 25.0% 3.8% 32.7% 25.0% 13.5%
n = 104
Table 40 The board fully understands the requirements of investors related to climate and
climate changes and how they will assess the issue and its progress over time.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 46.3% 12.2% 7.3% 14.6% 19.5%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 11.5% 0.0% 46.2% 19.2% 23.1%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 16.7% 8.3% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 15.4% 15.4% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1%
Up to R$ 20 million 16.7% 25.0% 16.7% 33.3% 8.3%
Grand total 26.9% 10.6% 25.0% 17.3% 20.2%
n = 104
Table 41 The company discloses its climate ambition, action plans and the progress of its
actions based on scientific methods and metrics.
Billing range Agree Strongly
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
(neutral)
Over R$ 1 billion 36.6% 12.2% 26.8% 12.2% 12.2%
Over R$ 300 million up to R$ 1 billion 3.8% 3.8% 38.5% 38.5% 15.4%
Over R$ 100 million up to R$ 300 million 16.7% 0.0% 66.7% 8.3% 8.3%
From R$20 million to R$ 100 million 23.1% 0.0% 23.1% 38.5% 15.4%
Up to R$ 20 million 25.0% 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 25.0%
Grand total 23.1% 6.7% 32.7% 23.1% 14.4%
n = 104
32 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
In this section, the results of the survey are presented, considering the corporate
type of the organizations in which the respondents declared to work.
For each of the twenty statements presented, the respondents selected a single
answer among the following options: agree; fully agree; disagree; totally disagree;
and neither agree nor disagree (neutral).
The results are presented by thematic blocks: leadership, ownership, strategy and
measurement. Each block contains 5 questions and 1 specific objective.
5. Analysis of answers
considering the corporate
type of organizations
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 33
5.1. Block I – Leadership
Objective: Ensure the board is informed, prepared and ready to drive changes and
be responsible for establishing a net zero strategy.
Table 42 All board members understand the implications of climate changes and there are
board members who have the most latent climate competence.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 43.3% 13.3% 20.0% 3.3% 20.0%
Privately held company 40.0% 8.6% 11.4% 8.6% 31.4%
Limited liability company (LLC) 45.8% 4.2% 12.5% 8.3% 29.2%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Grand total 38.5% 8.7% 19.2% 5.8% 27.9%
n = 104
Table 43 The topic is included in the board’s agenda at least four times a year, with clear
objectives for the discussion, in addition to robust data and information to inform it.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7%
Foundation 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 36.7% 10.0% 30.0% 6.7% 16.7%
Privately held company 25.7% 5.7% 48.6% 11.4% 8.6%
Limited liability company (LLC) 25.0% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Grand total 26.0% 9.6% 42.3% 10.6% 11.5%
n = 104
34 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Table 44 All board advisory committees take climate change into account in their
discussions.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 0.0% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 40.0% 3.3% 26.7% 3.3% 26.7%
Privately held company 22.9% 2.9% 45.7% 11.4% 17.1%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 45.8% 12.5% 20.8%
Others 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Grand total 26.0% 2.9% 39.4% 11.5% 20.2%
n = 104
Table 45 Responsibility for decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is clear to both the
board and the executive team.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 50.0% 0.0% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0%
Foundation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Publicly traded company 36.7% 16.7% 20.0% 6.7% 20.0%
Privately held company 28.6% 5.7% 31.4% 14.3% 20.0%
Limited liability company (LLC) 33.3% 8.3% 16.7% 20.8% 20.8%
Others 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%
Grand total 31.7% 8.7% 25.0% 15.4% 19.2%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 35
Table 46 The CEO, the chairperson and the members of the board of directors or advisory
board communicate and disclose to employees and executives, through the
organization's official communication channels, the importance of meeting the
climate goal established for the organization.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 50.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 16.7%
Foundation 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 30.0% 16.7% 36.7% 6.7% 10.0%
Privately held company 31.4% 5.7% 20.0% 25.7% 17.1%
Limited liability company (LLC) 25.0% 4.2% 33.3% 20.8% 16.7%
Others 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Grand total 28.8% 8.7% 29.8% 19.2% 13.5%
n = 104
36 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
5.2. Block II – Ownership
Objective: Ensure the board is accountable for engagement, governance and
driving changes to achieve established climate goals.
Table 47 Climate-related targets are incorporated into incentives and executive
remuneration in a significant and measurable manner.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 0.0% 66.7% 16.7% 0.0%
Foundation 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 23.3% 10.0% 23.3% 20.0% 23.3%
Privately held company 17.1% 2.9% 25.7% 42.9% 11.4%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 37.5% 33.3% 8.3%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Grand total 17.3% 4.8% 30.8% 34.6% 12.5%
n = 104
Table 48 The climate issue is incorporated in the assessment of risks and opportunities and
in the core business strategy.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 40.0% 16.7% 23.3% 6.7% 13.3%
Privately held company 31.4% 8.6% 25.7% 11.4% 22.9%
Limited liability company (LLC) 33.3% 8.3% 37.5% 12.5% 8.3%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 31.7% 10.6% 29.8% 13.5% 14.4%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 37
Table 49 The responsibility for data and information on climate changes and goals belong
to all areas of the organization, not limited only to the area of sustainability or
a specific area, also permeating areas such as finance and all organizational
management.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%
Co-Operative 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 46.7% 10.0% 16.7% 13.3% 13.3%
Privately held company 22.9% 2.9% 34.3% 14.3% 25.7%
Limited liability company (LLC) 20.8% 4.2% 37.5% 25.0% 12.5%
Others 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Grand total 28.8% 5.8% 30.8% 17.3% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 50 There is a comprehensive work plan to involve the entire workforce in the vision on
the topic and the necessary changes.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Foundation 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 53.3% 6.7% 23.3% 6.7% 10.0%
Privately held company 17.1% 5.7% 45.7% 17.1% 14.3%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 25.0% 16.7% 37.5%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 26.0% 6.7% 34.6% 15.4% 17.3%
n = 104
38 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Table 51 The organization is ensuring that the necessary skills and resources are available
accomplish its climate ambition.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 50.0% 0.0% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 43.3% 13.3% 10.0% 10.0% 23.3%
Privately held company 17.1% 5.7% 48.6% 5.7% 22.9%
Limited liability company (LLC) 20.8% 4.2% 33.3% 12.5% 29.2%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Grand total 26.9% 6.7% 33.7% 11.5% 21.2%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 39
5.3. Block III – Strategy
Objective: Develop and assess strategy, plans and resources in place to reduce
carbon emissions and adapt to climate changes, as well as incorporate them into the
organization's overall business strategy and purpose.
Table 52 The board analyzed the business strategy considering at least two climate changes
scenarios.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 33.3%
Foundation 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 30.0% 3.3% 43.3% 6.7% 16.7%
Privately held company 17.1% 2.9% 42.9% 14.3% 22.9%
Limited liability company (LLC) 20.8% 4.2% 45.8% 16.7% 12.5%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Grand total 20.2% 3.8% 42.3% 16.3% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 53 The board established a net zero target for the emission of greenhouse gases and
aligned with the commitment to reach the target of limiting the increase in global
temperature to 1.5ºC.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Foundation 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 26.7% 10.0% 30.0% 16.7% 16.7%
Privately held company 17.1% 0.0% 34.3% 28.6% 20.0%
Limited liability company (LLC) 12.5% 4.2% 33.3% 20.8% 29.2%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 16.3% 5.8% 34.6% 24.0% 19.2%
n = 104
40 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Table 54 Ambition was translated into short-term goals and a five-year action plan.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 0.0% 66.7% 16.7% 0.0%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 30.0% 10.0% 20.0% 16.7% 23.3%
Privately held company 25.7% 0.0% 37.1% 20.0% 17.1%
Limited liability company (LLC) 8.3% 4.2% 45.8% 20.8% 20.8%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Grand total 21.2% 3.8% 35.6% 22.1% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 55 The board considers the likely physical impacts9
ꝰ of climate changes on the
organization and has an adaptation plan to deal with them.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7%
Foundation 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 30.0% 10.0% 30.0% 13.3% 16.7%
Privately held company 22.9% 2.9% 37.1% 17.1% 20.0%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 33.3% 12.5% 33.3%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Grand total 21.2% 4.8% 34.6% 19.2% 20.2%
n = 104
9. Physical risks arising from climate change can be caused by (acute) events, such as increasing severity of
extreme weather events (e.g. cyclones, droughts, floods and fires). They may also be related to long-term
(chronic) changes in precipitation and temperature and increased variability in weather patterns (e.g. sea
level rise). To learn more, access: https://www.openriskmanual.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Physical_Risk.
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 41
Table 56 The board considers the climate issue in all investment decisions and makes use of
a quantification tool, such as carbon pricing.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 16.7%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 33.3% 6.7% 33.3% 20.0% 6.7%
Privately held company 5.7% 5.7% 37.1% 28.6% 22.9%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 25.0% 29.2% 25.0%
Others 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Grand total 18.3% 4.8% 32.7% 27.9% 16.3%
n = 104
42 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
5.4. Block IV – Measurement
Objective: Understand and assess the organization's carbon emissions, reducing the
carbon footprint, reviewing and communicating progress and impacts.
Table 57 The company assesses the impacts of the net zero transition on all its operations
and investment decisions in accordance with scopes 110 and 211 established by the
GHG Protocol.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 33.3% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 26.7%
Privately held company 20.0% 5.7% 34.3% 31.4% 8.6%
Limited liability company (LLC) 20.8% 4.2% 20.8% 29.2% 25.0%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 24.0% 6.7% 25.0% 26.9% 17.3%
n = 104
Table 58 The company understands that its emissions fall under the scope 312 of the GHG
Protocol and has a specific approach that covers all of its products and services.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 0.0% 16.7% 66.7% 0.0% 16.7%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 33.3% 3.3% 23.3% 13.3% 26.7%
Privately held company 11.4% 2.9% 37.1% 31.4% 17.1%
Limited liability company (LLC) 12.5% 4.2% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 17.3% 3.8% 31.7% 27.9% 19.2%
n = 104
10. Scope 1 of the GHG Protocol: eliminate emissions for which the organization is responsible.
11. Scope 2 of the GHG Protocol: eliminate emissions generated by purchasing electricity, heat and steam.
12. Scope 3 of the GHG Protocol: includes the elimination of gases generated by goods and services purchased,
third-party distributors, products sold, production chain.
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 43
Table 59 The board agreed on a set of short-term and long-term measures aligned with
greenhouse gas emission reduction plans and reviews the performance of these
plans regularly.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 46.7% 3.3% 26.7% 10.0% 13.3%
Privately held company 17.1% 5.7% 28.6% 34.3% 14.3%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 41.7% 25.0% 12.5%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 25.0% 3.8% 32.7% 25.0% 13.5%
n = 104
Table 60 The board fully understands the requirements of investors related to climate and
climate changes and how they will assess the issue and its progress over time.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 0.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0%
Foundation 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 46.7% 16.7% 13.3% 6.7% 16.7%
Privately held company 25.7% 8.6% 34.3% 14.3% 17.1%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 25.0% 29.2% 25.0%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 26.9% 10.6% 25.0% 17.3% 20.2%
n = 104
44 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
Table 61 The company discloses its climate ambition, action plans and the progress of its
actions based on scientific methods and metrics.
Corporate type Agree
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree (neutral)
Association 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Co-Operative 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7%
Foundation 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Publicly traded company 43.3% 16.7% 16.7% 10.0% 13.3%
Privately held company 14.3% 0.0% 34.3% 34.3% 17.1%
Limited liability company (LLC) 16.7% 4.2% 45.8% 20.8% 12.5%
Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Grand total 23.1% 6.7% 32.7% 23.1% 14.4%
n = 104
Board scorecard: the performance of the boards facing the climate impacts and the net zero strategy 45
This survey aimed to understand
how the board of directors and
advisory boards are dealing with the
commitment to transition to the net
zero strategy and with climate impacts.
The thematic questions were
translated and adapted from the Board
scorecard – a tool of Chapter Zero in the
United Kingdom –, composed of twenty
questions whose objective is to indicate
how well the boards of directors
are responding to the challenges of
climate changes.
The scope of applied Survey in Brazil
was expanded when compared to
the Chapter Zero Board scorecard in
the United Kingdom, as it covered,
in addition to the board of directors,
the advisory boards. The target
audience of the Survey were board
members, advisory board members,
fiscal council members and executive
management/c-level.
The Survey was developed in the
form of an electronic questionnaire
6. Methodology
(survey) and the data collection
phase took place from September 6
to September 30, 2022. For each of
the twenty questions that made up
the four thematic blocks and also the
introductory questions that dealt with
the profile of the respondent or the
organization in which he/she works,
respondents necessarily had to tick
only one answer option.
A total of 254 respondents participated
in the Survey. The sample consisted
of 104 respondents (n = 104), as
150 responses were incomplete,
having been disregarded in the
data tabulation.
The data were analyzed and
tabulated using the Excel tool, and
the stratification of the data was
presented taking into account the
position occupied by the respondents,
the billing ranges and the corporate
type of the organizations in which they
work, in addition to a section dedicated
to the profile of the respondents.
46 Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa
CHAPTER ZERO. “The Chapter Zero Board Scorecard: an introduction”. Available in:
https://chapterzero.org.uk/board-scorecard-introduction/. Access in: 26 aug. 2022.
References
The Board scorecard survey: the performance of boards facing the
climate impacts and the net zero strategy strove to capture how
the boards, both directors and advisory, have dealt with the issue of
climate changes and with the commitment to transition to the net
zero strategy.
Published:
10 October 2022
Content Topics