The claim that “100 companies cause 71% of global emissions” has become widely cited, particularly among those working in climate change, decarbonisation, and sustainability. It has been featured in major outlets like Forbes and The Guardian and has gained even greater traction on social media, amplifying its reach and influence.
This bold claim rightly highlights the significant role multinational corporations play in anthropogenic climate change. It helps to drive accountability and awareness. However, the claim has also sparked debate, particularly concerning the definition of “responsibility”. Critics point out that emissions attributed to producers primarily arise from consumer use of fossil fuels, suggesting that action is needed not only from producers, but also on the demand side. This debate underscores the importance of stakeholder communication in climate policy, where oversimplified narratives can lead to confusion about where efforts and resources should be focussed.
In this blog, our Head of Carbon Accounting, Zach Gaeddert, examines the origins of this claim, evaluates its accuracy, and discusses its broader implications for global climate policy.
Where did this claim come from?
The claim originates from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) “Carbon Majors Database” report, published in 2017. The report examines emissions from 100 fossil fuel producers between 1989 and 2015, emphasising the downstream impacts of fossil fuel consumption, which significantly amplify the numbers.
The emissions data in the report is derived entirely from publicly available sources, including state entities, state-owned companies, and investor-owned companies. It follows the GHG Protocol and calculates company emissions from two primary sources:
- Scope 1 Emissions – Direct emissions from extraction, transportation, and refining of hydrocarbon products.
- Scope 3 Emissions – Specifically, Category 11, covering emissions from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas produced by these companies.
Interestingly, the report defines global emissions as “industrial global greenhouse gas emissions”, excluding major contributors like methane from landfills and carbon release from land-use changes and deforestation – factors that together account for about 25% of global anthropogenic emissions. While the report makes this somewhat clear, such nuances are often lost as the claim is simplified and circulated, particularly on social media. For the purposes of this analysis, we adopt the report’s definition.
Carbon Accounting vs Emissions Inventories
A key conceptual issue complicating this claim is the conflation of corporate carbon accounting and territorial emissions inventories. Corporate Carbon Accounting, which is used to calculate emissions from the report’s 100 fossil fuel producers, measures an organisation’s emissions across its value chain (categorised as Scope 1, 2, or 3). This is irrespective of where they occur geographically, which is important given the highly global nature of modern supply chains.
Emissions Inventories, by contrast, measure emissions within a defined geographic boundary, categorised by sectors (e.g., buildings, transport, industry). This approach is used to calculate global emissions figures in the report.
The distinction between these methods creates challenges. Emissions inventories avoid double counting by designating emissions to a specific geographic location. Corporate carbon accounting, however, inherently involves double counting, as every entity’s Scope 3 emissions are another’s Scope 1 emissions. This fact can be confusing for those unfamiliar with corporate carbon accounting and the GHG Protocol, and it understandably leads to questions as to why companies’ Scope 3 emissions from the use of their products count as their own emissions. After all, under a corporate carbon accounting framework, emissions from fossil fuel combustion are attributed to both the user as well as the companies producing them.
The intent of corporate carbon accounting…is to identify where emissions lie within an organisation’s sphere of influence, offer visibility to stakeholders, and identify strategies to reduce them.
The intent of corporate carbon accounting, however, is not to find a sum of global emissions by totalling entity’s Scopes 1, 2, and 3. Rather, it is to identify where emissions lie within a organisation’s sphere of influence, offer visibility to stakeholders, and identify corresponding strategies to reduce them. In this sense, it makes sense that both users and producers are responsible for emissions from fossil fuel usage. Organisations – especially multinational corporations like oil majors – play a critical role in reducing their Scope 3 emissions given their size, influence, and resources.
So, Is This Claim Valid?
The CDP report largely circumvents double counting by making simplifying assumptions, specifically by focusing solely on Scope 1 and Scope 3 Category 11 emissions. Given the fossil fuel industry’s structure, isolating these categories provides a reasonable estimate of the end-to-end emissions impact of fossil fuel production, including extraction, refining, transportation, and end-use combustion. Thus, the claim can be considered valid, if defined as “the full value chain impact of 100 fossil fuel companies as a share of global industrial emissions”.
However, the broader interpretation presented by media headlines – “100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions” – depends heavily on how we define “responsible”. After all, the report itself states that approximately 90% of these companies’ emissions arise from Scope 3 Category 11 – that is, consumers burning fossil fuels. This raises questions about the division of responsibility between producers and consumers.
Nevertheless, Scope 3 emissions are companies’ own emissions. They are responsible for them. To have any hope of meeting Paris Climate Targets on limiting the rise of average global temperatures, these companies will need to address these emissions by:
- reporting on them, thus giving them visibility
- understanding where they lie in their sphere of influence
- identifying strategies to reduce them where possible
- assisting stakeholders who can reduce them
Given their scale and resources, these companies must be held accountable for addressing Scope 3 emissions as part of broader climate action.
So, What Can We Do?
Debate about this claim often centres on where responsibility lies – should producers phase out fossil fuels, or should consumers reduce demand? While individuals have a role to play, focusing solely on personal actions risks being ineffective and regressive, as systemic change requires broader structural shifts.
As per above, these 100 fossil fuel producers are critical actors due to their scale and resources. They play a significant part in shaping our energy system, and we will rely upon them to some degree to shift consumer usage away from fossil fuels to low carbon alternatives.
However, the primary driver of decarbonisation will likely be coordinated policy action at global, national, and local levels. Structural barriers to decarbonisation can only be addressed through transformative infrastructure investments in our transport, building, and electricity systems.
While the claim that “100 companies cause 71% of global emissions” highlights the outsized role fossil fuel producers play, it also risks oversimplification. It is imperative that we clearly communicate what “responsible” means in the context of Scope 3 emissions, understand where sources of emissions lie within the influence of key stakeholders, and identify tangible strategies to decarbonise and meet critical climate targets.
Do you want to learn more about Scope 3 emissions, corporate carbon accounting, and the role you can play in reducing emissions? Check out our website here or reach out to us at info@cityscience.com.