Executive summary

The Beyond Commitments research report assesses the capital allocation practices of 26 high-emitting companies against the IGCC Capital Allocation Alignment Framework. This structured evaluation determines whether corporate financial architecture is aligned with stated net-zero commitments. The cohort achieved a mean score of 11.4 out of 21, indicating that the typical issuer sits within the medium alignment band. Only four companies, across the energy, aviation, and steel sectors, achieved high alignment. A significant 1.0-point strategy-sourcing gap exists between climate strategy (Principle 2) and capital sourcing (Principle 1). Key findings indicate that corporate ambition often outpaces architecture, and fossil fuel phase-down remains the most polarised area of performance.

Introduction

Transitioning to net zero requires more than corporate commitments; it demands a fundamental realignment of how companies source, manage, and deploy capital. While most large emitters have published emissions-reduction targets, investors have limited tools to assess if these are translated into concrete financial decisions like capital expenditure and financing structures. This assessment, prepared by Canbury Insights, evaluates 26 high-emitting companies across seven principles and four pillars. The cohort includes CA100+ focus companies and additional New Zealand issuers from sectors such as energy, mining, oil and gas, steel, chemicals, transport, and retail across Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas.

The framework

The assessment utilizes the IGCC Capital Allocation Alignment Framework, published in July 2025, which spans the full lifecycle of corporate capital. It is organized into four pillars: Pillar I (Sourcing) covers capital instruments (P1); Pillar II (Management) includes climate strategy (P2), allocation mechanics (P3), and disclosure (P4); Pillar III (Deployment) focuses on fossil fuel phase-down (P5) and transition investment (P6); and Pillar IV (Enabling) addresses advocacy and engagement (P7).

Thematic findings

The cohort generally demonstrates a tendency to plan well but finance slowly. Principle 2 (Climate Strategy) is the strongest area, with an 88% high alignment rate due to near-universal target setting and governance. In contrast, Principle 1 (Capital Instruments) is the weakest, with 65% of companies showing low alignment as most issuers lack established green finance frameworks. Disclosure (P4) is improving, with 50% achieving high alignment, driven by the adoption of ASRS and ISSB standards. Fossil fuel phase-down (P5) is highly polarised, with energy transition leaders moving ahead while the oil and gas sector trails. Transition investment (P6) is a relative strength, with a mean score of 1.9, though aggregate transition capex reporting remains rare. Regionally, European companies lead with a mean score of 14.0, followed by Australia (11.8), New Zealand (9.4), and the Americas (8.6).

Sector breakdown

Energy and utilities lead the cohort with a 14.5 mean score, with leading issuers scoring above 16.0. Mining and resources follow with a mean of 12.2, though performance is uneven. Steel and industrials average 11.8, with European leaders distinguished by hydrogen-direct reduction investment. The chemicals sector (10.6) shows strength in advocacy for green ammonia. The transport sector (10.1) exhibits the widest range in the cohort (7.1 to 14.8), with aviation issuers noted for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) commitments. Oil and gas (10.3) trails despite strong strategy scores, as none have established green finance frameworks. Retail and consumer (9.6) recorded the lowest average, including the lowest-scoring issuer (6.1) in the cohort.

Engagement brief

The report provides priority engagement questions to support investor stewardship. Regarding capital sourcing, investors should ask if companies have published sustainable finance frameworks and what proportion of debt is climate-linked. For strategy and mechanics, inquiries should focus on forward capital expenditure commitments and how climate performance is integrated into executive remuneration. Deployment questions include the trajectory of fossil fuel capital expenditure and the scale of transition investment relative to emissions profiles. Finally, advocacy engagement should assess whether direct lobbying and trade association positions align with Paris Agreement goals.

Methodology

The assessment is based on public disclosures as at 31 March 2026, including annual reports, transition plans, and sustainability reports. Each issuer is scored from 0 to 3 across seven principles, where 3 represents high alignment. The analysis was AI-assisted using Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) to extract and score evidence, followed by iterative human review by Canbury analysts to ensure consistency and verify source citations.