供应链中的深度脱碳和浅层脱碳

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry analyzed Core Insights - The paper examines how suppliers adjust their decarbonization strategies in response to validated emission-reduction targets set by major customers, revealing that downstream climate pressure leads to both real and symbolic responses among suppliers [5][12][14] - High-emission suppliers tend to make substantial operational adjustments, reducing their emission intensity, while low-emission suppliers primarily increase their reliance on carbon offsets, often from lower-quality projects [19][21][22] Summary by Sections Introduction - The increasing adoption of climate commitments by large corporations necessitates suppliers to disclose emissions and adopt climate policies, yet the response of suppliers to such pressures remains unclear [12][13] Findings - Suppliers whose customers obtain Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) approval are more likely to adopt their own climate targets, with an average reduction in emission intensity of 8.8% following customer target approval [15][62] - The use of carbon offsets increases significantly among suppliers after customer SBTi approval, with a 159% rise in offset intensity relative to industry peers [16][63] - High-emission suppliers show a 15% reduction in total emissions and a 19% decline in emission intensity, while low-emission suppliers exhibit a 267% increase in offset intensity without reducing total emissions [72][73] Offset Quality - Suppliers facing downstream pressure tend to retire lower-quality offsets, indicating a preference for quantity over quality in their compliance strategies [80] - Firms engaging in genuine emissions reductions tend to select higher-quality offsets, suggesting a distinction between symbolic compliance and substantive operational changes [80] Customer Target Announcements - Customer announcements of climate commitments, even without validation, lead to limited supplier responses, primarily resulting in symbolic adjustments rather than meaningful operational changes [85][89]