57
measured the changing frequency of
those terms in 10-Ks over time.
By grouping the terms into catego-
ries, it became evident that words de-
scribing the causes and eff ects of cli-
mate change were regularly used a
decade ago (and have since become
ubiquitous), while those pertaining to
actually addressing the crisis became
the norm only in the past two or three
years. This trend suggests that corpo-
rations previously only acknowledging
climate change are now admitting that
they’ve played a role in causing it.
Take, for instance, what we are
calling the “climate eff ects” group—
including terms like sea levels and
drought—which were already showing
up in 66% of fi lings a decade ago. Cit-
ing these disasters as a business risk, as
they would similarly label the impacts
on their bottom line of, say, a poor
economy or a pandemic, positioned
corporations as victims of—not con-
tributors to—climate change.
Meanwhile, terms that fi t into the
“climate goals” group (like decarbon-
ize, net zero, and carbon-neutral) dou-
bled from 27% to 58% of fi lings, and the
“social responsibility” group (like fair
trade andclosed loop) rose from 17%
of fi lings back then, to 38% in 2021.
A number of “watershed moments”
WILDFIRES
DROUGHTS
EXTREME
WEATHER
HURRICANES
FLOODS
2012 2017 2021
0
50
50%
25
0
75%
25
ENERGY
2021
2017
2012
UTILITIES
57 %
85 %
36 %
20 %
24 %
73 %
44 %
53 %
46 %
20 %
SEA LEVELS
14 %
29 %
HEALTH
CARE
REAL
ESTATE
COMM.
SERVICES
FINANCIALS
44 %
INDUSTRIALS
BIODIVERSITY
6 %
TIMEscouredcorporate
SEC filings dating
back to 2012 to trace
companies’ framing of
the climate crisisBUILDING A
BLUEPRINT
For certain
industries,
the share of
10-K filings
that include
terms related
to measuring
a firm’s
climate impact
has grown
significantly.
It’s a sign that
companies
are finally
assessing ways
to lessen that
impactDISASTERS ON
THE MIND
The percentage
of 10-K filings
that mention
physical
climate
effects has
soared over
the past
decade