First Solar

First Solar has set science-based targets to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 95% and its scope 3 emissions intensity by 97% by 2050, compared to 2020. First Solar targets have been validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as consistent with a 1.5°C pathway.

No leading practices were identified for this company.

No leading practices were identified for this company.

No leading practices were identified for this company.

First Solar has set a long-term decarbonisation target, but it lacks sufficient intermediate targets. Setting regularly spaced intermediate targets will help the company incentivise near-term actions on its longer-term goals. The company’s absolute emissions have increased during the period 2017-2022, and though there has been a reduction in the company’s emissions intensity during the same period, the gains in efficiency do not compensate for the increase in production. The company has a comprehensive low-carbon transition plan, but it does not include targets for absolute scope 3 emissions. To ensure alignment with a 1.5°C pathway, the company should set targets covering the majority of its emissions.

The company demonstrates climate change and low-carbon transition expertise. However, the relationship between the company’s management structure and the identified climate change and transition experts is not evident. First Solar can improve its performance in this area by demonstrating how this expertise within the company is closely related to its strategic decision-making.

First Solar reports investing in research and development (R&D) of renewables. However, the company does not disclose information about the specific low-carbon processes it is focusing on, which makes it difficult to define the low-carbon maturity levels of the technologies it is working towards. The company does not report any patents for low-carbon activities or technologies between 2017 and 2022.

Although First Solar has started engaging with its suppliers, it needs to be consistent in translating its implemented supplier engagement strategy into concrete actions in order to drive significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction. Furthermore, First Solar can emphasise the credibility of its policy engagement by publishing how it collaborates with and supports local authorities to help them reduce their emissions.

First Solar is committed to achieving net zero for all its emissions by 2050. These commitments have been validated by the SBTi as being aligned with a 1.5°C scenario.

First Solar lacks a formal transition plan, but the company has addressed various aspects of the low-carbon transition. Nevertheless, it can strengthen its efforts by detailing a plan that lays out short-term and long-term actions alongside its financial commitments to support its transition.

First Solar is the largest US-based solar panel manufacturer. The company innovates in its design of solar panels keeping sustainability in mind. Currently, First Solar modules have a recycling rate of around 90% with the company expecting the close the loop in the near future. Additionally, First Solar also stands out with its sourcing strategy that looks to enable suppliers geographically close to manufacturing locations to reduce transportation costs and emissions.

First Solar has reduced its emissions intensity for its operational emissions. However, the company has seen an increase in its absolute emissions for the period 2017-2022.

First Solar has a consistent transition plan that states clear targets with both mid-term and long-term, achievable goals. However, the company does have to address the risk associated with reducing its absolute emissions while increasing its production to meet the demand for solar panels.

No evidence was found of the company’s commitment to social dialogue or of the categories of stakeholders the company engages with on a just transition. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s ongoing social dialogue and meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders. No evidence was found of the company undertaking low-carbon transition planning to mitigate the social impacts of the transition on workers, affected stakeholders and its business relationships. Additionally, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s engagement in social dialogue and with stakeholders in its just transition planning.

No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to create and support access to green and decent jobs as part of the low-carbon transition. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company’s action to promote these jobs in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups. Additionally, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s assessment of employment dislocation risks. No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to re-skill and up-skill workers displaced by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company reskills and upskills workers in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups.

No relevant disclosure was found to show if the company identifies impacts of the low-carbon transition on social protection for workers and affected stakeholders, nor how it contributes to social protection. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company expects its business relationships to contribute to the social protection of their workers and affected stakeholders. No relevant disclosure was found to show how the company identifies any misalignment of its lobbying activities with policies and regulations that support the just transition, nor of the measures it takes to address misalignment. Furthermore, no evidence was found that the company lobbies for policies and regulations for green and decent job creation; retention, education and reskilling; and social protection for workers.

The company commits to respecting human rights. However, no evidence that the company commits to respecting the ILO fundamental rights at work, nor does it expect its business relationships to respect the same commitment. No evidence was found of the company’s process to identify, assess and mitigate salient human rights risks in its own operations and supply chain. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company disclosing the stakeholders whose human rights have been affected by its activities. The company does, however, have a grievance mechanism available to workers and external stakeholders.

While the company expects its business relationships to respect the health and safety of its workers, no evidence that the company itself demonstrates the same commitment. No evidence was found of a time-bound target for paying all workers a living wage. While the company discloses the proportion of its direct workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s required working hours. The company discloses some indicators of workforce diversity, including the age, gender and race/ethnicity of its workforce by employee category. However, no relevant disclosure was found of additional indicators of workforce diversity. Furthermore, no evidence was found that the company commits to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The company commits to protecting personal data. However, no evidence was found of a privacy statement regarding the collection, sharing and access to personal data. Moreover, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s global tax strategy and the corporate income tax paid for each relevant jurisdiction. The company does have a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption, and it includes corresponding clauses in its contracts with business relationships. However, no evidence that the company has a lobbying and political engagement policy, nor does it specify that it does not make political contributions. No relevant disclosure was found of the company’s expenditure on lobbying activities.