Honeywell

No leading practices were identified for this company

No leading practices were identified for this company

No leading practices were identified for this company

Honeywell has a publicly available engagement policy, detailed in its Climate and Sustainability Lobbying Report, which governs its relations with trade associations and is applicable to the entire company across all its business areas.

Honeywell commits to reducing its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% and its scope 3 emissions by 23% by 2037 compared to 2019. These targets are validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as aligned with a well-below 2°C ambition, but they fall short of the 1.5°C pathway. The company’s scope 1 and 2 emissions have decreased by 65% in 2022, compared to 2017 levels. However, between 2020 and 2022, the company’s scope 3 emissions – constituting more than 90% of its overall emissions – have been increasing.

Honeywell has a pledge to become “carbon neutral in facilities and operations” by 2035. However, it should establish a time-bound action plan that outlines how it will transition to a low-carbon economy, with verifiable and quantifiable key performance indicators and financial commitments. The company recently initiated two business units: Sustainable Technologies and Solutions and Sustainable Building Technologies, to innovate and invest in “sustainability-focused efforts”.

Honeywell dedicated less than 5% of its overall capital expenditure (CapEx) to low-carbon technologies in 2022, which is well below its expected contribution. The company reports its share of research and development (R&D) investments directed towards “ESG-oriented outcomes”, but it does not detail the low-carbon technologies it focuses on. Honeywell does not show it is making significant efforts to tackle the emissions from its purchased materials, which are reported by the company to constitute the biggest portion of its overall emissions.

Honeywell’s supplier engagement strategy does not include quantified emissions reduction requirements. The company has no major initiatives to drive reductions in the emissions from its purchased products and services. Although Honeywell 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 emissions reduction.

Honeywell has set some near-term and long-term emissions reduction targets, but the ambition of these targets does not align with its 1.5°C pathway. The main way for the company to improve its performance would be committing to reduce its scope 3 emissions in the short term.

Honeywell has implemented a low-carbon transition plan to lower emissions from its own operations, mainly through energy efficiency measures and fleet electrification. It is, however, unclear how Honeywell plans to achieve its scope 3 emissions reduction target.

Honeywell positions itself as a leader for innovative products and solutions serving various industries and enabling their low-carbon transition. The company spent about 60% of its R&D investments in “ESG-oriented offering” between 2019 and 2022, but it does not disclose how much of this investment was dedicated to low-carbon technologies.

The company’s reported scope 1 and 2 emissions show a decrease from 2017 to 2022 aligned with its 1.5°C pathway. In the meanwhile, however, its scope 3 emissions, representing more than 90% of its overall emissions, have increased.

Honeywell has set a clear roadmap to decarbonise its own operations. However, there is no evidence that the company is willing to address the major source of its emissions, namely from purchased materials. Furthermore, it does not as yet quantify the emissions arising from its sold products.

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. The company discloses the actions it takes to provide training opportunities to embed equality of opportunity for women and vulnerable groups. It does this through women’s career advancement program and diversity career advancement program which focus on workplace training and development opportunities. However, no evidence was found of the company having a process for identifying skills gaps for workers and stakeholders affected by the low-carbon transition or a public commitment to help workers displaced by the transition to reskill or upskill.

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. The company lobbies for just transition policies and regulations. It advocates for pro-business policies that create jobs and grow the economy with the membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. However, 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.

No evidence that the company commits to respecting human rights and the ILO fundamental rights at work, nor does it expect its business relationships to respect the ILO fundamental rights at work. While the company describes the process to identify its human rights risks and impacts in its supply chain, no evidence found that the company describes the same process covering its own operations. Furthermore, no evidence was found of the company’s process to assess and mitigate salient human rights risks in its own operations and supply chain. 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.

The company commits to respecting the health and safety of its workers and expects the same commitment of its business relationships. No evidence was found of a time-bound target for paying all workers a living wage. Moreover, no evidence was found that the company discloses the proportion of its direct workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements and the company’s required working hours. The company discloses some indicators of workforce diversity, including the gender and race/ethnicity of its workforce by employee category. However, no relevant disclosure was found of additional indicators of workforce diversity. 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. While the company has a lobbying and political engagement policy, no evidence that it specifies that it does not make political contributions. No relevant disclosure was found of the company’s expenditure on lobbying activities.