Aeroflot

Aeroflot did not publish its emissions reduction targets in its reports. However, the company disclosed to CDP that it aims to reduce its scope 1 emissions intensity by 50% by 2050 compared to 2005 . The target is not aligned with the company’s 1.5°C pathway and includes an unknown amount of offsets which reduces the emphasis on direct action. The company needs to decrease its emissions intensity annually by 1.2 % from passenger operations and by 4.3% from its freight operations. To demonstrate commitment to the low-carbon transition, the company should set long-term as well as regularly spaced intermediate targets aligned with its 1.5°C pathway.

Aeroflot’s oversight and management of climate-related issues and fuel efficiency activities are held by Deputy General Director – Flight Ops Director and by the Head of the Quality Management Department . No evidence of significant low-carbon transition expertise at this level of the company was found. There is no evidence that the company has a low-carbon transition plan, or that it uses climate scenario analysis in its business plans. The company should implement board-level oversight of climate issues and develop a robust transition plan, with clear financial commitments, that outlines how it will transition to the low-carbon economy in the long-term.

Aeroflot’s Innovative Development Programme (IDP) focuses on flight safety improvements, import substitution, IT security solutions and energy efficiency improvement. The company’s Digital Transformation Strategy covers operational efficiency and environmental performance improvements but none of the digital projects were directly aimed at GHG emissions reduction. Aeroflot should make public its investments in research and development (R&D) into new technologies and make clear financial commitments. The company should ensure that a significant proportion of its R&D investment is in low-carbon vehicles and fuel development.

Aeroflot’s reputation has been damaged by several incidents of violation of international regulations, arrests and imprisonment of senior members of Aeroflot’s management team and suspension of most of its international flights following Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. The uncertainty about the fleet’s modernisation and maintenance (due to sanctions) along with major changes in the management team is likely to completely undermine all efficiency improvement programmes the company was implementing.

Aeroflot set a target to reduce its scope 1 emissions intensity by 50% by 2050 compared to 2005. It is uncertain what percentage of the target will be achieved through offsets. The target is not published in company reports or on the corporate website and was only disclosed to CDP.

Aeroflot does not publish a transition plan and it is not clear how it is planning to achieve its target. The company’s focus was on fleet renewal to increase its fuel efficiency, but this strategy is currently at risk. The company is supporting the development of a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) market in Russia.

In 2021 Aeroflot added a few new aircraft to its fleet and co-founded Sustainable Aviation Fuel Alliance which aims to promote SAF production and use in the Russian market. Several fuel-saving measures have been implemented.

Aeroflot failed to decrease its emissions intensity between 2016 and 2019 before a significant increase in 2020 related to COVID-19. Between 2015 and 2020, Aeroflot’s cumulative emissions from its freight operations exceeded its carbon budget by 30%.

Aeroflot’s emissions reduction target by 2050 is not supported by a comprehensive transition plan or intermediate targets. The company is just beginning to focus on SAF and no financial commitments toward decarbonisation have been made. Fleet modernisation and maintenance are at severe risk.

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 or engagement with stakeholders in its just transition planning.

The company discloses the actions it takes to offer career advancement opportunities for existing employees, and it discloses the direct and indirect jobs created through its activities. It also discloses the measures it takes to ensure that these jobs embed equality of opportunity for women and vulnerable groups. In particular, it aims to increase the number of female pilots recruited and it offers job opportunities for people with disabilities. However, no evidence was found of the company committing to create and support access to green and decent jobs as part of the low-carbon transition. Furthermore, 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 reskill and upskill 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.

No evidence was found of a company commitment to respecting human rights or all of the ILO fundamental rights at work. Furthermore, the company can strengthen its disclosure on its human rights due diligence process and engagement with affected stakeholders.

The company discloses the proportion of its direct workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements and some indicators of workforce diversity, including the age and gender of its workforce by employee category. Additionally, it discloses that workers are paid at a premium rate for overtime work. However, the company can increase disclosure on these subjects. Furthermore, no evidence was found of a company policy commitment to worker health and safety or a public commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

While the company has a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption, no evidence was found of corresponding clauses in its contracts with business relationships. Furthermore, the company can strengthen its disclosure regarding its protection of personal data, its global tax strategy and its lobbying and political engagement policy.