ANA Holdings (All Nippon Airways)

ANA has several initiatives that encourage its customers to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ANA’s Carbon Offset Programme was launched in 2009 for domestic flights and has been offered for international flights since 2017. ANA’s SAF Flight Initiative allows four major Japanese freight forwarders and major trading companies that use ANA for business travel and transportation to reduce their emissions through increased use of SAF. The company is planning to expand the programme to other customers as well.

ANA aims to reduce its scope 1 emissions below its 2019 level by 2030. However, the target is not ambitious enough to help the company decarbonise by 2050. ANA has also set a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The company plans to offset about 10% of its emissions to achieve its net-zero target. ANA’s target setting is not comprehensive enough to hold management to account for short, medium and long-term action to reduce emissions. The company should set regularly spaced intermediate targets to incentivise near-term actions on its longer-term goals.

ANA’s emissions intensity increased between 2016 and 2020; the historical annual change was about 3%. This trend was not aligned with the company’s 1.5°C pathway. Between 2016 and 2020, ANA’s cumulative emissions from its operations exceeded its 1.5°C carbon budget by 50%. To align with its 1.5°C pathway, the company needs to achieve a 4% annual decrease in scope 1 emissions intensity between 2020 and 2025.

ANA Research Institute participates in several research and development (R&D) projects and industry-government-academia collaborative research groups. The company does not disclose details around its research programmes. Neither does it disclose what proportion of its R&D expenditure is invested in low-carbon vehicles and energies. ANA should be more transparent about its R&D projects and their decarbonisation potential. The company should make strong commitments to continue to invest in innovation . This is critical as its emissions reduction plan relies on new technologies to a large extent.

ANA reviews all engagements with trade associations at the Group ESG Management Promotion Conference, which is held four times a year. However, the company does not make public its policy on trade association management. The company’s CEO is on the board of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). This membership undermines the company’s positive climate advocacy as IATA has actively opposed numerous measures to decarbonise aviation. The company can improve its credibility by implementing a transparent process to withdraw from trade associations that oppose positive climate policies.

ANA has set a near-term target to reduce its scope 1 emissions to below its 2019 level by 2030 . The company also aims to achieve net-zero emissions from aircraft operations and all non-aircraft operations by 2050 . It has submitted its 2050 target and an interim 2030 target to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

To achieve its goals, the company plans to increase the use of SAF, adopt new technologies, improve flight operations efficiency and use carbon offsets through projects and CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation).

ANA is upgrading its current fleet with more energy-efficient aircraft. Additionally, the company is working together with the public and private sectors to build a supply chain for manufacturing SAF. The company’s financial investment and level of commitment towards SAF purchase agreements is not publicly available.

ANA failed to decrease its emissions intensity between 2016 and 2019 and, in fact, had a significant increase in emissions intensity in 2020 due to COVID-19. Between 2016 and 2020, ANA’s cumulative emissions from its operations exceeded its 1.5°C carbon budget by nearly 50%.

ANA’s transition plan is weak. While it will lead to energy efficiency improvements and emissions reduction, it will not help the company achieve its net-zero goal. The plan lacks ambitious targets, financial details and commitments to increase the use of SAF and invest in R&D for low-carbon technology.

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.

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 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.

The company discloses a human rights due diligence process that includes the identification and assessment of salient human rights risks, such as the rights of migrant workers and protection against human trafficking. The company takes action to mitigate these risks in its own operations and supply chain, and it engages with affected stakeholders. Additionally, the company has a grievance mechanism available to workers for reporting human rights concerns. However, no relevant disclosure was found of a grievance mechanism available to all external stakeholders. Furthermore, the company’s human rights policy does not disclose a statement of commitment to respect human rights and the ILO fundamental rights at work.

The company commits to worker health and safety and monitors the health and safety of suppliers. The company also commits to gender equality as a signatory to the UN Women’s Empowerment Principles, and it discloses some information on its working hours practices and workforce diversity fundamentals. However, the company can strengthen its disclosure on these subjects, as well as on its living wage and collective bargaining practices.

The company discloses its global tax strategy and executive-level accountability for the strategy. However, no evidence was found of the company having a public commitment to protect personal data or a privacy statement regarding the collection, sharing and access to personal data. Similarly, no policy statements were found to show the company’s stand against bribery and corruption or its approach to lobbying and political engagement.