FERROVIAL | Climate Strategy Report for the financial year 2025
How other organisations have declared their voting intentions
| Organisation name | Declared voting intentions | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Ircantec | Abstain | We would first like to highlight that Ferrovial has made notable progress in structuring and enhancing the transparency of its climate strategy. The company now has targets validated by the SBTi as aligned with a 1.5°C pathway by 2030 for Scopes 1 and 2, and by 2050 for all scopes, which represents significant progress. It has also improved the quantification of contributions from each decarbonization lever, providing greater visibility into its action plans by 2030. We also note that several intermediate targets have been met, and the company demonstrates positive momentum, reflecting encouraging progress. However, several significant limitations remain and justify an abstention in the vote. First, the reporting scope remains incomplete, particularly the exclusion of emissions related to the use of sold products (Scope 3, Category 11), which nonetheless represent a substantial and material share of Ferrovial’s activities (airports, highways). Furthermore, the company presents no actions aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of its clients, despite the structural role its infrastructure plays in their emissions. These omissions undermine the overall credibility of the climate plan. Another point of concern is the complete lack of a post-2030 perspective. While targets and levers are relatively well described up to 2030, no information is provided on the steps necessary to achieve the 90% emissions reduction by 2050, despite SBTi validation. This absence of a long-term vision makes it difficult to assess the actual decarbonization trajectory. We also note a marked decline in Taxonomy alignment, with aligned CAPEX dropping from 35.6% to 28.5% without explanation, while certain previously stated targets, such as achieving 80% aligned CAPEX by 2025, have been withdrawn. The inconsistencies observed between different sections of the integrated report reinforce the impression of a lack of clarity regarding investments truly dedicated to the transition. The executive remuneration mechanisms also present significant limitations: climate-related criteria are too lightly weighted and heavily diluted, with no clear specification of the emissions scope concerned. This does not ensure a sufficiently robust incentive to accelerate emissions reductions. Finally, the business model remains largely centered on highly emissive activities, such as airports and highways, without a transformation or diversification plan toward low-carbon models. Similarly, engagement with suppliers and clients remains insufficient: no structured strategy is presented to demand emissions reductions across the value chain, even though these levers are critical for Scope 3. In conclusion, despite real and significant progress, the limitations regarding the scope of emissions, long-term strategy, investment alignment, business model transformation, and value chain engagement lead us to adopt an abstention position. This vote is intended to be constructive and aims to encourage Ferrovial to strengthen its level of ambition and transparency to better align its trajectory with investor expectations and the requirements of a transition compatible with a 1.5°C scenario. |
DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.
Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.
Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.