Aena SME S.A. | 2025 Updated Report on the Climate Action Plan
How other organisations have declared their voting intentions
| Organisation name | Declared voting intentions | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Ircantec | Against | Aena has a robust and formalized climate governance framework, based on a climate action plan approved at the General Assembly, regular monitoring by the Board of Directors, and the existence of a committee specifically dedicated to sustainability and climate action. This system is complemented by frequent and structured reporting to shareholders, enhancing the group's transparency and accountability regarding its climate commitments. In terms of Scopes 1 and 2, the stated trajectory appears ambitious and generally credible. Aena thus commits to reducing its absolute emissions by 82% by 2026 compared to the 2019 reference year, achieving operational carbon neutrality as early as 2026 through a combination of reductions and offsets, and reaching a 94% reduction in emissions per passenger by 2030. These targets are supported by a relatively significant level of investment, estimated at €550 million over the 2021-2030 period, and by the validation of decarbonization targets at various deadlines by the SBTi. All of this helps to lend credibility to the trajectory for the scopes directly controlled by the company. The action plan also relies on concrete and identified industrial levers, including the large-scale deployment of photovoltaic capacity, the use of geothermal energy and biogas, the progressive electrification of fleets, the continuous improvement of energy efficiency in infrastructure, and the digitalization of airport operations. The goal of achieving ACA (Airport Carbon Accreditation) Level 4+ for 19 airports is also a positive signal of climate maturity and operational credibility, as this level is one of the most demanding in the ACA framework and requires a trajectory aligned with international climate goals for controlled emissions. Finally, climate objectives are integrated into the variable remuneration criteria for management, including at the highest hierarchical levels, which strengthens internal strategic alignment and effective incentives for implementing the transition plan. Despite these advances, Aena’s climate plan presents several structural limitations that call for caution in assessing its overall ambition. The main point of concern relates to Scope 3, which remains largely dominant in the overall carbon footprint of the airport model. Emissions associated with aviation activity continue on a historically upward trend, while the scope adopted by Aena excludes emissions generated during the cruise phase of flights, which account for approximately 73% of total emissions over the flight cycle. While this approach is consistent with the role and direct responsibility of an airport operator, it reduces the overall and systemic climate impact of the plan. Furthermore, the quantified targets for Scope 3 appear incomplete, heterogeneous, and insufficiently managed. Aena does not communicate a clear intermediate trajectory between 2030 and 2050 covering all geographic areas and the value chain. Recent data show an increase in GHG emissions since 2023, particularly for Scope 3. Additionally, the commitment that 67% of customers, in terms of emissions related to the use of sold products, will have science-based targets by 2028 is not accompanied by explicit operational monitoring. Efforts also appear more detailed and structured in Spain than in the United Kingdom or Brazil (where overall emissions are increasing compared to 2019), and the lack of a sufficiently ambitious plan for reducing Scope 3 emissions highlights a strong dependence on the voluntary commitments of airlines. In this context, the key lever of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) is weakly mobilized in the short and medium term. The stated targets, 2.6% by 2026 and 4.6% by 2030, are considered insufficient given the significant decarbonization potential of this lever and the expected trajectories for a transition aligned with international climate goals. Finally, the share of CAPEX aligned with the European taxonomy remains moderate, at around 32%, although it is increasing compared to 2024. However, CAPEX is the main lever for long-term structural transformation. This level of alignment limits the climate plan’s ability to send a strong and credible transition signal to investors, particularly in a context of persistent increases in Scope 3 emissions. In light of these elements, and despite real progress on Scopes 1 and 2 and in climate governance, the structural weaknesses of the plan regarding Scope 3, the insufficiency of systemic decarbonization levers, and the lack of demonstrated alignment with a 1.5°C-compatible trajectory lead to the conclusion that Aena’s Say on Climate does not fully meet expectations in terms of overall climate credibility and ambition. Furthermore, the financial resources allocated to achieving Aena’s SBTi/climate plan targets lack granularity to measure the actual level of investment in meeting the various objectives. The increase in absolute emissions and the lack of data on the evolution of GHG intensity reinforce this doubt. |
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.