发表机构
Yale University; University of Miami; Google（耶鲁大学; 迈阿密大学; 谷歌）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
研究建筑脱碳披露情况，引入多模态大语言模型工具BeDA审计全球公司面板。发现多数披露不适用，存在报告差距，BeDA分数可靠，可监测该差距，为可执行的建筑搁浅法规提供支持，是筛选工具非预测工具。
AI 中文摘要
建筑物约占全球终端能源使用的34%，以及与能源和过程相关的二氧化碳排放的37%。目前正在制定的搁浅法规（纽约市地方法律97号、欧盟建筑物能源绩效指令修订版）预先假定可以按每平方米测量建筑组合的碳强度，并与基于科学的路径进行比较。据我们所知，企业披露是否真的适合这种比较尚未在大规模上进行衡量。我们引入了BeDA（建筑环境脱碳披露审计器），这是一种多模态大语言模型工具，并将其应用于一个全球公司面板（2246家公司，2003 - 2023年）。其合规分数在不同模型和模型家族中是可靠的，并且与三个独立的外部标准趋同。大多数披露不适用：只有约五分之一的建筑环境公司报告披露了每平方米的运营碳强度（在200份公司报告的区域分层样本中为21.5%，威尔逊95%置信区间[16.4%，27.7%]，提取器间κ = 0.95；在519份房地产公司报告中为45.5%，κ = 0.97）。欧洲的这一比例大约是美国的两倍（上市房地产分别为64 - 74%和37%）。在可以构建强度的215份房地产公司报告中，39%已经超过了碳风险房地产监测（CRREM）1.5°C路径的强度极限。一旦控制了投资组合规模，可信度并不能预测搁浅准备情况；这是一种筛选工具，而非预测工具。因此，可执行的建筑搁浅法规的主要障碍是一个可衡量的、特定司法管辖区的报告差距，有针对性的披露指令可以填补这一差距，而BeDA可以对其进行监测。
英文摘要
Cities are beginning to enforce carbon limits on existing buildings. Science-based decarbonisation pathways set those limits one asset type and one jurisdiction at a time. Owners, however, report for the whole firm. We measure what that mismatch costs on two sets of public corporate reports: a census of 502 reports from the 119 listed built-environment firms with a collected report inside a 2,246-firm panel (2003-2023), and 519 real-estate reports from 101 firms (2007-2024). BeDA, a multimodal language-model tool whose reliability we test first, read them. Running the pathway frameworks' own entry tests over published disclosure: 16.5% of census reports (43.7% of real-estate reports) print an operational carbon intensity per square metre; 6.6% (25.0%) can be matched to a pathway for their property type in a covered jurisdiction; and only 5.0% (16.4%) disclose the floor area they divided by. Of the failures at the pathway test, 82-84% follow from reports lumping the portfolio together and 16-18% from a missing curve in the pathway library. The obstacle is the reporting unit, not missing data. The rate is roughly twice as high for European as for US listings (65-71% versus 35% in listed real estate). We also show that a US portfolio's carbon verdict cannot be worked out from disclosure at all. Within one climate zone, the pathway's carbon limit varies by up to 2.79-fold with the electricity subregion, which no report names; its energy limit does not move. Extraction is checked against the source PDFs (97.3% of extracted intensities appear verbatim) and repeats on a second extractor (kappa = 0.97). Recall of the non-disclosing class was 95.1% in a blinded hand audit of 122 reports. The fix follows from the measurement: split intensity by asset type and jurisdiction, and report floor area.
