Shares of the company rose more than 1% in premarket trading.

Here’s what the company reported compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by Refinitiv:

• Earnings per share: $1.67 adjusted vs. $1.65 expected
• Revenue: $28 billion vs. $26.84 billion expected

The food and beverage giant reported fourth-quarter net income of $518 million, or 37 cents per share, down from $1.32 billion, or 95 cents per share, a year earlier.

Excluding gains from selling its juice business, write-downs of its Russian assets and other items, Pepsi earned $1.67 per share.

Net sales rose 10.9% to $28 billion. The company’s organic revenue, which strips out the impact of acquisitions and divestitures, climbed 14.6% in the quarter.

But Pepsi saw volume fall 2% across its food business worldwide as price hikes hurt consumer demand.

Looking to 2023, Pepsi is projecting a 6% increase in organic revenue and 8% growth in its core constant currency earnings per share. Wall Street is anticipating net sales growth of 3.5% and earnings per share growth of 7.3%.

Read the full PepsiCo earnings report here.

Environmental law firm ClientEarth, in its capacity as a shareholder, filed the lawsuit against the British oil major’s board at the high court of England and Wales on Thursday.

It alleges 11 members of Shell’s board are mismanaging climate risk, breaching company law by failing to implement an energy transition strategy that aligns with the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement.

The claim, which has the backing of institutional investors with over 12 million shares in the company, is said to be the first case in the world seeking to hold a board of directors liable for failure to properly prepare for the energy transition.

“Shell may be making record profits now due to the turmoil of the global energy market, but the writing is on the wall for fossil fuels long term,” Paul Benson, senior lawyer at ClientEarth, said in a statement.

“The shift to a low-carbon economy is not just inevitable, it’s already happening. Yet the Board is persisting with a transition strategy that is fundamentally flawed, leaving the company seriously exposed to the risks that climate change poses to Shell’s future success — despite the Board’s legal duty to manage those risks,” Benson said.

The group of investors supporting the claim include U.K. pension funds Nest and London CIV, Swedish national pension fund AP3, French asset manager Sanso IS and Danske Bank Asset Management, among others. Altogether, the institutional investors hold more than half a trillion U.S. dollars in total assets under management.

“We do not accept ClientEarth’s allegations,” a Shell spokesperson said. “Our directors have complied with their legal duties and have, at all times, acted in the best interests of the company.”

“ClientEarth’s attempt, by means of a derivative claim, to overturn the board’s policy as approved by our shareholders has no merit. We will oppose their application to obtain the court’s permission to pursue this claim,” they added.

Shell, which is aiming to become a net-zero emissions business by 2050, said it believes its climate targets are Paris-aligned.

ClientEarth said leading third-party assessments have suggested this is not the case, however, noting Shell’s strategy excludes short to medium-term targets to cut the emissions from the products it sells, known as Scope 3 emissions, despite this accounting for over 90% of the firm’s overall emissions.

The aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement is to pursue efforts to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by slashing greenhouse gas emissions. The fight to keep global heating under 1.5 degrees Celsius is widely regarded as critically important because so-called tipping points become more likely beyond this level. These are thresholds at which small changes can lead to dramatic shifts in the Earth’s entire support system.

To be sure, the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, is the chief driver of the climate emergency.

Nine hours apart and measuring a magnitude of 7.8 in Turkey and 7.5 in Syria on the Richter scale, the quakes were the region’s strongest in nearly a century.

At the time of writing, the death toll from the quakes is more than 12,000, with many still missing and critically injured. The World Health Organization put the number of people affected by the disaster at 23 million. At least 6,000 buildings collapsed, many with residents still inside them. Rescue efforts continue to be the top priority, with some 25,000 deployed in Turkey and thousands more sent in from overseas — but a bitter winter storm now threatens the lives of the survivors and of those still trapped under rubble.

Syria, ravaged by 12 years of war and terrorism, is the least prepared to deal with such a crisis. Its infrastructure is heavily depleted, and the country remains under Western sanctions. Thousands of those in the affected areas are already refugees or internally displaced people.

With the dust of the catastrophe still settling, regional analysts are zoning in on the longer-term rippling effect that the catastrophe could have on Turkey, a country whose 85 million-strong population was already mired in economic problems — and whose military, economy, and politics have a major impact far beyond its borders.

Turkey’s economic decline has been fueled by a combination of high global energy prices, the Covid-19 pandemic and war in Ukraine, and, predominantly, by economic policies directed by Erdogan that have suppressed interest rates despite soaring inflation, sending the Turkish lira to a record low against the dollar. Turkey’s FX reserves have dropped sharply in recent years, and Ankara’s current account deficit has ballooned.

The Turkish lira lost nearly 30% of its value against the dollar in the last year, severely damaging Turks’ purchasing power and hurting Erdogan’s popularity.

Turkey’s opposition parties have not yet put forth their candidate. The strongest potential challenger, Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, was arrested and slapped with a political ban in December over charges his allies say are politically motivated and used solely to prevent him from running for president.

Investors in recent years have been pulling their money out of Turkey in droves. One major emerging markets guru, Mark Mobius of Mobius Capital Partners LLP, remains bullish despite the earthquake disaster and economic problems.

“When it comes to investing in Turkey, we still believe it’s a viable place to invest,” Mobius said. “In fact, we do have investments there. The reason is the Turks are so flexible, so able to adjust to all these disasters and problems … even with high inflation that with a very weak Turkish Lira … So it doesn’t scare us at all to invest in Turkey.”

Mobius did note the glaring issue of Turkey’s earthquake preparation, which may soon come to haunt Erdogan’s election chances.

“This is one of the big problems, the building codes in some of these areas are not up to par,” he said.