5 Key Findings from Benchmarking Climate Transition Plans

Corporate climate transition plans are becoming more visible, structured, and sophisticated. Yet a clear gap remains between stating a climate ambition and demonstrating how that ambition will be delivered, financed, and governed.

What Makes a Credible Climate Transition Plan?

Corporate climate transition plans are becoming more visible, structured and sophisticated. Yet a clear gap remains between stating a climate ambition and demonstrating how that ambition will be delivered, financed and governed.

To examine how companies are addressing this challenge, we reviewed the latest publicly available reporting of ten large-cap European companies. The analysis assessed alignment with the transition-plan disclosures in ESRS E1-1, the clarity and accessibility of the information presented, and relevant climate disclosures extending beyond the specific ESRS E1-1 requirements. The sample provides an indicative view of emerging practice but should not be read as a representative assessment of the European market.

Five Findings from Climate Transition Plan Benchmarking

Five findings stand out:

1. Climate ambition is well established. Targets were widely disclosed, often externally validated and linked to strategy.
2. Decarbonisation levers lack measurable pathways. Few companies quantified their contribution or sequencing.
3. Financial planning is the largest gap. Costs, funding and links to specific actions were often unclear.
4. Locked-in emissions are rarely assessed. Few companies examined their implications for targets and transition risk.
5. Presentation affects decision-usefulness. Fragmented disclosures obscured the complete transition story.

What the Benchmark Reveals About Climate Transition Plans

Taken together, the findings show that the next stage of transition planning is less about announcing ambition and more about demonstrating a credible, financially grounded route to delivery. The sections that follow examine each finding and the practices that distinguish more developed plans.

Table 1. Which ESRS E1-1 disclosure requirements were most commonly reported by the sample companies?

1. Climate Ambition Is Well Established

Climate ambition and target-setting were the strongest areas across the sample. Nearly all companies disclosed near-term and net-zero targets, most of which had been validated by the Science Based Targets initiative. Targets were also commonly linked to corporate strategy and decision-making.

The more developed disclosures went further by explaining alignment with a 1.5°C pathway, setting out transparent emissions-reduction trajectories and showing how climate objectives influence planning, governance and resource allocation. This helps demonstrate that climate ambition is embedded in the operating model rather than presented as a standalone commitment.

2. Decarbonisation Levers Lack Measurable Pathways

Most companies identified relevant decarbonisation levers, including electrification, energy efficiency, renewable energy procurement, alternative fuels and supplier engagement. The stronger plans tailored these measures to the company’s operations, products and value chain.

However, few quantified the expected emissions reduction from each lever or explained how actions would be sequenced. Without this information, readers cannot readily assess whether the measures add up to the stated targets. A decision-useful pathway should connect each lever to its expected contribution, timing, capital needs, milestones and dependencies.

3. Financial Planning Remains the Biggest Gap

Financial planning was the most persistent weakness across the sample. Few companies clearly quantified the capital and operating expenditure required, linked spending to specific actions or explained funding sources, investment periods and approval status. Connections with EU Taxonomy-aligned expenditure were also often incomplete.

This makes it difficult to determine whether a plan is financially grounded. More developed disclosures show how much investment is required, which actions it supports, when it will occur, how it will be financed and which approvals or external conditions remain outstanding.

4. Locked-In Emissions Are Rarely Assessed

Most companies provided little company-specific analysis of the future emissions associated with existing assets and products. Few quantified this exposure or considered whether it could impede target achievement or increase transition risk.

A useful assessment should identify the relevant assets and products, estimate the potential exposure and explain how it will be managed. Companies may reasonably reach different conclusions; credibility depends on demonstrating that the issue has been assessed using company-specific evidence.

5. Presentation Affects Decision-Usefulness

Even strong climate information loses value when it is fragmented across a lengthy report. Many companies performed well on basic findability, structure and navigation, but financial information, governance, assumptions and progress were often dispersed. This forced readers to assemble the transition story themselves.

Table 2. What we looked at: Can a reasonable reader quickly understand ambition, credibility, implementation, resourcing and progress?

What Makes a Credible Climate Transition Plan?

While many organizations have established the foundations of climate transition planning, the benchmark reveals meaningful differences in how plans translate ambition into action. Across the sample, transition plans, climate targets, key decarbonisation actions and progress reporting were widely disclosed. Board approval and EU Taxonomy alignment were less consistent, while actual plan-related expenditure and the implications of locked-in emissions were rarely addressed.

The next step is therefore not simply to disclose more, but to connect ambition with execution. A credible plan should quantify the contribution of key decarbonisation levers, link actions to approved financial resources, assess locked-in emissions and make governance, assumptions, dependencies and progress easy to follow.

This also matters beyond corporate reporting. As environmental claims face increased scrutiny, climate transition plans can provide an important evidence base for substantiating future-facing claims used in business-to-consumer communications. Under the EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition rules, such claims must be supported by clear, objective and verifiable commitments set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan, including the resources allocated to delivery. A credible transition plan can support that substantiation, although it does not by itself establish that a specific claim is compliant.

For the companies reviewed, the central challenge is to move from a stated climate ambition to a coherent, financially grounded and accountable implementation roadmap. Plans that bring these elements together will give readers a clearer basis for assessing whether the transition is credible and capable of delivery. Ultimately, the next phase of transition planning is less about defining where an organization wants to go and more about demonstrating how it intends to get there.

See how ISS-Corporate supports organizations throughout the climate transition planning process »