Assessing and Validating Corporate Climate Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches and Methodologies

Independent assessments of corporate climate strategies offer valuable insights for investors, civil society organisations, researchers and other stakeholders. However, inconsistencies in assessment outcomes for the same companies’ climate strategies raises questions on differences of independent assessment initiatives methodologies. This article addresses this gap by analysing the methodological design choices of ten recurring, sector-agnostic assessment initiatives with publicly available methodologies and results. This includes the Science-based Targets initiative (SBTi), the Transition Pathways Initiative, World Benchmarking Alliance and the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor. We systematically coded each initiative’s overall assessment design, and the criteria for evaluating companies' climate strategies,. To illustrate the differences, we compare the assessment outcomes for a company. Our findings reveal heterogeneity in key assessment parameters, notably in criteria coverage, weighting and assessment approach (disclosure, non-contextualised and contextualised assessments). These differences reflect trade-offs in breadth, depth, and frequency of analysis, as well as varying decisions on what criteria signify robust climate action. Currently, no initiative provides comprehensive, in-depth and consistently up-to-date assessments for a large number of companies. Composite assessments, which integrate multiple assessments as sources, are emerging as an approach to addressing gaps in criteria coverage. Among validations, SBTi stands out as the only initiative. This article recommends assessment users to critically interpret them in the context of their design, as each serves a distinct purpose, with unique strengths and limitations. Additionally, it highlights the potential for the role of regulatory support in advancing large-scale assessments and validations based on good-practice methodologies to strengthen corporate climate evaluations.