Assessing and validating corporate low-carbon transition strategies: A comparative analysis of approaches and methodologies

Assessing and validating corporate low-carbon transition strategies: A comparative analysis of approaches and methodologies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Assessing and validating corporate low-carbon transition strategies: A comparative analysis of approaches and methodologies Saskia Straub, Frederic Hans, Thomas Day, Takeshi Kuramochi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6401862/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Climate Policy → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Independent assessments and validations of corporate low-carbon transition strategies offer valuable insights for investors, governments, and other stakeholders. However, inconsistencies in assessment outcomes for the same companies raise questions about the differences between methodologies. This article addresses this issue by analysing the methodological design choices of ten regularly updated corporate low-carbon transition strategy assessments with publicly available methodologies and results. These include the Science Based Targets initiative and the Transition Pathways Initiative. We developed a framework to assess initiatives’ overall assessment set-up, selection of criteria, and the depth and transparency of criterion-specific assessment. To illustrate the differences, we compare assessment outcomes for a major global company. Our findings reveal heterogeneity in key assessment parameters, notably in component coverage, weighting and the assessment depth and transparency per criterion. Most initiatives assess greenhouse gas mitigation targets, but their assessment depth and transparency vary. Other criteria, such as the companies’ approach to residual emissions, board oversight, and consideration of just transition, were found to be covered by considerably fewer assessments. These methodological differences reflect trade-offs in breadth, depth, and analysis frequency. No single assessment initiative provides comprehensive, in-depth and consistently up-to-date assessments for more than 1000 companies. However, composite assessments, which integrate multiple assessments as sources, are emerging as an approach to addressing gaps in criteria coverage while maintaining the depth of assessment for each criterion. This article recommends that users of assessment outcomes interpret them in the context of their underlying methodology critically, considering their unique purposes, strengths and limitations. Environmental Policy corporate climate performance emissions disclosure ESG ratings Paris Agreement net zero value chain emission reductions Full Text Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterial.docx Supplementary Material Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Climate Policy → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6401862","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":440010798,"identity":"08787814-c675-4fc1-a0e2-3fd9f243cc92","order_by":0,"name":"Saskia Straub","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NewClimate Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Saskia","middleName":"","lastName":"Straub","suffix":""},{"id":440010799,"identity":"78d35ee5-28ac-4800-be7d-613dc6cd29ad","order_by":1,"name":"Frederic Hans","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NewClimate Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frederic","middleName":"","lastName":"Hans","suffix":""},{"id":440010800,"identity":"15ffdfa3-96af-4864-95da-24e6fb9ddf13","order_by":2,"name":"Thomas Day","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NewClimate Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thomas","middleName":"","lastName":"Day","suffix":""},{"id":440010797,"identity":"32cda150-fc50-4fb2-95ce-e9ad755607ae","order_by":3,"name":"Takeshi Kuramochi","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3976-0133","institution":"NewClimate Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Takeshi","middleName":"","lastName":"Kuramochi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-08 09:47:27","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6401862/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6401862/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2026.2637652","type":"published","date":"2026-03-24T00:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":80207991,"identity":"61e44907-f1f9-4d1f-95c3-a29957077f9b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-09 08:19:22","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":159062,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Material\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6401862/v1/0e8b3846bad87eca786b8ee6.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eAssessing and validating corporate low-carbon transition strategies: A comparative analysis of approaches and methodologies\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"03b911f5-9b61-44ad-b3b2-3498246dbf66","identifier":"10.13039/100010661","name":"Horizon 2020 Framework Programme","awardNumber":"101137625 (Horizon Europe: ACHIEVE)","order_by":0}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"NewClimate Institute","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"corporate climate performance, emissions disclosure, ESG ratings, Paris Agreement, net zero, value chain emission reductions","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6401862/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6401862/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIndependent assessments and validations of corporate low-carbon transition strategies offer valuable insights for investors, governments, and other stakeholders. However, inconsistencies in assessment outcomes for the same companies raise questions about the differences between methodologies. This article addresses this issue by analysing the methodological design choices of ten regularly updated corporate low-carbon transition strategy assessments with publicly available methodologies and results. These include the Science Based Targets initiative and the Transition Pathways Initiative. We developed a framework to assess initiatives\u0026rsquo; overall assessment set-up, selection of criteria, and the depth and transparency of criterion-specific assessment. To illustrate the differences, we compare assessment outcomes for a major global company.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings reveal heterogeneity in key assessment parameters, notably in component coverage, weighting and the assessment depth and transparency per criterion. Most initiatives assess greenhouse gas mitigation targets, but their assessment depth and transparency vary. Other criteria, such as the companies\u0026rsquo; approach to residual emissions, board oversight, and consideration of just transition, were found to be covered by considerably fewer assessments. These methodological differences reflect trade-offs in breadth, depth, and analysis frequency. No single assessment initiative provides comprehensive, in-depth and consistently up-to-date assessments for more than 1000 companies. However, composite assessments, which integrate multiple assessments as sources, are emerging as an approach to addressing gaps in criteria coverage while maintaining the depth of assessment for each criterion. This article recommends that users of assessment outcomes interpret them in the context of their underlying methodology critically, considering their unique purposes, strengths and limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Assessing and validating corporate low-carbon transition strategies: A comparative analysis of approaches and methodologies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-09 08:19:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6401862/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"17636bed-2099-4762-99d8-d514c33a5966","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":46844243,"name":"Environmental Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-03T16:24:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6401862","link":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2026.2637652","journal":{"identity":"climate-policy","isVorOnly":true,"title":"Climate Policy"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-24 00:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 24th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-09 08:19:17","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1080/14693062.2026.2637652","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2026.2637652","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6401862","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6401862","identity":"rs-6401862","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}