As climate reporting shifts from voluntary pledges to mandatory disclosure, companies are increasingly combining science-based targets, net zero management systems, and regulatory...
As climate reporting shifts from voluntary pledges to mandatory disclosure, companies are increasingly combining science-based targets, net zero management systems, and regulatory reporting frameworks to demonstrate both ambition and execution. Rather than operating as standalone initiatives, frameworks such as ISO 14060, SBTi, IFRS S2, and ESRS can be viewed as complementary components of an emerging three-layer Climate Accountability Stack, connecting implementation, credibility, and disclosure to help organizations move from climate commitments to measurable progress.
The net zero standards landscape is entering a new phase. For years, companies have struggled with a crowded mix of voluntary frameworks, investor expectations, carbon accounting rules, and climate disclosure requirements. Two of the most significant recent developments are the draft ISO Net Zero Aligned Organizations Standard (ISO 14060) and the Science Based Targets initiative’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0. [1][2]
Both aim to improve the credibility of corporate net zero claims. But they are not interchangeable. ISO 14060 is emerging as a broad, internationally harmonized standard for net zero transition planning and alignment, while SBTi remains a more prescriptive target-setting and validation framework focused on emissions reductions aligned with climate science. [3][4]
ISO’s work on net zero began with the ISO Net Zero Guidelines, IWA 42:2022, launched at COP27. The guidelines were developed to create a common global reference point for what “good” net-zero action should look like across organizations, cities, regions, and countries. ISO describes IWA 42 as a framework intended to align territorial approaches, such as national or city net zero plans, with organizational and value chain approaches. [2]
The draft ISO 14060 standard builds on those 2022 guidelines. ISO released the draft for public consultation June 2026, describing it as the world’s first international standard for net zero alignment and a tool to support credible, comprehensive net-zero transition plans. [1] Public consultation ends in August 2026 and the final publication is expected in 2027.
The significance of ISO 14060 is that it moves net zero from guidance toward a more formal, potentially certifiable and independently verifiable management-system-based standard. That matters because ISO standards are already widely used by companies for environmental management, quality, safety, and risk systems. For companies that already use ISO 14001 or other ISO management systems, ISO 14060 may be easier to integrate into existing governance, controls, documentation, and assurance processes.
The Science-Based Targets initiative was launched before the Paris Agreement and has become one of the most influential voluntary frameworks for corporate emissions target setting. Its Corporate Net-Zero Standard gave companies a science-based pathway for setting near-term and long-term emissions reduction targets, with an emphasis on deep value chain decarbonization before neutralizing residual emissions.
SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 was developed through a multi-year revision process. According to SBTi, the Version 2.0 revision process included two public consultations and extensive pilot testing involving 1,800 stakeholders, with more than 320 companies participating in the first phase of pilot testing and more than 50 in the second. [4] Version 2.0 was released this month (June 2026) and is described by SBTi as its most comprehensive framework for corporate climate action to date. [3] Validation against the new standard is expected to open in early 2027.
ISO 14060 and SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0 share several important principles. Both are designed to increase credibility in corporate net-zero claims by:
Both also respond to the same underlying problem:
In that sense, both standards are part of a broader movement away from aspirational climate commitments and toward evidence-based transition planning.
The biggest difference is purpose. SBTi is primarily a target-setting and validation framework. It is best known for defining whether a company’s greenhouse gas reduction targets are aligned with climate science. It is especially relevant for companies that want externally validated emissions reduction targets that investors, customers, and disclosure users recognize.
ISO 14060 is broader. It is focused on net zero alignment and transition planning, not only target validation. It may be better understood as a management-system-oriented standard that helps organizations structure their net zero strategy, governance, implementation, and assurance approach.
Another major difference is audience. SBTi is designed primarily for companies. ISO’s net zero work is intended to be useful across organizations, policymakers, cities, regions, and other institutions. ISO’s 2022 guidelines explicitly aimed to align territorial and value chain approaches. [2]
There is also a difference in how each establishes credibility. SBTi validates targets. ISO standards, depending on the final structure and assurance ecosystem, may be used more like other ISO standards: as a basis for internal controls, third-party assessment, and integration with management systems.
SBTi may be the better choice for a company seeking recognition by investors, customers, employees, and rating organizations. It is particularly useful for companies facing pressure from large customers, lenders, or sustainability ratings platforms to demonstrate that their Scope 1, 2, and 3 targets are aligned with climate science.
SBTi is also likely to remain the stronger option when the primary need is emissions target credibility. For companies with mature greenhouse gas inventories, strong Scope 3 data, and a desire to make public climate commitments, SBTi provides a structured pathway for setting and validating targets.
ISO 14060 may be more suitable for organizations that need a practical net-zero management framework rather than only a validated target. This may include companies that are earlier in their climate journey, organizations with complex operations, public agencies, infrastructure companies, private companies, or companies already using ISO 14001 or other ISO management systems.
ISO 14060 may also be useful where the challenge is not only “what should our target be?” but “how do we build the governance, controls, transition plan, documentation, and accountability needed to deliver it?”
For companies preparing climate transition plans under regulatory or investor pressure, ISO 14060 could become a practical bridge between climate strategy, enterprise risk management, environmental management systems, and disclosure readiness.
For many years, net zero commitments were largely voluntary. Companies adopted science-based targets, published sustainability reports, and announced ambitious climate goals in response to investor expectations, customer pressure, and corporate values. Today, however, climate commitments are increasingly intersecting with mandatory disclosure requirements.
Frameworks such as the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures and the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), implemented through the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), require companies to disclose not only their greenhouse gas emissions and targets, but also the governance, strategy, risks, transition plans, and resources supporting those commitments. [5]
This shift raises an important question: How can companies demonstrate that their net zero ambitions are credible, actionable, and embedded within business operations?
The answer may lie in combining the strengths of SBTi and ISO 14060. SBTi provides external credibility for emissions reduction targets. It establishes whether a company’s near-term and long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals are aligned with climate science and SBTi’s applicable target-setting methodologies. Investors, customers, and rating organizations increasingly recognize SBTi validation as a benchmark for ambition and target credibility. [3]
ISO 14060 addresses a different challenge. It provides a framework for developing and maintaining the systems required to achieve those targets. This includes governance structures, organizational accountability, transition planning, implementation processes, monitoring, and continual improvement. In essence, ISO 14060 may provide the operational architecture behind a company’s net zero strategy.
While SBTi and ISO 14060 were developed as voluntary frameworks, their importance is growing as climate disclosure requirements become increasingly mandatory. As a result, many organizations are beginning to view these standards not simply as sustainability tools, but as building blocks for regulatory compliance and disclosure readiness.
IFRS S2 requires companies to disclose climate-related information across four pillars:
ISO 14060 could provide the supporting management system for these disclosures, while SBTi provides the validated targets disclosed under the Metrics and Targets pillar. [5]
A company may therefore disclose:
“Our net zero transition plan is developed in accordance with ISO 14060 principles for Net Zero Aligned Organizations, and our greenhouse gas reduction targets have been independently validated by the Science Based Targets initiative.”
The European Sustainability Reporting Standards go even further. ESRS E1 requires organizations to disclose [6]:
ISO 14060 is particularly well aligned with these requirements because its primary focus is establishing the systems, governance, and implementation pathways needed to deliver net zero commitments. Meanwhile, SBTi can provide confidence that the emissions reduction pathway embedded in the transition plan is grounded in climate science.
As mandatory reporting expands globally, many organizations may adopt a three-layer approach that helps organizations move from climate ambition to implementation, verification, and transparent disclosure:
Viewed together, these frameworks illustrate how climate management is evolving from a focus on target-setting toward a more integrated model of implementation, validation, and disclosure. SBTi establishes where a company needs to go, and ISO 14060 helps define how it gets there. IFRS S2 and ESRS provide the framework for transparently communicating that journey to investors, regulators, and stakeholders.
As climate reporting evolves from voluntary commitments to mandatory accountability, companies that can integrate all three elements, credible targets, robust implementation systems, and transparent disclosure, may be best positioned to demonstrate both ambition and execution.
IFRS S2 | CSRD/ESRS EI | CSDDD
SBTi’s influence has also made it a target of criticism. Some critics argue that Version 2.0 introduces too much flexibility and weakens the rigor that made SBTi valuable. Recent reporting has highlighted concerns that the revised standard allows companies to miss targets if they demonstrate “best efforts,” disclose barriers, and provide evidence of action. Critics have also raised concerns about greater flexibility around energy certificates and value chain approaches. [8]
SBTi has also faced scrutiny over governance, corporate influence, and sector-specific standards. Its oil and gas standard was reportedly paused after several major energy companies withdrew from the process, raising questions about how voluntary standards should handle hard-to-abate and fossil-fuel-intensive sectors. [9]
The central criticism is that if SBTi becomes too flexible, it risks losing scientific credibility. If it remains too strict, some companies may disengage. Version 2.0 is an attempt to navigate that tension.
Because the standard is new and still in consultation [1], it remains to be seen how rigorous, auditable, and widely adopted it will be. ISO standards can be powerful because they are globally recognized, but they can also be broad. If ISO 14060 becomes too process-oriented, it may help companies document net zero plans without necessarily ensuring the level of emissions reductions needed for climate alignment.
Another concern is that companies may use ISO alignment as a credibility signal without pursuing SBTi-level emissions reduction ambition. The effectiveness of ISO 14060 will depend heavily on the final requirements, assurance practices, and how clearly it addresses offsets, residual emissions, Scope 3 emissions, and transition plan accountability. [7]
For more than a decade, corporate climate action has focused on setting commitments. The next decade will be defined by an organization’s ability to demonstrate implementation, accountability, and measurable progress.
As regulators, investors, customers, and lenders increasingly seek evidence of credible transition planning, organizations will need more than ambitious targets alone. They will need governance structures, management systems, implementation roadmaps, performance monitoring, and transparent disclosure mechanisms capable of supporting long-term climate commitments.
Viewed through that lens, SBTi, ISO 14060, IFRS S2, and ESRS are not competing frameworks. They address different dimensions of the same challenge.
Organizations that successfully integrate all three approaches may be better positioned to demonstrate not only climate ambition, but climate execution. As climate reporting continues to mature, organizations will increasingly be judged not only on the ambition of their commitments, but on the credibility of their pathways and the transparency of their progress. The question is no longer simply “What is your target?” The more important question is becoming “How will you deliver it and how will stakeholders verify your progress?”
REFERENCES
1. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). IWA 42:2022 Net Zero Guidelines. Available at: ISO IWA 42 Net Zero Guidelines
2. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO launches international standard for net zero alignment. June 2026. Available at: ISO Net Zero Alignment News
3. IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosure. Available at: IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures
4. Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0. Available at: SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2
5. Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Developing the Net-Zero Standard. Available at: SBTi Net Zero Development Process
6. United Nations Race to Zero Campaign. Starting Line and Minimum Criteria. Available at: UN Race to Zero Criteria
7. International Energy Agency (IEA). Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Available at: IEA Net Zero Roadmap
8. Financial Times. “Science Based Targets initiative softens climate rules amid criticism.” June 2026. Available at: Financial Times coverage of SBTi revisions
9. Financial Times. “Corporate climate target setter faces criticism over governance and standards.” Available at: Financial Times SBTi governance article
10. European Union. Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Directive (EU) 2024/1760. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj
As pressure grows to improve packaging circularity and reduce waste, governments are increasingly adopting policies that place greater responsibility for end-of-life packaging...
As pressure grows to improve packaging circularity and reduce waste, governments are increasingly adopting policies that place greater responsibility for end-of-life packaging management on producers. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are one of the primary policy tools used to shift the financial and operational burden of packaging waste management onto producers while creating incentives for more recyclable and resource-efficient packaging designs. For companies with in-scope packaging, these laws can create significant new compliance obligations and costs. As packaging EPR requirements continue to develop, life cycle assessments (LCAs) can help producers evaluate packaging trade-offs, support redesign decisions, and, in some EPR programs such as Oregon’s, reduce EPR fees by demonstrating improved environmental performance.
Although extended producer responsibility is not a new concept, the growing number of packaging-specific EPR laws being introduced has brought the issue to the forefront for many companies bringing packaged products to market. Packaging EPR laws require producers to help fund and support systems that manage packaging at the end of its useful life through producer responsibility organizations and fee structures tied to the types, weights, and amounts of packaging introduced to the market. Adding complexity to the matter is that it is up to each state to develop EPR legislation applicable to producers within its scope. The legislation is still being developed and finalized in many states that have enacted EPR laws. Tracking the different compliance requirements and staggered deadlines can add an additional layer of stress for organizations operating across multiple EPR states.
The first producer fee invoices have begun being issued in Oregon and Colorado, and the public fee schedules show that costs can vary significantly depending on the types of packaging a company has supplied in each state. While specific fee schedules and circularity incentives vary by state, in general, states reward packaging choices that support recyclability, recycled content, and reuse systems.
Additionally, packaging may be subject to eco-modulation factors that affect the fees that in-scope organizations are responsible for. Eco-modulation works by increasing or decreasing producer fees based on packaging characteristics the state wants to discourage or reward. This can mean lower fees for packaging that better supports recyclability, recycled content, or reuse systems, and higher fees for materials that are harder to recover or recycle.
Specific to Oregon, producers may also request eco-modulated fee discounts by conducting voluntary life-cycle assessments (LCAs). Oregon awards larger eco-modulation bonuses for analyses that show that a packaging change has achieved a substantial reduction in environmental impacts. Outside Oregon, LCAs can still provide strategic value by helping producers test redesign options, document environmental trade-offs, and generate evidence that may support alignment with eco-modulation frameworks in other states, although there is not the same direct financial benefit seen in Oregon’s program.
While Oregon’s EPR legislation directly links eco-modulation adjustments to the life-cycle impacts of in-scope packaging, LCAs offer strategic value in other EPR states by helping producers compare packaging alternatives and prioritize redesigns that align with eco-modulation criteria. Many EPR programs reward packaging choices, such as using more recycled content, improving recyclability or compostability, and encouraging reuse.
An LCA helps producers avoid packaging changes that improve one performance characteristic while creating unintended consequences in another. Comparative LCAs can help organizations determine which materials or packaging formats best meet their needs, rather than focusing on a single factor. For example, conducting an LCA may reveal that switching packaging to a certain mono-material format improves recyclability but also increases GHG emissions because the replacement material is more energy-intensive to produce. Similarly, an analysis could find that reducing packaging weight may lower material usage but could also reduce product protection, leading to higher rates of damage, spoilage, or loss. By showing how a packaging system performs across multiple life-cycle stages and impact categories, LCAs provide organizations with a better understanding of redesign and purchasing decisions.
LCAs can also support EPR-related analysis and documentation by providing consistent, comparable data on a package’s environmental impacts across raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and end-of-life management. This can help organizations identify impact hotspots in the supply chain, understand where meaningful improvements are possible, and focus efforts on changes that align with EPR compliance priorities.
In some states, these incentives are already taking shape. In Colorado, producers can submit voluntary data to qualify for certain incentives. LCAs can help pinpoint which packaging changes may be most valuable to track or invest in. Minnesota’s law strongly encourages packaging formats that are reusable, recyclable, compostable, or refillable. California requires in-scope producers to reduce plastic-covered material by 25% by 2032, adding another reason to compare packaging redesign options. LCAs can be a useful tool for producers to evaluate trade-offs and identify which redesigns are best aligned with EPR program priorities.
Organizations using LCA for EPR compliance generally conduct the assessment in accordance with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. These widely recognized standards provide a consistent framework for conducting and comparing life cycle assessments. Under these standards, an LCA is defined as a structured method for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of a product system across its life cycle.
Source: ISO Online Browsing Platform
For packaging, this typically means assessing impacts across key life-cycle stages, including raw material extraction, material pre-processing, product manufacturing, transportation and storage, and end-of-life management. The analysis may also consider performance-related factors such as product protection, spoilage, or product loss, as these outcomes can significantly affect the total life-cycle impact.
Under ISO 14040 and 14044, an LCA is generally conducted in four phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment, and interpretation. In practice, this defines which packaging systems are being compared and what functions they are meant to serve, gathers data on material and energy inputs, evaluates environmental impacts across selected categories, and interprets the results to understand trade-offs, hotspots, and opportunities for improvement.
While LCAs can be powerful tools for evaluating packaging alternatives, their results are heavily dependent on how the LCA is conducted. Choices such as end-of-life assumptions and data sources can materially affect the assessment outcomes, making results only as meaningful as the methodology behind them.
Packaging LCA results are most reliable when informed by the company or by other experts with product- and packaging-specific knowledge. Identifying realistic alternatives requires input on technical constraints that may not be reflected in publicly available LCA datasets. In practice, the company or its packaging provider helps identify realistic alternatives and provides the technical information needed to compare them. The LCA process then evaluates the environmental trade-offs among those packaging options. An LCA should be treated as a collaborative evaluation process, rather than a stand-alone exercise done without input from those responsible for packaging design and performance.
LCAs also do not automatically translate into lower EPR fees. A package may perform well in a life-cycle study but still fall short of an EPR program’s specific fee criteria related to recyclability, reuse, or recycled content. Additionally, conducting an LCA can require significant time, data collection, and technical review. LCAs are most useful when they are treated as structured decision-support tools that complement state-specific EPR compliance analysis.
As packaging EPR programs continue to take shape, producers are under increasing pressure to understand how packaging choices affect environmental performance and fee exposure. LCAs can provide a structured way to compare alternatives, identify tradeoffs, and support packaging decisions aligned with emerging EPR requirements. Although an LCA is not a substitute for state-specific compliance analysis, it can serve as a valuable decision-support tool for organizations seeking to better understand the potential environmental implications of packaging redesign options.
GSI can support comparative LCA analyses that evaluate packaging alternatives across their life cycles. This can help organizations compare options, identify unintended trade-offs, and make more informed decisions about source reduction, packaging changes, and potential EPR fee implications.
For many companies, the first CDP disclosure starts with a simple question: Do we actually need to do this? In most cases,...
For many companies, the first CDP disclosure starts with a simple question: Do we actually need to do this? In most cases, the answer is yes. CDP began as an investor-driven climate transparency initiative and evolved into a widely used component of the sustainability reporting landscape, closely aligned with frameworks such as TCFD, IFRS S2, and GRI. Since 2020, the number of disclosers has increased by roughly 30% annually with more than 22,000 companies, representing more than half of the global market capitalization, disclosing to CDP in 2025. Whether the request to disclose originates from a customer, investor, lender, or internal leadership, CDP has increasingly become the standard mechanism through which companies are
That pressure can make a first disclosure feel high stakes. The questionnaire is detailed, the scoring can seem opaque, and the process often highlights how many internal teams, data systems and processes must collaborate to produce a credible response. The good news is that first-time disclosure does not require perfection. What matters most is understanding what CDP is actually asking for, how the scoring works, and where companies tend to lose points that could otherwise be avoided.
First-time disclosers often assume CDP rewards volume of information disclosed – it does not. The goal of a first response is rarely to “say everything,” but rather to “clearly demonstrate where the business currently stands.” CDP awards points according to a published set of criteria to measure the maturity of a company’s response to each question.
Companies at the C level may identify climate risks, report emissions, and set goals to establish targets and seek verification in the next two years. Companies at the B level demonstrates more formal governance, documented procedures, target tracking, and integration of climate considerations into business processes. At the A level, climate
considerations are strategically embedded across the organization, supported by credible targets, and demonstrate an influence that extends beyond the company’s own operations.
Progressing through these levels is not about writing longer responses. It is about providing qualitative evidence of how climate considerations are managed and integrated into the business.
One of the most common ways companies lose points is through inconsistency in question responses. Qualitative questions benefit from clear, structured responses following a logic such as Situation, Task, Action, Result/Review. Even well-written narratives can still miss scoring criteria if they do not directly address specific elements of the prompt.
Quantitative questions present a different challenge – data must reconcile across the entire questionnaire. Total emissions, energy use, and related figures should align wherever they appear. Discrepancies between responses can raise questions about data quality or internal controls, and the company will lose points.
For first-time reporters, this is one of the most practical lessons. Before submission, responses should be reviewed less like a narrative report and more like an audited package. Metrics should be defined consistently and tell the same story in every response.
With the question bank set to release mid-April, the time to begin preparing is now. First-time reporters often underestimate how long it takes to coordinate internal contributors, gather supporting evidence, confirm data, review narrative responses, and resolve inconsistencies. By the time the disclosure window opens in June, companies should already know who owns governance modules, who owns emissions data, who can speak to strategy and risk, and who is responsible for reviewing and approving the final submission.
This is especially true when the disclosure depends on external assurance, target validation, enterprise risk processes, legal review, or executive signoff. While the disclosure is submitted through a single portal, the evidence needed to support it usually lives across multiple functions, including finance, sustainability, legal, operations, procurement, facilities, and executive leadership.
If this is your first year, the primary objective should be credibility and internal coordination rather than score maximization.
In many cases, the most valuable outcome of a first disclosure is not the grade itself. Instead, the process reveals where governance is still informal, where data collection is weak, and where strategy and environmental reporting remain disconnected. That visibility is often what enables meaningful improvement in the second year.
For first-time disclosers, CDP can be a complex and demanding process. GSI can help ease that burden by offering disclosure support, by mock-scoring questionnaire drafts to bring greater transparency to the scoring process, and by providing strategic assistance in communicating reasonable expectations to internal and external stakeholders. For companies with prior CDP disclosure experience, GSI also brings a strong track record in supporting grade improvement efforts and has even helped clients raise their score by a full letter grade.
Municipalities carry climate responsibilities that extend far beyond those of individual businesses. They serve whole communities, including residents and local businesses, and...
Municipalities carry climate responsibilities that extend far beyond those of individual businesses. They serve whole communities, including residents and local businesses, and can’t simply “pause operations” during disruptions or “shut down” if climate conditions get worse. Local governments also serve as a conduit for community-wide action, coordinating cross-sector efforts and investing in shared infrastructure when private-sector action is uneven or limited in scope. Residents depend on these efforts for everything from storm preparation and wildfire response to flood control, cooling centers, infrastructure upgrades, and programs that help stabilize insurance and utility costs. They also help local businesses prepare for new environmental regulations. For many communities, Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and Climate Action and Adaptation Plans (CAAPs) provide a structured framework for prioritizing investments, securing funding, coordinating across departments, and tracking progress over time.
By 2050, urbanization and population growth could add about 2.5 billion people to urban areas, with estimates suggesting roughly 68% of the world’s population will live in cities. Urban growth concentrates people, infrastructure, and economic activity in hazard-exposed areas, and a single climate event can strain multiple community services at once. This makes proactive planning increasingly important. What is a Climate Action Plan (CAP) or a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)?
A Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic roadmap that municipalities use to identify actions local government and community partners can take to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and strengthen infrastructure and services in response to climate change. Municipalities at the beginning of their sustainability journey commonly emphasize mitigation efforts, such as reducing emissions. As climate planning and sustainability programs mature and new challenges develop, CAPs are often expanded into Climate Action and Adaptation Plans (CAAPs). CAAPs combine efforts to reduce emissions with adaptation and resilience measures to address climate impacts and maintain the continuity of essential community services. CAAPs typically include clear climate-related goals and performance indicators to track progress and outcomes.
Municipalities adopt CAPs and CAAPs for many reasons, including funding, but plans are also adopted to meet state requirements, local policy mandates, equity priorities, resilience planning, and long-term financial risk management.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, substantially increased municipal-level climate action by creating new funding streams for initiatives that promote sustainable infrastructure and economic development. Grants, tax credits, and other incentives for clean energy projects, electrification, and emissions reductions enabled many communities to begin developing and implementing CAPs. As local governments began implementing initial CAP measures, many recognized that reducing emissions alone doesn’t address local climate vulnerabilities. That realization led many communities to expand their CAPs into CAAPs, so that mitigation actions paired with vulnerability assessments and adaptation actions reduce climate risks and support the continuity of essential community services.
Federal funding can be a catalyst in developing a climate plan, but it’s not always dependable from one funding cycle to the next. As a result, many cities pursue federal opportunities when available while relying more heavily on state targets, requirements, and incentive programs to shape their plans and obtain funding. More broadly, municipalities implement climate plans to align targets with local and state initiatives, pursue grants, center equity and environmental justice in community development and rezoning, manage climate-related financial risks, and coordinate action across departments and agencies.
CAPs/CAAPs can also help cities translate state priorities into practical local actions. In California, legislation such as Assembly Bill 1279, which mandates statewide carbon neutrality by 2045, and CARB’s Scoping Plan and Priority Local Actions guide municipalities on actions and implementation plans for sustainability-aligned infrastructure, land use, transportation, and building decarbonization strategies to align with the state’s broader goals. This is reinforced further by Senate Bill 375, which links transportation and land-use planning through regional passenger-vehicle GHG targets and Sustainable Communities Strategies. Aligning plans with state-level goals can strengthen a city’s competitive position for receiving state-allocated funding tied to EV infrastructure, public transportation projects, wildfire resilience, and other sustainability or climate-related initiatives. California’s Senate Bill 1000 further shapes municipal climate planning by requiring local governments to identify disadvantaged communities and address environmental justice in planning, which CAPs/CAAPs can support by embedding equity into plan priorities and implementation actions.
Alongside state targets and planning requirements, California also backs implementation with incentive programs that help cities move from the planning stage to project delivery, with funding to support implementation. For instance, CARB administers the Low Carbon Transportation Incentives (LCTI) and the Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), which support clean transportation and advance sustainable technologies and infrastructure. LCTI is part of the California Climate Investments, which uses the proceeds from the Cap-and-Trade program to fund programs across agencies and sectors to reduce GHG emissions, improve public health, and provide economic benefits. The AQIP, created under Assembly Bill 118, emphasizes reductions in harmful air pollutants and diesel particulate matter. Other California Climate Investments programs, such as the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP), and the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program, also help cities finance the implementation of their plans.
In California, climate planning can also intersect with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A CAP/CAAP can sometimes serve as a plan-level foundation for evaluating GHG emissions and mitigation measures, which may reduce the need for analysis in later projects where appropriate. When a CAP/CAAP is CEQA-reviewed and designed to meet the criteria in CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, it can provide a consistent framework for future project-level GHG analysis. That being said, whether a project actually streamlines the CEQA review process later comes down to the available evidence, the enforceability of the plan, and how closely follow-up projects are aligned with the plan.
In other regions, local climate ordinances are also increasing the need for formal climate action plans. Policies like New York City’s Local Law 97 and Boston’s Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure (BERDO) translate emissions goals into building-level requirements. A CAP/CAAP can provide the shared baseline, targets, and cross-departmental coordination needed to implement these programs consistently over time.
Pre-disaster resilience and hazard mitigation grant funding is another major driver of plan adoption. For example, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants prioritize communities that can show an adopted risk-reduction strategy, and CAAPs can complement that process by connecting vulnerability and risk assessment findings to fundable mitigation and adaptation projects. Municipal budgeting is another reason to formalize climate planning, as climate risk can affect a city’s bottom line. When municipal bonds are issued to fund infrastructure projects, credit rating agencies such as S&P Global Ratings, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings assess the creditworthiness of the cities and the bonds they issue. Climate-related risks, such as wildfire, flooding, and extreme heat, are increasingly factored into these ratings. Because ratings can affect borrowing costs and financial flexibility, CAPs/CAAPs can help cities document risks and outline plans to reduce, mitigate, or adapt to them, supporting long-term budgeting and investment decisions.
Every city approaches climate planning slightly differently, but there are globally applicable guiding principles that make these plans more effective (Figure 1, UN-Habitat) and many municipalities use established frameworks and tools such as C40 Cities, the Global Covenant of Mayors, and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to guide inventory development, target-setting, implementation planning, and progress tracking within the plan. Cities typically implement these principles through sustained stakeholder engagement and clear documentation of how informed priorities and decisions are made.
Source: UN-Habitat Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning
A strong CAP/CAAP is more than a list of aspirational projects. It’s a plan that connects baseline measurements, actionable strategies, and measurable progress over time. Essential components shared by the most successful plans include:
Originally, many cities focused primarily on emissions reduction. As physical climate risks intensify, adaptation is unavoidable. A CAAP includes everything in a CAP, plus structured climate risk and resilience planning. CAAPs reflect a shift from carbon management to comprehensive climate risk management:
Collectively, these elements establish a plan that can be implemented, financed, and monitored effectively over time. How these elements are developed and implemented differ across municipalities.
Whether a community is drafting its first CAP or updating an existing one to include adaptation, the planning cycle is similar. Communities generally start by establishing or updating a baseline, such as a greenhouse gas inventory, reduction targets, and, for CAAPs, a vulnerability profile. Next, they translate key priorities into sector-specific actions and formalize the governance, funding, and monitoring systems needed to implement and track progress. The primary focus of these plans evolves. Initial versions often concentrate on reducing emissions, while subsequent updates place greater emphasis on addressing climate risk, vulnerability, and resilience to help ensure essential community services continue without interruption.
The examples below compare two similarly sized fictional municipalities at different stages of maturity. One is developing its first CAP, while the other is updating its CAP to a CAAP to plan and implement adaptation and resilience actions. By comparing their approaches, we can highlight how the process adapts to each community’s needs and circumstances.
Both cities use the same planning cycle; however, the City of Riverton’s maturity changes the depth and integration of risk and resilience. The most important common aspect of the CAP and CAAP examples above is the review-and-refresh cycle. Plans should be updated regularly as inventories improve, risks are reassessed and reprioritized, funding shifts, and community priorities evolve.
Alderbrook and Riverton are illustrative examples, but the transition from CAPs to more integrated climate-and-resilience planning is already happening in many cities. Below are a few examples showing how California cities have integrated adaptation and resilience into their climate planning.
City of Santa Monica:
The City of Santa Monica created a short-term CAP, the “15X15” plan, in 2013, designed around a near-term target of reducing GHG emissions by 15% by 2015. Sector-specific targets were established across energy use and generation, waste reduction and recycling, transportation and mobility, open space and land use, water conservation and efficiency, local food and agriculture, and municipal operations. The plan focused on practical mitigation actions to meet near-term GHG reduction goals.
In 2019, Santa Monica adopted a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) that expanded the city’s work from near-term mitigation to a longer-term strategy with deeper emissions cuts and a formal adaptation framework. The CAAP set more ambitious targets, including carbon neutrality by 2050, and organized mitigation actions around key sectors (buildings, waste, and mobility) while adding dedicated resilience strategies focused on community preparedness, water, coastal flooding, and ecosystems.
City of Sacramento:
Sacramento’s early climate planning centered on a community-wide Climate Action Plan that set near-term emissions-reduction goals and embedded climate policies into long-term strategic planning. The City adopted a CAP in 2012 with a 2020 emissions target and then incorporated an updated community CAP into the 2035 General Plan when it was adopted in 2015. Sacramento’s General Plan is the City’s long-term policy blueprint for growth and investment, guiding land use, infrastructure, and related programs.
In 2024, Sacramento adopted a CAAP alongside its 2040 General Plan. The CAAP expanded climate efforts from primarily mitigation planning to a more integrated framework of mitigation and adaptation. The CAAP sets updated climate targets (including a 2030 per-capita emissions target and a net-zero goal) and is explicitly framed to both reduce emissions and address climate impacts through adaptation planning.
City of Irvine:
The City of Irvine took a different approach to bolstering its climate action planning. Rather than updating an existing CAP, the City began by setting its direction through a citywide climate resolution called Irvine ACHIEVES, a policy statement that outlined key strategies, established a 2030 carbon-neutrality target, and launched a planning process to develop a comprehensive CAAP.
Through the CAAP process, the City engaged the community to set priorities, developed a GHG inventory and targets, and conducted a vulnerability assessment to guide adaptation planning. This resulted in an integrated plan covering both emissions reduction and climate risk.
These real-world examples mirror those of Alderbrook and Riverton. Early plans often begin with mitigation fundamentals, and later updates strengthen the work by adding vulnerability assessments, adaptation measures, and more robust implementation systems. Cities may call these documents different things (CAP, CAAP, Climate Action & Resilience Plan), but the evolution of these plans is similar: over time, municipalities develop clearer accountability, a stronger link between risk and investment, and greater integration across departments and planning procedures.
Effective climate planning is a continuous process, not a one-time achievement. Success depends less on the specific label, CAP or CAAP, and more on whether the plan remains practical and adaptable over time. The Alderbrook and Riverton examples show how plans can evolve to reflect changing conditions, expanding capacity and scope as needed. Early plans typically focus on organizing emissions data, setting clear targets, and implementing sector actions within available resources. As plans mature, they integrate detailed risk assessments and scenario planning to inform resilience and adaptation investments and safeguard essential community services. Treating the plan as an ongoing management tool, supported by routine updates, transparent reporting, and active stakeholder engagement, ensures it remains relevant and effective as local needs and priorities shift.
For communities just beginning this process, the priority should be to establish a solid baseline and identify a manageable set of initial actions. For those with more experience, efforts should focus on bolstering accountability, updating targets, and integrating resilience to align the plan with evolving risks and realities.
If your city is building a Climate Action Plan or updating a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, we can help with the technical analysis, stakeholder process, and implementation roadmap needed to turn climate goals into feasible and managed action plans. At GSI, our experts help support municipalities with CAPs and CAAPs through the following services:
EcoVadis was founded in 2007 and launched in Paris[8]; it has since grown into a global provider of business sustainability ratings used...
EcoVadis was founded in 2007 and launched in Paris[8]; it has since grown into a global provider of business sustainability ratings used in supply chains. [9] EcoVadis describes its sustainability assessment as a paid service delivered through registration, questionnaire, expert analysis, and results. [10]
Methodologically, EcoVadis evaluates the quality of a company’s sustainability management system through Policies, Actions, and Results, and it operationalizes these through seven management indicators (Policies, Endorsements, Measures, Certifications, Coverage, Reporting, and 360° Watch Findings). [11] The framework covers up to 21 criteria grouped into four themes:
The assessed criteria is tailored to the individual company profile and risk context [12] and translated into a verified score from 0 to 100. Disclosing companies receive medals or badges based on percentile ranking relative to peers. Medal thresholds are percentile-based across all assessed companies in the prior 12 months: Platinum (top 1%), Gold (top 5%), Silver (top 15%), Bronze (top 35%). [15]
EcoVadis is not a public sustainability reporting platform; rather it is a procurement-facing management system assessment. Its purpose is to help buyers understand whether a supplier has credible, functioning sustainability programs in place.
Evidence rules are unusually practical (and that’s the point!). EcoVadis says supporting documents should be recent, relevant, complete, and aligned to the scope of evaluation, and it provides examples such as sustainability procedures, audit reports, HSE policies, codes of conduct, employee handbooks, and ISO certificates. [13]
EcoVadis is designed around supplier assessment and scorecard sharing with trading partners, and it positions its ratings as analyst-validated supplier assessments with continuous improvement tooling. [16] For suppliers, EcoVadis often becomes a market access gate: not a complete measure of sustainability, but a standardized proxy for whether management systems exist, operate, and can be evidenced. [17]
It is also a reputational and compliance signal. EcoVadis describes 360° Watch as a complementary screening using external stakeholder inputs and notes that significant cases (for example, fines or sanctions) can affect theme scores based on severity. [2] This tends to reward companies that can demonstrate preventive controls, corrective action discipline, and clean documentation, not just aspirational policies.
Regulation is pushing the same direction. The European Commission[18] describes EU corporate sustainability reporting rules as requiring large and listed companies to report on sustainability risks and on impacts to people and the environment, supported by standards covering the full ESG range. [19] Even where a supplier is not directly in scope, customer requests commonly cascade through value chains.
EcoVadis sits alongside sustainability disclosure frameworks and standards by focusing on the verifiable management system underneath the narrative. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [20] provides a broad impact reporting framework across economic, environmental, and social topics. [21] The International Sustainability Standards Board[22] IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 standards focus on sustainability-related and climate-related financial disclosures for capital markets, and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board[23] standards are maintained as industry-based guidance under the ISSB ecosystem. [24]
Practically, the payoff is consolidation
EcoVadis’ methodology materials emphasize alignment with these global frameworks and standards and an evidence-based approach that combines company documentation, third-party endorsements, and external monitoring inputs. [25] Practically, the payoff is consolidation: one well-governed data and evidence system can serve EcoVadis, CDP, GRI-based reporting, and CSRD-aligned customer data demands, reducing the annual scramble. [26]
Another way to look at the strategic advantage of EcoVadis is illustrated by the graphic below. Sustainability expectations cascade through markets: regulations and competitive pressures apply first to companies directly in scope, and those companies then pass requirements down to their suppliers through questionnaires, data requests, and ESG ratings such as EcoVadis. Procurement departments use EcoVadis as a standardized comparison tool to evaluate the maturity of suppliers’ sustainability management systems across environmental, labor, ethics, and procurement criteria. When two suppliers offer comparable products or services at similar cost and quality, but one holds an EcoVadis medal and the other has not submitted at all, the rated supplier provides greater transparency, verified documentation, and lower reputational and regulatory risk. If stakeholders or investors prioritize sustainability performance, procurement is far more likely to select the supplier with the demonstrated, externally assessed management system, as it signals governance strength, operational controls, and alignment with evolving market expectations.
EcoVadis’ “Coverage” concept rewards programs that are deployed consistently across the assessed scope, not just piloted at one facility. [27] That makes operational measurement and compliance programs disproportionately valuable because they create repeatable, auditable evidence: plans and procedures, monitoring logs, results tables, and corrective action records. [28] A practical maturity-building pattern is to treat each relevant EcoVadis criterion as a small “evidence pack” spanning policy, process, KPI results, training/communication, and proof of deployment.
Environmental Metrics Quantification establishes clear definitions, calculation methods, and data controls for key sustainability indicators so that performance results are accurate, consistent across facilities, and comparable over time. This structure strengthens the quality and defensibility of EcoVadis “Results” and “Reporting” responses by ensuring that data is traceable and decision-relevant.
On the operational side, technical compliance work provides the documented evidence that EcoVadis expects. Air services generate permitting records, emissions inventories, monitoring logs, and regulatory reports. Stormwater programs produce compliance strategies, employee training records, sampling data, SWPPPs, corrective action plans, and centralized data systems that house analytical results and supporting documentation. Together, these materials demonstrate that environmental policies are not only written, but actively implemented and monitored.
EcoVadis provides a 30-business-day submission window once the questionnaire opens, but strong submissions are rarely built within those 30 days alone. [33] In practice, companies benefit from beginning preparation at least four months before submission. That longer timeline creates space to identify structural gaps, formalize documentation, and ensure that supporting materials reflect established practices rather than documents created solely for the rating. EcoVadis documentation guidance generally expects that materials demonstrate implementation and maturity, and documents created or dated too close to submission may not be credited in the same way as established records. Beginning preparation early allows organizations to update policies with proper approvals, document training completion, refine KPIs, and implement corrective actions well before the assessment window opens.
EcoVadis is not a one-person exercise
The process of supporting GSI clients with their EcoVadis submissions typically begins with a structured kickoff meeting that brings internal stakeholders together to understand what EcoVadis is, how procurement departments use it, and what evidence expectations look like. EcoVadis is not a one-person exercise. It requires coordinated input across departments with operational knowledge of internal processes and documentation. Facilities may oversee environmental permits and monitoring logs. HR may manage diversity policies and employee training records. EHS may maintain greenhouse gas inventories and compliance documentation. Legal may control codes of conduct and governance procedures. Finance may track risk-related metrics. Frequently, each function operates effectively within its own domain, yet no single individual has visibility into how these materials connect within a sustainability rating framework.
Once relevant stakeholders are identified, focused working sessions help translate questionnaire language into practical documentation. This is where clarity and organization become essential. A facilities manager may not immediately recognize that a stormwater monitoring log satisfies an environmental evidence requirement. HR may not realize that a signed DEI policy requires a visible approval date and defined review cycle to qualify. Greenhouse gas inventories may exist, but ownership and version control may not be clearly defined. These cross-functional reviews take time, but with knowledge of the process and disciplined coordination, documentation can be gathered efficiently and mapped to specific questionnaire requirements.
After documentation is assembled, a consolidated review allows companies to identify short-term improvements before submission. Many gaps are procedural rather than substantive. A training program may exist but lack formal attendance records. A policy may be implemented but missing a signature, date, or company logo. Targets may be tracked internally but not formally documented. It is not uncommon to lose points because a supporting document lacks proper formatting or fails to demonstrate scope coverage. Addressing these issues two months before submission ensures that documentation reflects established implementation rather than last-minute preparation.
When the questionnaire officially opens, the organization shifts into execution mode. During the 30-business-day window, responses should be tightly aligned with available evidence, clearly referenced, and annotated so analysts can easily locate supporting pages and understand coverage statements. [33] Because preparation occurred months in advance, the submission period becomes a structured sprint rather than a scramble.
There is, however, an important caveat. Especially for first-time submitters, companies do not know the exact questions they will receive until the questionnaire is released. EcoVadis tailors questionnaires based on industry, size, geography, and risk profile, and the methodology evolves year over year to reflect its commitment to continuous improvement. This means preparation cannot rely on predicting specific questions. Instead, it must focus on strengthening the underlying management system, refreshing core metrics, updating policies, and ensuring documentation is complete, approved, and traceable.
At GSI, we have been able to help companies prepare effectively even before they gain access to their specific questionnaire. Having supported multiple submissions across industries, we understand the recurring themes, common documentation gaps, and typical areas of weakness. While no one can know the exact questionnaire in advance, experience allows preparation to be targeted and strategic. By focusing on foundational policies, measurable results, governance structures, and evidence quality, companies are positioned to respond confidently when the tailored questionnaire becomes available, regardless of minor variations in wording or emphasis. After submission, EcoVadis analysts review the materials and issue a scorecard that includes a 0–100 score, percentile ranking, theme-level breakdown, and medal or badge status where applicable. The scorecard also outlines improvement areas. Rather than treating the result as a final judgment, high-performing organizations use it as a roadmap for the next cycle. Since scorecards are valid for 12 months, companies that maintain documentation continuously, refresh policies on schedule, track environmental metrics consistently, and document training throughout the year find that each subsequent submission becomes more streamlined and more reflective of true organizational maturity. [34]
Starting four months in advance transforms EcoVadis from a compliance exercise into a management systems discipline. The rating rewards established programs, traceable data, and cross-functional coordination. With sufficient lead time, companies can ensure that what is submitted is not only complete, but representative of how sustainability is genuinely embedded within the organization.
EcoVadis reflects a broader shift in how sustainability is evaluated in the marketplace. Sustainability performance is no longer confined to annual reports or marketing materials. It is embedded in procurement decisions, enterprise risk management, lender due diligence, and operational governance. Companies that approach EcoVadis as a one-time compliance task may secure a score, but companies that treat it as an internal systems audit build something more durable. The distinction lies in integration.
Consider two suppliers operating in the same sector with similar products, pricing, and quality. One completes the EcoVadis questionnaire each year by gathering documents in a rush, updating policies only when requested, and treating the exercise as an administrative requirement. The other uses EcoVadis as a structured review of how sustainability is governed across the organization. In the second company, environmental monitoring is tracked routinely, greenhouse gas inventories are updated on a defined schedule, training records are maintained centrally, supplier screening is embedded in procurement workflows, and policies are reviewed annually with documented approvals. The EcoVadis submission in this case does not require new work. It simply reflects work already being done.
The practical implications are significant. Companies with higher EcoVadis scores often demonstrate stronger internal controls and clearer lines of accountability. When a regulatory update occurs, they already have documented procedures and assigned owners. When a customer requests emissions data or water consumption metrics, the information is retrievable and defensible. When a controversy arises in the supply chain, they can point to due diligence processes, supplier codes of conduct, and screening mechanisms. These capabilities reduce operational disruption and reputational exposure.
Resilience emerges from this alignment. Environmental compliance programs reduce the likelihood of violations. Documented greenhouse gas inventories enable scenario planning and transition risk analysis. Structured supplier oversight mitigates downstream exposure to human rights or environmental incidents. Governance frameworks ensure that sustainability considerations are integrated into executive decision-making rather than handled reactively. In this context, a strong EcoVadis score is not the goal itself. It is a byproduct of coherent management systems.
When environmental monitoring, compliance programs, greenhouse gas inventories, supplier oversight, and governance structures are documented and aligned, EcoVadis becomes less of a sprint and more of a reflection of organizational maturity. The rating validates what is already embedded in operations. That shift from reactive disclosure to integrated management is where long-term value is created, because the company is not merely responding to external pressure. It is building systems that anticipate it.
[1] [17] https://resources.ecovadis.com/ecovadis-solution-materials/csr-rating-methodology-scoring-principles
[2] https://support.ecovadis.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005125328-How-the-360-Watch-Findings-works
[3] [6] [11] [23] [32] https://support.ecovadis.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002531507-What-is-the-EcoVadis-methodology
[4] [7] [8] [12] [18] [25] https://resources.ecovadis.com/whitepapers/ecovadis-ratings-methodology-overview-and-principles-2022-neutral
[5] [22] https://www.gsienv.com/services/sustainability-climate/ghg-and-climate-services/
[9] https://ecovadis.com/about-us/
[10] https://support.ecovadis.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002653188-What-is-the-EcoVadis-assessment-process
[13] [28] [35] https://support.ecovadis.com/hc/en-us/articles/210460307-Understanding-supporting-documents
[14] [33] https://support.ecovadis.com/hc/en-us/articles/210459457-How-long-does-it-take-to-complete-the-questionnaire
[15] https://support.ecovadis.com/hc/en-us/articles/210460227-Understanding-EcoVadis-Medals-and-Badges
[16] https://ecovadis.com/solutions/ratings/
[19] https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en
[20] [21] https://www.globalreporting.org/
[24] https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s1-general-requirements/
[26] https://www.cdp.net/en/disclose/question-bank
[27] https://d2uars7xkdmztq.cloudfront.net/app_resources/54766/documentation/194666_en.pdf
[29] https://www.gsienv.com/services/sustainability-climate/
[30] https://www.gsienv.com/services/sustainability-climate/environmental-metrics-quantification/
[31] https://www.gsienv.com/services/air/
[34] https://support.ecovadis.com/hc/en-us/articles/11564680007442-What-happens-after-you-get-a-scorecard