India’s pathway to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 will require an estimated USD 10 trillion (INR 883 lakh crore) in cumulative investments. Against this backdrop, credible corporate climate transition planning is emerging as a critical prerequisite for mobilising capital at scale. However, a new report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) finds that transition planning across India’s corporate sector remains fragmented, inconsistent, and largely compliance-driven, limiting its effectiveness for investors, lenders, and regulators.
According to the report, the absence of dedicated transition plan disclosures within India’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework has significantly constrained transparency. Limited guidance on forward-looking metrics, financial materiality, and scenario analysis has resulted in disclosures that are difficult to compare or verify, and often provide little value for capital allocation or risk assessment. To address this gap, IEEFA conducted a detailed evaluation of transition planning practices across 33 companies spanning six high-emitting sectors—power, steel, cement, chemicals, commodities, and oil and gas.
IEEFA’s assessment highlights three systemic weaknesses defining India’s current transition landscape. The first is a widespread disconnect between ambition and execution. While many companies publicly announce net-zero or emission-reduction targets, these commitments rarely translate into quantified, time-bound pathways integrated with business operations, capital expenditure plans, revenue projections, or enterprise-level risk management.
This makes it difficult for investors to assess the credibility of stated targets. As highlighted by Shantanu Srivastava, research lead for sustainable finance and climate risk in South Asia, only a limited number of companies meaningfully link their climate goals to CapEx plans, revenue assumptions, or changes in business strategy, creating uncertainty around the feasibility of proposed transition pathways.
The second weakness lies in the quality of governance disclosures. While companies frequently report board- or management-level oversight of sustainability issues, few provide evidence of clear accountability, decision-making authority, or incentive structures tied to transition outcomes. According to energy analyst and report co-author Tanya Rana, governance frameworks often appear strong in form but weak in substance, limiting their effectiveness in driving organisational change.
The third major gap concerns financial and forward-looking disclosures. Climate-related risks and opportunities are rarely quantified, and where scenario analysis is conducted, it tends to be qualitative and lacking in transparency regarding assumptions, time horizons, methodologies, or financial implications. The result is a disclosure landscape that is largely backward-looking, reducing the usefulness of corporate reporting for capital providers attempting to assess exposure, resilience, or long-term transition readiness.
Across sectors, IEEFA finds significant variation in the maturity of corporate transition planning. A small group of large, listed, or globally integrated companies demonstrate relatively advanced practices, but the majority remain in early stages of transition planning with limited integration into core business processes. High-level ambition statements are typically the strongest area of disclosure, whereas lever-level quantification, Scope 3 coverage, financial integration, and operational embedding remain weak. Workforce and community transition are still framed predominantly through the lens of corporate social responsibility rather than a broader Just Transition strategy, and approaches to external assurance vary widely by firm size and sector.
To strengthen India’s corporate transition ecosystem, the report outlines a set of targeted recommendations for both companies and regulators. At the corporate level, IEEFA emphasises the need to move beyond high-level ambition and develop transition plans that clearly connect emissions targets to CapEx, operational shifts, financing strategies, and risk management processes. This includes improved scenario analysis, stronger internal data systems, and embedding transition planning directly into business strategy rather than treating it as an adjunct reporting requirement.
For regulators, the report recommends that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) explicitly incorporate transition planning expectations into the BRSR framework. Enhanced guidance on financial materiality, forward-looking indicators, business-strategy alignment, and quantitative pathways would significantly improve the decision-usefulness of disclosures. Rana notes that strengthening corporate transition practices will require coordinated action between regulators and corporates, alongside investments in internal capacity building, governance, scenario analysis, and data systems.
Regulatory coherence will also be essential. Aligning corporate disclosure expectations with the Reserve Bank of India’s proposed climate risk reporting framework, the government’s sectoral decarbonisation roadmaps, and the Bureau of Energy Efficiency’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme can help build an integrated ecosystem for India’s low-carbon transformation. Together, these measures can support a more credible, transparent, and financially material transition planning environment capable of mobilising the trillions required for India’s long-term climate goals.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
