All is not well with Indian industry sustainability reporting
An analysis of 33 companies across six high-emitting sectors shows emissions reduction targets announced are rarely translated into quantified, time-bound, and financially integrated transition pathways.
- Jan 30, 2026,
- Updated Jan 30, 2026 6:02 PM IST
The low-carbon transition plans announced by Indian industries rarely translate into quantified, time-bound, and financially integrated pathways, with limited linkage between targets, capex, revenues, and risk management, finds a new report.
The report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) examined transition planning practices across India’s corporate sector through a comprehensive assessment of 33 companies operating in six high-emitting sectors — power, steel, cement, chemicals, commodities, and oil and gas.
The absence of dedicated transition plan disclosures within the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework, combined with limited guidance on financial materiality and forward-looking metrics, has resulted in disclosures that are difficult to compare, verify, or use meaningfully for investment and lending decisions.
India requiring cumulative investments of $10 trillion (Rs 883 lakh crore) to achieve net-zero emissions by 2070; credible corporate climate transition planning is fast becoming a critical requirement for mobilising capital.
IEEFA’s analysis identifies three systemic weaknesses in India’s current transition planning landscape. First, transition ambition rarely translates into quantified, time-bound, and financially integrated pathways, with limited linkage between targets, CapEx, revenues, and risk management.
Second, governance structures are present in form but weak in substance; and finally, disclosures are fragmented and backwards-looking, reducing their usefulness for capital providers.
The assessment finds that while most companies have announced net-zero or emission reduction targets, few explain how these targets will be achieved.
“Only a limited number link their goals to capital expenditure plans, revenue assumptions or changes in business strategy, making it difficult for investors and lenders to assess the feasibility of transition pathways,” says Shantanu Srivastava, research lead, sustainable finance and climate risk, South Asia.
Financial disclosures also remain a major gap. Companies rarely quantify the potential financial impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities. Scenario analysis, where disclosed, is qualitative and lacks transparency around assumptions, time horizons, when or financial implications.
Governance disclosures further weaken the effectiveness of transition planning. “While most companies report board- or management-level oversight of sustainability issues, few provide evidence of clear accountability, decision-making authority or incentive structures linked to transition outcomes,” says Tanya Rana, energy analyst, IEEFA - South Asia.
Overall, the sectoral review reveals significant heterogeneity in transition plan disclosure maturity across India’s key emitting industries. A consistent pattern emerges where a handful of large, listed, or globally exposed companies demonstrate relatively advanced practices, while the majority remain at an early stage of transition planning.
“Disclosures are strongest on high-level ambition statements, and weakest on lever-level quantification, financial integration, and Scope 3 coverage,” says Srivastava.
Governance structures are often in place, but operational embedding, capacity building, and climate-linked remuneration remain limited. Engagement on workforce and community transition continues to be framed as Corporate Social Responsibility rather than Just Transition, and external assurance practices vary widely by firm size.
The low-carbon transition plans announced by Indian industries rarely translate into quantified, time-bound, and financially integrated pathways, with limited linkage between targets, capex, revenues, and risk management, finds a new report.
The report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) examined transition planning practices across India’s corporate sector through a comprehensive assessment of 33 companies operating in six high-emitting sectors — power, steel, cement, chemicals, commodities, and oil and gas.
The absence of dedicated transition plan disclosures within the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework, combined with limited guidance on financial materiality and forward-looking metrics, has resulted in disclosures that are difficult to compare, verify, or use meaningfully for investment and lending decisions.
India requiring cumulative investments of $10 trillion (Rs 883 lakh crore) to achieve net-zero emissions by 2070; credible corporate climate transition planning is fast becoming a critical requirement for mobilising capital.
IEEFA’s analysis identifies three systemic weaknesses in India’s current transition planning landscape. First, transition ambition rarely translates into quantified, time-bound, and financially integrated pathways, with limited linkage between targets, CapEx, revenues, and risk management.
Second, governance structures are present in form but weak in substance; and finally, disclosures are fragmented and backwards-looking, reducing their usefulness for capital providers.
The assessment finds that while most companies have announced net-zero or emission reduction targets, few explain how these targets will be achieved.
“Only a limited number link their goals to capital expenditure plans, revenue assumptions or changes in business strategy, making it difficult for investors and lenders to assess the feasibility of transition pathways,” says Shantanu Srivastava, research lead, sustainable finance and climate risk, South Asia.
Financial disclosures also remain a major gap. Companies rarely quantify the potential financial impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities. Scenario analysis, where disclosed, is qualitative and lacks transparency around assumptions, time horizons, when or financial implications.
Governance disclosures further weaken the effectiveness of transition planning. “While most companies report board- or management-level oversight of sustainability issues, few provide evidence of clear accountability, decision-making authority or incentive structures linked to transition outcomes,” says Tanya Rana, energy analyst, IEEFA - South Asia.
Overall, the sectoral review reveals significant heterogeneity in transition plan disclosure maturity across India’s key emitting industries. A consistent pattern emerges where a handful of large, listed, or globally exposed companies demonstrate relatively advanced practices, while the majority remain at an early stage of transition planning.
“Disclosures are strongest on high-level ambition statements, and weakest on lever-level quantification, financial integration, and Scope 3 coverage,” says Srivastava.
Governance structures are often in place, but operational embedding, capacity building, and climate-linked remuneration remain limited. Engagement on workforce and community transition continues to be framed as Corporate Social Responsibility rather than Just Transition, and external assurance practices vary widely by firm size.