Article

Climate change is one of the most imminent challenges of our time – and companies across all industries are at the center of attention. Society, investors, politicians, supply chain partners, and customers are demanding concrete contributions to reducing emissions. Added to this is a regulatory framework that is evolving dynamically. The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) require companies to publish a “transition plan for climate protection.” Many climate targets sound correspondingly ambitious: according to the Horváth CTP study, nine out of ten companies are actively involved in the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). According to the EFRAG State of Play Report 2025, around 70 percent have set short-term climate targets for 2030, and 55 percent already have a Climate Transition Plan (CTP). At the same time, the same surveys show that a quarter of companies already expect that these targets will not be achieved, at least in part – largely because many CTPs are not yet sufficiently detailed and substantiated. There is no lack of ambition, but rather a lack of concrete implementation, resource allocation, and often budgets for climate transformation. 

Even without regulatory pressure, a CTP is strategically important today: it is the key to combining climate protection with economic efficiency and shaping the transition successfully. 

A CTP is more than just a reporting instrument. It is an integrative management tool that holistically combines corporate strategy, decarbonization, risk management, and financial planning. A four-step approach has proven successful in this context: 

The first step provides the analytical basis: 

• Greenhouse gas inventory (Scope 1-3): Based on the GHG Protocol, all direct and indirect GHG emissions are systematically recorded – including all relevant Scope 3 categories, each with the best possible calculation approach and technical documentation. 

• Emissions forecast (“business as usual”): A forecast simulates future emissions development assuming unchanged behaviour to clarify the urgency for action (tailwind vs. headwind). 

• Climate risk analysis: Both physical (e.g., extreme weather, heat, flooding) and transitional risks (e.g., legislative changes, market shifts) are systematically analysed. 

• Climate strategy, climate targets, and gap to target: The corporate climate strategy is defined, and ambitious reduction targets are set – e.g., based on the SBTi. Based on this, the gap between the projected emissions trajectory and the target path (e.g., 1.5°C compatible) is identified as a basis for concrete measures. 

The second step translates targets into operational activities: 

• Developing measures for Scope 1-3: Decarbonization measures are identified along the entire value chain – e.g., in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency, for Scope 1+2, and for Scope 3 in material use or product design. In addition, so-called “enabling” measures are also relevant, such as improving data management and control processes or targeted engagement with suppliers and customers. These supporting levers must also be systematically documented and included in the action planning. 

• Cost-benefit analysis: In addition to the CO₂ reduction potential, the investment (CapEx) and operating costs (OpEx) as well as the additional ecological and economic benefits of each measure are also systematically evaluated. 

• Scenario development & roadmap: Various decarbonization paths are modelled based on the measures evaluated. This results in a coordinated roadmap with clearly defined measures, responsibilities, and timelines – adapted to target levels, business areas, emission sources, and locations. 

• Financial anchoring: The measures are incorporated into planning processes and budgets to ensure financing, resource allocation, and steering ability until at least the target year, e.g., near-term 2030 (see also step 4). 

A CTP must be communicated both in a regulatory-compliant and stakeholder-oriented manner 

• CSRD & ESRS E1: Companies must disclose specific decarbonization goals, measures, investment plans, milestones, and responsibilities. 

• Integration with voluntary standards: TCFD, CDP, and SBTi offer additional guidelines on methodology and comparability. 

• Documentation & communication: Many companies produce separate CTP reports alongside their comprehensive sustainability reports to draw particular attention to the issue of climate transformation. 

A climate transition plan will only be truly effective if it is deeply embedded within the organization: 

• Integration into steering mechanisms: GHG targets become part of financial planning, performance management, and individual MbO goal agreements. This requires specific KPIs to integrate the various emission categories into the relevant departments/divisions. 

• Internal CO₂ price: A partially theoretical but strategically defined CO₂ price enables informed investment decisions and makes environmental costs visible (e.g., in investment decisions, purchasing, etc.). In the medium term, companies should arrive at a “total cost of ownership including CO₂ costs.” 

• Governance, roles & expertise: Clear decision-making structures, defined responsibilities, and established bodies such as ESG committees ensure the implementation of the CTP. In addition, sufficient capacity, and targeted expertise in climate management – both strategic and operational – are needed to make implementation effective. 

• Stakeholder involvement: Employees, customers, investors, and the public are specifically addressed to promote acceptance and commitment. 

• Monitoring & dashboards: Digital tools enable real-time tracking of progress and facilitate control and readjustment. Continuous tracking of emissions helps to achieve targets. The CCF should be calculated “permanently” (e.g., monthly energy monitoring) at selected points and not just once a year retrospectively. 

A climate transition plan is not a purely bureaucratic requirement – it is a key management tool for the decarbonization and sustainable transformation of a company. Especially in times of tight budgets and increasing pressure on investments, climate protection must be realistic, integrated, and economically viable. An effectively managed climate transition plan requires a valid database, clear responsibilities, and close integration with the corporate strategy. Realistic measures, flexible structures, and targeted communication are crucial for actively involving internal and external stakeholders. 

Every company has its own starting point. But only those who develop a consistent, robust, and operationally anchored CTP will achieve their emission targets in the long term and credibly – while securing competitive advantages in an increasingly climate-oriented market. 

Jonas, C.