As climate transition planning becomes a core pillar of global sustainability reporting, a new assessment by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) evaluates how India’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework aligns with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards. The analysis identifies key strengths in India’s existing disclosure regime, while also highlighting gaps that could limit climate-related decision-making for investors and policymakers.
Evaluating india’s climate transition disclosures
The assessment is based on IEEFA’s climate transition plan framework, which draws on a review of 18 international disclosure frameworks and consultations with regulators, companies, investors and research institutions. The framework is grounded in the Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) model, which IEEFA identifies as a robust global reference for climate transition plan disclosures.
Focus on decision-useful reporting for investors
Shantanu Srivastava, research lead for sustainable finance and climate risk at IEEFA, said the framework assesses the quality of climate-related disclosures, the core elements of transition plans, and how these translate into tangible climate transition outcomes for corporates. The assessment examines whether disclosures are sufficiently decision-useful for investors assessing transition risk, capital allocation strategies and long-term resilience.
Comparing foundation and governance requirements
IEEFA’s framework comprises five categories; Foundation, Governance, Implementation Strategy, Engagement Strategy and Transparency, though the assessment focuses on the first four. In the Foundation category, ISSB requires detailed disclosure on greenhouse gas targets, climate resilience goals, transition plans and scenario analysis. By contrast, BRSR addresses targets and responses more broadly and does not mandate scenario analysis.
On governance, ISSB provides climate-specific guidance on oversight and accountability, requiring companies to explain how governance structures support climate ambitions. BRSR, however, focuses largely on broader ESG governance principles rather than explicit climate-transition oversight.
Implementation and engagement strategies
Implementation strategy assesses how companies translate climate ambitions into action. ISSB requires granular disclosure on financial impacts, R&D priorities, investments and cash flows linked to transition plans. BRSR, in comparison, limits reporting largely to R&D and capital expenditure generating environmental or social benefits.
Engagement strategy examines how companies collaborate with stakeholders, including value chains, policymakers, workforces and communities. While ISSB emphasises narrative disclosures, BRSR includes measurable indicators for stakeholder engagement, offering relatively stronger insights into social and community impacts.
Need for clearer guidance on transition planning
A key distinction highlighted by IEEFA is ISSB’s 2025 guidance on climate transition planning, based on the TPT framework, which enables companies to disclose transition plan–specific information under existing standards. No equivalent guidance currently exists under India’s BRSR framework.
As companies increasingly commit to net-zero targets, IEEFA notes that the credibility, structure and clarity of transition plans are becoming essential. Clear disclosures can help convert climate ambition into implementable strategies.
Overall, IEEFA’s mapping exercise concludes that neither BRSR nor ISSB alone offers a fully comprehensive view of corporate transition plans. Instead, the assessment positions transition planning as a unified exercise and highlights opportunities to strengthen consistency and alignment across sustainability reporting standards.
