Low-carbon transition plans announced by Indian industries rarely translate into quantified, time-bound and financially integrated pathways, with limited linkage between targets, capex, revenue and risk management, a new report finds.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) report examined transition planning practices in India’s corporate sector through a comprehensive assessment of 33 companies operating in six high-emitting sectors: energy, steel, cement, chemicals, commodities and oil and gas.

The absence of dedicated transition plan disclosures within the Business Sustainability and Responsibility 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 requires cumulative investments of $10 trillion (Rs. 883 billion) to achieve net zero emissions by 2070; credible climate transition business planning is fast becoming a critical requirement for mobilizing 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, revenue and risk management.

Second, governance structures are present in form but weak in substance; and finally, disclosures are fragmented and backward-looking, reducing their usefulness to capital providers.

The assessment finds that while most companies have announced emission reduction or net zero targets, few explain how these targets will be achieved.

“Only a limited number link their targets to capital expenditure plans, revenue assumptions or changes in business strategy, making it difficult for investors and lenders to assess the viability of transition pathways,” says Shantanu Srivastava, head of research, 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, when disclosed, is qualitative and lacks transparency about assumptions, time horizons, timing or financial implications.

Government disclosures further weaken the effectiveness of transition planning. “While most companies report board-level or management oversight of sustainability issues, few provide clear evidence of accountability, decision-making authority or incentive structures related to transition outcomes,” says Tanya Rana, Energy Analyst, IEEFA – South Asia.

Overall, the sector review reveals significant heterogeneity in the maturity of transition plan disclosure across key output industries in India. A consistent pattern emerges where a handful of large, listed or globally exposed companies demonstrate relatively advanced practices, while the majority are at an early stage of transition planning.

“Disclosures are strongest on high-level ambition statements, and weakest on leverage-level quantification, financial integration and scope 3 coverage,” says Srivastava.

Governance structures are often in place, but operational integration, capacity building and climate-related remuneration remain limited. Workforce and community transition engagement continues to be framed as Corporate Social Responsibility rather than Just Transition, and external assurance practices vary widely by company size.