Indian Companies’ Risk Losing Global Capital Over Weak Climate Disclosures: Report
By Editorial Team|January 22, 2026
The report says that Indian companies’ credibility and net-zero pathways hinge on transparent disclosures
A new report found that India’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR), that listed companies must follow, is not at par with the global International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) framework. The report titled “Corporate climate transition planning and disclosures in India” by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) warned Indian corporations face capital access risks if their disclosures remain high-level and unstandardised lacking transition-specific details.
The report emphasised the importance of standardised clear and consistent reporting. It is crucial as companies increasingly commit to net-zero pathways and their transition strategies’ credibility relies on transparent, consistent, and forward-looking disclosures, the report added.
The report compared India’s BRSR with the global ISSB framework and found that the country’s framework included stronger social and community engagement indicators compared to the ISSB. However, its climate-specific stakeholder dependencies (suppliers, customers, workforce transitions) remain underdeveloped and require enhancement.
According to the report, ISSB’s climate-related disclosures (S2) offered robust climate-specific guidance, while BRSR adopted a broader, ESG-oriented approach, with limited alignment to climate transition planning needs. It noted that neither of the frameworks alone give investors a complete picture of corporate climate transition readiness.
BRSR Framework lacks several elements of Credible Transition Planning
The report found that BRSR omitted several key elements of credible transition planning. These include clear linkages between greenhouse gas targets and transition levers, mandatory scenario analysis, granular governance disclosures (such as climate-related remuneration), and a funding strategy for transition plans.
“From a transition planning perspective, ISSB provides a clearer linkage between overall GHG targets, alignment with global or national sectoral pathways, identified risks and opportunities, selected transition levers, and the resilience of these risks and potential responses,” said Shantanu Srivastava, research lead, sustainable finance and climate risk, IEEFA.
The report said the key difference between the two standards is a guidance document on climate transition planning that ISSB released in 2025. This document enables companies to report transition plans–specific information under current ISSB standards. The guidance is based on the Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) framework. There is no similar guidance on climate-related disclosures as part of BRSR. The TPT framework was set by the UK to provide a framework for robust climate transition plan disclosures.
Structured transition framework will help implement climate ambition
The report suggested that clear and well-structured transition plans can help translate climate ambition from aspiration to implementation. The report’s framework positioned transition planning as a unified exercise for corporations and highlighted ways to make existing sustainability standards more consistent.