# Methods for Defining Climate Change Mitigation Strategies at Organisational Level Review and Outlook

Nicolas Desmoitier, Jean Roman, Benoit Hilloulin, Emmanuel Rozière, Alexis Laurent

► To cite this version:

Nicolas Desmoitier, Jean Roman, Benoit Hilloulin, Emmanuel Rozière, Alexis Laurent. Methods for Defining Climate Change Mitigation Strategies at Organisational Level Review and Outlook. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025, 34 (3), pp.2813 - 2834. 10.1002/bse.4130. hal-05245171

HAL Id: hal-05245171

https://hal.science/hal-05245171v1

Submitted on 8 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Methods for Defining Climate Change Mitigation Strategies at Organisational Level Review and Outlook

Desmoitier, Nicolas; Roman, Jean; Hilloulin, Benoit; Rozière, Emmanuel; Laurent, Alexis

**Published in:**

Business Strategy and the Environment

**Link to article, DOI:**

10.1002/bse.4130

**Publication date:**

2025

**Document Version**

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link back to DTU Orbit

**Citation (APA):**

Desmoitier, N., Roman, J., Hilloulin, B., Rozière, E., & Laurent, A. (2025). Methods for Defining Climate Change Mitigation Strategies at Organisational Level Review and Outlook. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 34(3), 2813-2834. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4130

**General rights**

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

* Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.

* You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

* You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

RESEARCH ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

# Methods for Defining Climate Change Mitigation Strategies at Organisational Level Review and Outlook

Nicolas Desmoitier<fnref n="1" />,² ID | Jean Roman² | Benoit Hilloulin<fnref n="1" /> ID | Emmanuel Rozière<fnref n="1" /> ID | Alexis Laurent³

**Correspondence:** Nicolas Desmoitier (nicolas.desmoitier@gmail.com)

**Received:** 7 September 2023 | **Revised:** 9 December 2024 | **Accepted:** 21 December 2024

**Funding:** The authors received no specific funding for this work.

**Keywords:** climate change mitigation | climate change strategy scheme | environmental management | organisation climate change mitigation strategy | sustainable development

## ABSTRACT

The private sector has a pivotal role in contributing to the objective of the Paris Agreement and its 1.5° target. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive framework to define and implement climate change mitigation strategies in organisations. The current study aims to fill this gap by performing a critical review of existing schemes that can make a partial contribution to the definition of such strategies. We found 25 schemes used by private sector or studied in the literature by international NGOs and academic researcher and evaluated them based on 15 criteria developed for this study in order to cover key components of an effective framework for CCMS in organisations. No scheme fulfils all the criteria, but significant differences are observed between them, ranging from 0% to 80% of the criteria met. Based on this analysis, we propose a first harmonized five-step iterative framework to define organisational climate change mitigation strategies. Eventually, the results of the schemes review and the framework proposal draw up a research agenda to derive robust, credible and operational climate strategies at organizational levels.

## 1 | Introduction

To limit global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C, a drastic systemic change is needed (IPCC 2018). Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, issued in 2022 a call for urgent actions to address the climate crisis (UNEP 2022). In response, states and substates actors including the private sector must take ambitious climate measures, with mutual influence on each other (Chan, Ellinger, and Widerberg 2018; Persson and Rockström 2011; Rashed and Shah 2021). The legislative sphere is driving efforts to frame and regulate organisation climate disclosure (European Parliament 2020, 2022; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 2022). For instance, the European Commission adopted in July 2023 the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), acknowledging that climate change has

wide-ranging impacts across the economy and that it should systematically be a priority issue for organisations (European Commission 2023). From 2024, the CSRD has planned to progressively require large European companies to disclose their transition plan for climate change mitigation, policies, actions, targets and resources related to climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as their GHG emissions, energy metrics and internal carbon pricing, among others (EFRAG 2022).

The private sector and substate entities play a pivotal role in implementing innovation and incorporating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics into their core strategies (Barre-Bon, Ghesquière, and Roudaut 2017; Busch et al. 2023). In this regard, for the last decades, organisations have increasingly recognised the importance of climate change in their strategic planning,

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). Business Strategy and the Environment published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

<footnote n="1">¹Nantes Université, École Centrale Nantes, CNRS, GEM, UMR 6183, Nantes, France | ²TOOVALU SAS, Nantes, France | ³Section for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark</footnote>
focusing on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation, climate risks and adaptation (Aggeri and Cartel 2017; Iken, Aggeri, and Morel 2019). However, there are concerns that the efforts made by various organisations may not be efficient, sufficiently ambitious or transparent (Hale et al. 2020), as demonstrated by findings of Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) 2022 report. It revealed that among the 18,000 organizations that disclosed information through the Climate Change questionnaire, only a small proportion (3%, 4% and 7%) met the CDP disclosure criteria for financial planning, targets and strategy, respectively (CDP 2022). In addition, a report by NewClimate Institute shows that out of 24 leading global organisation assessed on their criteria, 15 demonstrated low or very low integrity in their climate strategies (NewClimate Institute 2023).

Two major obstacles to broader and bolder climate actions at organisational level can be identified: (i) the inconsistent accounting of GHG emissions and associated trajectories and (ii) the lack of standardization in organisation low-carbon strategy development (World Economic Forum 2021). In a systematic literature review focused on carbon accounting, Marlowe et al. highlighted that, though organisation climate change strategies are much broader than GHG emission accounting, very few articles have addressed strategic considerations, decision-making, transition pathway or organisation climate change operational action at the organisational level (Marlowe et al. 2022). These studies have focused mainly on GHG emissions accounting, analysis of organisation climate change disclosure (Demastus and Landrum 2023; Kang and Kim 2022; Köves and Bajmocy 2022), the influence of climate change reporting on financial performance (Castilho and Barakat 2022; Grishunin et al. 2022; Park 2023), carbon accounting performance indicators (Daimi and Rebai 2022) or climate change mitigation targets (Andersen et al. 2021; Bjørn et al. 2017; Bjørn, Lloyd, and Matthews 2021; Faria and Labutong 2020; Giesekam et al. 2021; Rekker et al. 2021; Ryberg et al. 2018; SBTi 2019; Walenta 2019). In the scientific literature, there is currently a deficiency of guidelines for substate actors on how to formulate a comprehensive CCMS. However, in the grey literature, numerous schemes have been devised to partially address different aspects belonging to a potential organisation climate change transition plan (CDP 2021). Synergies, complementarities and barriers between these schemes need to be understood to ensure consistency and credibility as well as to develop a comprehensive scheme.

The emergence of multiple climate change commitments among various actors requires the development of such schemes that can help subnational actors to contribute to close the emissions gap (United Nations Environment Programme 2016). Here, we define an organisational CCMS (OCCMS) as a time-bound set of means and ends an organisation makes use of to achieve goals

that are intended to mitigate the impacts of climate change in its value chain. OCCMS are also commonly called climate change transition plans, climate change strategies, low-carbon strategies, which typically constitute a crucial component of broader transition initiatives encompassing climate change adaptation and other environmental impact mitigation. Although some scholars tried to build theoretical frameworks for organisation sustainability (Imbrogiano and Nichols 2021; Molin et al. 2022; Sanchez-Planelles, Segarra-Oña, and Peiro-Signes 2021), no study has been directed to a comprehensive OCCMS framework, specifically addressing climate change from organisation levels. Lack of academic review and harmonisation of schemes has hindered the understanding and the adoption of standardised complete OCCMS framework.

The present study focuses on the critical review of existing schemes that address some elements of a potential OCCMS, based on academic and private literature. It aims (i) to perform a critical review of existing schemes in terms of the core principles of scientific integrity, as well as (ii) to provide recommendations for the development of a harmonised, robust and transparent OCCMS framework allowing to consistently deriving climate strategies at organizational level.

## 2 | Methods

### 2.1 | Research Methodology Overview

Figure 1 presents the steps of the review. A number of steps are defined to frame an OCCMS, which are used to categorise schemes (Section 2.2). Then relevant schemes are identified from both grey and scientific literature (Section 2.3). Evaluation criteria are then defined (Section 2.4) to evaluate OCCMS schemes based on semi quantitative scale (Section 2.5). This methodology highlights the complementarities and gaps between schemes and lays the foundations of a methodological framework for defining an organisation-wide CCMS.

### 2.2 | Required Steps for an OCCMS

To facilitate and harmonise the review, different steps of a comprehensive OCCMS framework are developed and used as a categorisation frame for classifying the retained schemes for each step. This categorisation is documented in Figure 2.

The first step proposed here for defining an OCCMS is to frame the strategy, in the form of a goal and scope definition, as it is a prerequisite for every assessment project or strategy development, including Life Cycle Assessment for example. Then,

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** | Overview of the methodology and the different stages of the review. OCCMS: organisational climate change mitigation strategy.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** | Overview of the different steps of an OCCMS, used to categorise the schemes. OCCMS: organisational climate change mitigation strategy.</figcaption></figure>

measuring through GHG emission accounting is essential for obtaining a comprehensive quantitative understanding of critical issues and dependencies related to GHG emissions and fossil fuels. Next, an analyse of the current situation should include strategic aspects, consider the current strategy of the organisation, while also integrating key aspects such as governance, management, influence, levers and barriers. Subsequently, a commitment is necessary to formulate quantitative and qualitative targets, aiming to anticipate and align with the goals of the Paris Agreement and a low-carbon economy. Additionally, implementation is essential to ensure consistency between the preceding steps and achieve trajectory success, involving operational actions with different stakeholders. Lastly, reporting is crucial to ensure the transparency and credibility of the overall strategy and we recommend an iterative process, including measurement at least once a year. This process facilitates the evaluation of consistency between accounted GHG emissions, the climate change action plan and projections, enabling adjustments to the OCCMS.

## 2.3 | Scope Definition and Scheme Identification

All selected schemes are conditioned to address one or several of the steps of the OCCMS required structure. They need to target the organisational level as opposed to national or territorial levels, to be publicly available, to include a translation in English or French (French language was additionally considered as it is mastered by the author team). Schemes for specifically adjusting

organisational strategies to the current and future effect of climate change, that is, climate change adaptation, for developing strategies to limit the pressure on other environmental aspects than climate change or for taking exclusively energy transition issues into organisations strategies are not included within the scope of this study.

The identification of the relevant studies is done by searching the Web of Science database (Web of Science 2023). The following search query is used: (TI=(“company” OR “companies” OR “corporate” OR “corporation” OR “industry” OR “organization*” OR “organisation*” OR “private sector”)) AND (TI=(“low-carbon” OR “low carbon” OR “climate” OR “carbon” OR “GHG emissions” OR “mitigation” OR “planetary boundary” OR “planetary boundaries” OR “sustainability” OR “decarbonization” OR “decarbonisation”)) AND (TI=(“strateg*” OR “method*” OR “tool” OR “instrument” OR “process” OR “framework”)) with restrictions to research articles before 2023/03/31. In total, the search generated 946 results, which are filtered on for relevance, according to the review scope. As many schemes to provide organisations with guidelines in their CCMS are available among institutional and private sector documents, a grey literature search using the Google search engine is additionally conducted, complemented with combined academic and industry experience from the authors including French literature. This grey literature search is conducted by querying the Google Scholar database, using the same search string as in the Web of Science database. The search string used is as follows: allintitle: (“company” OR “companies” OR “corporate” OR “corporation”
OR “industry” OR “organization*” OR “organisation*” OR “pri-
vate sector”) AND (“low-carbon” OR “low carbon” OR “climate”
OR “carbon” OR “GHG emissions” OR “mitigation” OR “plane-
tary boundary” OR “planetary boundaries” OR “sustainability”
OR “decarbonization” OR “decarbonisation”) AND (“strateg*”
OR “method*” OR “tool” OR “instrument” OR “process” OR
“framework”), with a restriction to research articles published
before 31 March 2023. This search results in a total of 540 entries,
which are subsequently filtered for relevance in accordance with
the scope of the review. Some schemes precisely address specific
elements of OCCMS, some serve as guidelines for monitoring
and reporting, others are more general and cover a large part
of an OCCMS. Therefore, they are categorised according to the
steps of an OCCMS defined in Section 2.2. In addition, schemes
are also categorised by whether they target specifically financial
organisations (such as investors, banks, funds and their portfo-
lios) or any organisation, as many schemes are designed for the
financial sector.

## 2.4 | Evaluation Criteria Definition

Here, evaluation criteria are defined to define the key prin-
ciples of a scheme addressing one or several steps of an
OCCMS. They are chosen based on previous scientific works
that conducted reviews of environmental sustainability as-
sessment schemes such as GHG emission accounting or life
cycle assessment (CDP 2021; EC-JRC 2010; Eleftheriadis
and Anagnostopoulou 2017; Faria and Labutong 2020; Hale
et al. 2020). That led to include the five following criteria: mul-
tilevel applicability; scope; scientific robustness; accessibility
and adoption; stakeholders' involvement. A number of subcri-
teria are additionally developed to specify each criterion (see
Table 1 and Table A1 for details).

2.5 | Schemes Evaluation

For all subcriteria, we propose a semiquantitative scale to as-
sess how a given scheme can contribute to the definition of an
OCCMS, on a three-tier scale level. This choice of three levels
is made with the objective to answer the question “Does this
scheme fully meets this criterion?” Level 2 corresponds to a
scheme that fully meets the criterion, level 1 partially and level 0
not fulfilling it. For example, a scheme will get the higher score
(level 2) in the subcriteria *Adaptability to all sectors* if it has spe-
cific methodological development for precise sectors (e.g., retail),
a medium score (level 1) if it has specific methodological devel-
opment for the three economic sectors (primary, secondary, ter-
tiary) or other macro sectors, and the minimum score if it has no
specific sectoral development (level 0). The complete list of levels
description for all sub criteria is available in Table A1. Each of the
25 schemes is reviewed, by analysing the available background
documents against the 15 evaluation subcriteria, as outlined in
the Supporting Information. In addition, scientific articles pub-
lished on certain schemes are used to assist in their evaluations.

This three-tier scale level is qualified graphically with colours:
green for level 2, orange for level 1 and red for level 0. For schemes
without any information publicly to assess this subcriteria, we
choose the grey colour to express the “no information” option.

3 | Results and Discussion

3.1 | Overview of OCCMS Schemes

A total of 25 schemes could be retrieved from both grey and sci-
entific literature with a view to help define an OCCMS. They
originate from various sources such as NGOs, trade associa-
tions, scholars and institutions, with a majority (72%) developed
in 2015 or later, and all of them have been updated after 2015.
Table 2 summarises all schemes and their associated step in
OCCMS, and whether they target financial organizations and
those targeting nonfinancial organisations (referred to as “all
organisations”). The detailed evaluation of each scheme can be
found in the Supporting Information. Out of the 25 schemes,
56% target all types of organisations and 44% are aimed specif-
ically at financial organisations. The focus on finance may be
attributed to its recognition as a key tool for achieving global
climate goals, increasingly after the adoption of the Paris
Agreement in 2015 (Berrou, Dessertine, and Migliorelli 2019).
Ten out of 11 financial schemes were developed after this date,
alongside other initiatives like the European Commission's pub-
lication of the first Action Plan for a Greener Economy in 2018
(European Commission 2018).

The trend of the schemes developed over time shows an empha-
sis on GHG emission accounting in the early years and a shift
towards climate change mitigation targets definition in more
recent times. The other steps of the OCCMS framework are less
represented, suggesting that the progress in addressing these
steps might still be in its initial stages. Although all steps are
covered by at least one scheme, none addresses all the steps of an
OCCMS, which is to be expected due to the lack of framework
in the literature. About 84% of the schemes address multiple ob-
jectives of an OCCMS definition; 60% address two objectives.
Five schemes (20%) address three objectives, three of them tar-
geting financial organisations, in addition to the TCFD which is
finance oriented but still concerns all organisations and to the
GHG Protocol whose main aim is GHG emission accounting.
One scheme is targeting four objectives, namely, ACT-S, which
include in its scope a goal and scope definition of the OCCMS,
a strategic analysis of the current situation, the definition of cli-
mate change mitigation targets and the definition and deploy-
ment of an action plan.

More than half of the schemes include a goal and scope defi-
nition phase in their objectives (67% for generalist schemes,
30% for financial schemes), as this step is important in any
strategic development to frame the approach. Yet there are no
scheme only aiming at defining the goal and scope of the or-
ganisation CCMS, which does not make this category a goal,
but rather a prerequisite. In the following, this step is not con-
sidered for extensive analysis as no schemes are targeting it
specifically.

3.2 | Criteria-Based Scheme Evaluation

The evaluation of all 25 schemes is presented in Figure 3, show-
ing a comprehensive review of schemes across all criteria, eval-
uated against each criterion using a three-level color-coding
system. The method fulfilment of the different criteria varies
<table><caption>TABLE 1 | Overview of the assessment criteria, subcriteria and their definitions.</caption><thead><tr><td>Criteria</td><td>Subcriteria</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Multilevel applicability: Quality of the Scheme to be able to be applied or adapted to different situations</td><td>Adaptability to all sectors</td><td>Scheme specificity for different professional sectors, with differentiations for each sector</td></tr><tr><td>Applicability to all sectors</td><td>Scheme applicability to all professional sectors</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptability to all sizes and types</td><td>Scheme adaptability to all organisations size and types</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Scope: Boundaries and extent of the method within the organisation</td><td>Climate-associated risks and opportunities</td><td>Consideration of the multiple risks (physical, political, environmental, economic, social, reputational) involved in a climate change transition</td></tr><tr><td>Consideration of the initial organisational climate context</td><td>Consistency with the operational context of the organisation and its initial situation in terms of GHG emissions and associated climate change mitigation strategy</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Scientific robustness: Ability to integrate scientific approach and up-to-date science</td><td>Inclusion of all organisation activities</td><td>Implementation of the climate mitigation strategy within the organisation in all departments, at all levels including governance, and consideration of the value chain</td></tr><tr><td>Uncertainty assessment</td><td>Assessment of uncertainties in the scientific quantitative data and information provided by the organisation</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Accessibility and adoption: Clarity of the scheme, accessibility to information and adoption by organisations</td><td>Consideration of other sustainability parameters</td><td>Consideration of other environmental or social indicators (e.g., carbon footprint, impact on biodiversity, chemical pollution and resources), in order to avoid burden shifting.</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific review of the method</td><td>Peer-review process in the scheme definition and publication in scientific journals, norms or standards</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Stakeholders' involvement: Participation of various external stakeholders in the scheme processes</td><td>Accessibility of the scheme</td><td>Possible access for all to every information and hypothesis of the different case studies and schemes</td></tr><tr><td>Usage by organisations</td><td>Number of organisations that have already used the scheme</td></tr><tr><td>Existing public case studies</td><td>Number of available case studies and business cases</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Stakeholders' involvement: Participation of various external stakeholders in the scheme processes</td><td>Involvement of multiple stakeholders in the processes</td><td>Need to involve external partners (e.g., customers and suppliers) in the scheme application</td></tr><tr><td>Support for organisations</td><td>Possibility for the organisation to be assisted from qualified experts, to have trainings and capacity building</td></tr><tr><td>Alignment with recognised authorities and policies</td><td>Alignment of the scheme with political targets (national, EU, NDC, etc.) and mention of the scheme in an official regulations or statements</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 2 | Identified schemes that contribute to define an organisational climate change mitigation strategy (total of 25 schemes).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Name (acronym)</th><th rowspan="2">Founder(s); year of creation; year of last update</th><th colspan="3">Targeted user</th><th colspan="5">Categorisation</th><th rowspan="2">Monitoring of progress, reporting and verification</th><th rowspan="2">Reference</th></tr><tr><th>All organisations</th><th>Financial organisations</th><th>Goal &amp; Scope definition</th><th>GHG emission accounting</th><th>Strategic analysis of current situation</th><th>Climate change mitigation targets</th><th>Action plan definition and deployment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Assessing Low-Carbon Transition, Assessment (ACT-A)</td><td>CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project); ADEME (Agence De l'Environnement et la Maitrise de l'Energie); 2015; 2019</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project); ADEME (Agence De l'Environnement et la Maitrise de l'Energie); 2015; 2019</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Assessing Low-Carbon Transition, Step-by-step (ACT-S)</td><td>ADEME (Agence De l'Environnement et la Maitrise de l'Energie); 2015; 2019</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>ABC (Association Bilan Carbone); 2002; 2022</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">B-Impact Assessment (BIA)</td><td>B Lab; 2006; 2019</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>CDP Questionnaire; CDP-Climate Change (CDP-Q)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Climate Action 100+: Net zero company benchmark (CA100+)</td><td>AIGCC (Asia Investor Group on Climate Change); Ceres; IGCC (Investor Group on Climate Change); IIGCC (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change); PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment); 2017; 2021</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Climate Bonds Initiative; 2011; 2019</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 2 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Name (acronym)</th><th rowspan="2">Founder(s); year of creation; year of last update</th><th colspan="2">Targeted user</th><th colspan="5">Categorisation</th><th colspan="2">Monitoring of progress, reporting and verification</th><th rowspan="2">Reference</th></tr><tr><th>All organisations</th><th>Financial organisations</th><th>Goal & Scope definition</th><th>GHG emission accounting</th><th>Strategic analysis of current situation</th><th>Climate change mitigation targets</th><th>Action plan definition and deployment</th><th>(N)</th><th>(Y)</th><th>8</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Climate Safe Lending Network: Taking the Carbon Out of Credit (CSLN)</td><td>Climate Safe Lending Network; 2020; —</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Recommendations and Guidance on Financial Institution Net-zero Transition Plans (GFANZ)</td><td>Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero; 2021; —</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Global Climate Insights/Climate plan voting guidelines (ACCR)</td><td>Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility; 2021; —</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP)</td><td>WRI (World resources Institute); WBCSD (World business Council for Sustainable Development); 1998; 2015</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>GRI 305: Emissions (GRI)</td><td>Global Reporting Initiative; 2016; —</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>12</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 2 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Name (acronym)</th><th rowspan="2">Founder(s); year of creation; year of last update</th><th colspan="3">Targeted user</th><th colspan="5">Categorisation</th><th rowspan="2">Monitoring of progress, reporting and verification</th><th rowspan="2">Reference</th></tr><tr><th>All organisations</th><th>Financial organisations</th><th>Goal & Scope definition</th><th>GHG emission accounting</th><th>Strategic analysis of current situation</th><th>Climate change mitigation targets</th><th>Action plan definition and deployment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The Investor Climate Action Plans (ICAPs) Expectations Ladder and Guidance</td><td>The Investor Agenda—7 founding partners: AIGCC (Asia Investor Group on Climate Change); CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project); Ceres; IGCC (Investor Group on Climate Change); IIGCC (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change); PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) and UNEP Finance Initiative; 2021; —</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>ISO 14064:2018 - Greenhouse gases and ISO 14069; (ISO 14064)</td><td>ISO (International Organization for Standardization); 2006; 2018</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Net Zero Initiative (NZI)</td><td>Carbone 4; 2018; 2020</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Oxford Martin Principles for Climate-Conscious Investment (OMPCCM)</td><td>Oxford Martin School/University of Oxford; 2018; —</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Paris Aligned Investment Initiative: Net Zero Investment Framework (PAII)</td><td>IIGCC (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change); 2019; 2021</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Quanti GES (Q-GES)</td><td>ADEME (Agence de l'Environnement et la Maltrise de l'Energie); 2015; 2021</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>18</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 2 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Name (acronym)</th><th rowspan="2">Founder(s); year of creation; year of last update</th><th colspan="3">Targeted user</th><th colspan="5">Categorisation</th><th colspan="2">Monitoring of progress, reporting and verification</th><th rowspan="2">Reference</th></tr><tr><th>All organisations</th><th>Financial organisations</th><th>Goal & Scope definition</th><th>GHG emission accounting</th><th>Strategic analysis of current situation</th><th>Climate change mitigation targets</th><th>Action plan definition and deployment</th><th>Monitoring of progress, reporting and verification</th><th>(N)</th><th>(N)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Recommendations of the Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)</td><td>TCFD (Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures); 2017; 2021</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Say on climate (SOC): guide for companies</td><td>CIFF (Children's Investment Fund Foundation); 2020; —</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td></td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Science Based Targets initiative: Net-Zero Standards - Standard; (SBTi NZS)</td><td>CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project); WRI (World Resources Institute); WWF (World Wildlife Fund); UNGC (United Nations Global Compact); 2020; 2021</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi short-term)</td><td>CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project); WRI (World Resources Institute); WWF (World Wildlife Fund); 2015; —</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable finance plan of the International Capital Market Association (ICMA)</td><td>International Capital Market Association; 2018; 2021</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td></td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Système de Management des Gaz à Effet de Serre (SM GES)</td><td>ABC (Association Bilan Carbone); 2012; 2015</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td></td><td>(N)</td><td></td><td>24</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 2 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Name (acronym)</th><th rowspan="2">Founder(s); year of creation; year of last update</th><th colspan="3">Targeted user</th><th colspan="4">Categorisation</th><th rowspan="2">Reference</th></tr><tr><th>All organisations</th><th>Financial organisations</th><th>Goal & Scope definition</th><th>GHG emission accounting</th><th>Strategic analysis of current situation</th><th>Climate change mitigation targets</th><th>Action plan definition and deployment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI)</td><td>Church of England National Investing Bodies (Church of England Pensions Board; Church Commissioners and CBF Funds); Environment Agency Pension Fund; 2017; 2020</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>(Y)</td><td>(N)</td><td>25</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: (Y) corresponds to schemes that meet a column condition, (N) those that do not. For scheme categorisation according to their intended use, dark green is used when the intended use is the main one, and light green when a scheme covers a purpose complementary to the main one. Full references of the schemes can be found in Appendix A.

across criteria (see the Supporting Information for more details). It can be observed that no scheme fulfils all subcriteria and criteria in any step of a comprehensive OCCMS.

### 3.2.1 | Multilevel Applicability and Accessibility of the Existing Schemes

In general, with regards to the multilevel applicability criteria, the schemes exhibit a high degree of flexibility and are well suited to specific sectors and compatible with organisations of all sizes and sectors, with 68% fulfilling both adaptability and applicability to all sectors, and 84% being adaptable to different sizes and organisations. In terms of accessibility and adoption, the majority of the schemes are publicly available (68% fulfilling the accessibility criteria), but there is often a lack of transparency regarding how organisations use them and limited existing case studies (52% were identified to present case studies). One of the consequences is the difficulty to analyse the results, the effectiveness of schemes and the impact in terms of climate change mitigation.

### 3.2.2 | Various Involvement of Internal and External Stakeholders

The results for the scope criteria are varied (between 44% and 52% of fulfilment for the three subcriteria), with only a few schemes requiring participation and commitment from governance, except for initiatives from financial trade associations that necessitate communication and disclosure (CA100+, GFANZ, PAII, TPI) and ACT-S. In the category of acceptance and usage, the involvement of external stakeholders and support for organisations in applying the schemes are not commonly practiced (48% of the schemes fulfil the subcriterion of multiple stakeholder's involvement in the OCCMS process) and only 28% of the schemes facilitate the support of organisations in their implementation through extensive guidelines or qualified experts. This may be attributed to the prevalence of schemes sourced from grey literature, often proprietary to organisations with potential biased interests. This lack of involvement is detrimental, since systemic or transformational change needs to involve the organisation's governance and key stakeholders (Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al. 2020).

### 3.2.3 | Lack of Scientific Robustness in the Schemes

About 56% of the schemes included a scientific peer review in the scheme definition, with most schemes being based on grey literature. In addition, only 24% of the schemes consider the management of uncertainties in their processes, precisely all three schemes for GHG emission accounting in addition to QUANTI-GES and Science-Based Target short-term. This is especially critical given that the uncertainties surrounding GHG emissions in organisational value chains are frequently high, notably for Scope 3 emissions which are usually often the most significant (Klaßen and Stoll 2021). GHG emission accounting schemes fulfil subcriteria of scientific robustness, given their uncertainties management and scientific review. However, this rigor is not extended to other quantitative steps,
<table><caption>**FIGURE 3** | Review matrix of OCCMS schemes assessment. The colour green is used when a scheme fully meets the criterion (level 2 of subcrite-ria evaluation), red when it does not meet the criterion at all (level 0), and orange when it partially addresses issues related to the criterion but does not go into sufficient detail to consider that it fully meets it (level 1). The schemes are arranged in alphabetical order, beginning with those targeting all types of organisations, followed by those targeting financial organisations. Full names of the schemes can be found in Table 2 and the definition of subcriteria evaluation scheme in Table A1. OCCMS: organisational climate change mitigation strategy.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">CRITERIA</th><th colspan="3">MULTI-LEVEL APPLICABILITY</th><th colspan="3">SCOPE</th><th colspan="3">SCIENTIFIC ROBUSTNESS</th><th colspan="3">ACCESSIBILITY AND ADOPTION</th><th colspan="3">STAKEHOLDERS' INVOLVEMENT</th></tr><tr><th>Adaptability to all sectors</th><th>Applicability to all sectors</th><th>Adaptability to all size and types</th><th>Climate associated risks and opportunities</th><th>Consideration of the initial organizational climate context</th><th>Inclusion of all organization activities</th><th>Uncertainty assessment</th><th>Consideration of other sustainability indicators</th><th>Scientific review of the method</th><th>Accessibility of the method</th><th>Usage by organizations</th><th>Existing public case studies</th><th>Involvement of multiple stakeholders in the processes</th><th>Support for organizations</th><th>Alignment with recognized authorities and policies</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sub-criteria</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Schemes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ACCR</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ACT-A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ACT-S</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BC</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BIA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CDP-Q</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GHGP</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GRI 305</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ISO 14064</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NZI</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Q-GES</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SBTi NZS</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SBTi short term</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SM GES</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TCFD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CA100+</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CBI</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CSLN</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GFANZ</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ICAPs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ICMA</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OMPCCM</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PAII</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SOC</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TPI</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

such as target definition or the quantification of mitigation potential in the action plan definition phase. Conversely, for qualitative and operational steps, such as strategic analysis or action plan deployment, offering a scheme to quantify uncer-tainties is needed to integrate them in reporting and publish transparent and credible analysis.

The potential for burden shifting across environmental dimensions is also overlooked, which is not surprising since the schemes examined in this study are designed specifically for OCCMS. Yet, it is important to mention the limitations of the monocriteria approach in the schemes and to build in links with other schemes as impact categories, as environmental impact categories (e.g., related to planetary boundaries) are often inter-dependent (Steffen and Rockström 2015).

## 3.3 | OCCMS Steps Analysis

Figure 4 shows the performance of schemes regarding evaluation criteria, within the different categories of schemes. The scores for each subcriterion cannot be directly summed up within and across the different criteria because weighting across them would yield too much uncertainty. Consequently, the results of the evaluation should be interpreted as a hotspot study to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different schemes and not as an overall comparison across the different criteria, although comparison across schemes for one criterion is possible.

In the following, each step of OCCMS is analysed individually. Prominent schemes, those performing the best from the review in terms of number of subcriteria met, are identified for each step to feed into OCCMS recommendations. In average, similar trends are observed for the steps of climate change mitigation targets definition and action plan definition, both fulfilling less criteria than other categories (see Figure 4). This reflects

a lower maturity in these schemes, possibly as they are more recent and less widespread in organisations. On the contrary, GHG accounting schemes and strategic analysis schemes seems to be more mature.

### 3.3.1 | GHG Emission Accounting

Three schemes focus on GHG emission accounting, but they only address this objective without any further developments in the OCCMS definition in their processes. No new schemes within this category have been established since 2006 with the adoption of the ISO standards that built atop the GHG Protocol standards. This is possibly because of widely accepted norms governing GHG emissions accounting, that render further methodological developments less necessary for these categories. Yet these schemes are updated regularly and the related research agenda remains relevant (Marlowe et al. 2022). The absence of schemes addressing GHG emission accounting for financial organisations may be due to the well-established schemes being also applicable to the finance sector.

Regarding the three schemes identified for GHG emissions accounting, the international standard of GHG Protocol is the recommended scheme for this specific step. It was found to satisfy the most criteria among all 25 schemes, fulfilling 80% of them and partially fulfilling 13%. The only criterion not satisfied was the consideration of other environmental indicators, which is beyond the scope of this study but would worth mentioning in the method's recommendations. The engagement of external stakeholders across the value chain to enhance data transparency and accessibility, along with clear processes on supporting companies, represents two subcriteria that are only partially met within the GHG protocol. Yet this standard stands out as the most mature scheme among the 25 schemes, signifying that GHG emission accounting is a well-established step of OCCMS.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 4** | Performance of schemes to fulfil the key principles of an OCCMS, by intended use related to the steps of the strategy. Each radar plot represents the average and median score for all subcriteria. Radially, the central point corresponds to schemes which do not meet the subcriterion (level 0 of the evaluation), the middle point corresponds to schemes which partially meet the subcriterion (level 1) and the point at the end of the radius corresponds to schemes which meet the subcriterion (level 2). OCCMS: organisational climate change mitigation strategy.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.3.2 | Strategic Analysis of the Current Situation

About 36% of the 25 schemes are designed to include a strategic analysis of the current situation. Average performance is high for all criteria but scientific robustness, which may be explained by the field of strategic analysis going beyond climate change mitigation, and the private sector being used to this practice. Yet, uncertainties and consideration of other sustainability issues are rarely mentioned in these schemes.

The scheme ACT-A is found to be the scheme that meets most subcriteria within this category, with 67% of the subcriteria fulfilled and 27% being partially fulfilled. Therefore, this scheme is recommended for the step of strategic analysis of the current situation. However, it does not fulfil either the subcriterion of considering uncertainties of the responses. This can be attributed to the fact that ACT-A relies mostly on qualitative information, which makes it challenging to quantify uncertainties. We recommend including uncertainty management approach in the assessment performed in ACT-A, with for example the evaluation of the strategy to address and mitigate uncertainties in the OCCMS. This could range from a low-maturity level, where uncertainties are not accounted for, to a high-maturity level that involves reporting, managing and formulating strategies to minimise uncertainties.

### 3.3.3 | Climate Change Mitigation Targets
Definition Schemes

About 56% of the schemes include the definition of climate change mitigation targets. All schemes, apart from the GHG protocol, have emerged since 2015, which might be related to the ratification of the Paris Agreement that same year and the contribution of the private sector to reach its objectives thereafter.

This is also possibly due to the escalating inclination within the private sector to commit in climate change mitigation targets notably with the Science-Based Target Initiative (SBTi) created in 2015. The importance attached to setting reduction targets may be linked to financial sector-specific requirements and to the growing expectations of financial structures and investors regarding their portfolios and stakeholders, particularly with the creation of the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD 2015).

Even if average fulfilment of subcriteria is lower in this category, the SBTi short-term scheme meets 80% of the criteria and is the recommended method. The GHG Protocol, which also provides guidance for establishing GHG targets and meets a greater number of subcriteria, is not considered within this context as it is not the primary focus of the scheme. Yet this GHG accounting standard can be used complementarily with SBTi-short term scheme, as recommended in SBTi criteria (SBTi 2023), because it provides guidance to set and report organisation climate change mitigation targets as well as the choices to be made and their implication. More recent than the GHG Protocol, SBTi short-term scheme is now widespread in the world and recognized as an example of integrity in organisation climate change actions, for example, by the United Nations or the White House (SBTi 2022; The White House 2022). Yet, the SBTi scheme failed to fulfil the consideration of transition risks. This is an important factor when setting organisation-level climate change mitigation targets, to anticipate necessary changes in an organisation's = activities or business model or to evaluate the climate change targets credibility. Despite the wide accessibility of SBTi schemes and associated resources, the accessibility subcriterion was only partially met as a lack of transparency is observed in assumptions and choices for disclosed SBTi data of organisations with validated targets (Bjørn et al. 2023). Lastly, the SBTi recommends that organisations include the level of uncertainty
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5 | Legend on next page.</figcaption></figure>
**FIGURE 5** | Framework for the definition of organisational climate change mitigation strategies. Regarding strategic steps, the dark blue segments denote the central elements of an OCCMS, which is an iterative process. For each step, the recommended scheme is the one that fulfils most subcriteria in the evaluation developed in this study. OCCMS: organisational climate change mitigation strategy.

in their climate change reporting and reduce it as far as practicable (SBTi 2019), which fulfils the uncertainty subcriterion. However, making uncertainty management a mandatory and transparent step in the SBTi target definition and validation would enhance the scientific robustness of the scheme. In spite of these limitations, which should be addressed in future works, the SBT short-term scheme is still recommended for the step of targets definition as it remains more consistent than the others.

### 3.3.4 | Action Plan Definition and Deployment

About 36% of the schemes are designed for the action plan definition and deployment, which is the category for which schemes fulfil the least number subcriteria, with an average of 44% of subcriteria met. This is possibly related to a slower and more recent adoption, as well as to the lack of consensus around strategy, action plans definition schemes in OCCMS. Assuming equal weighting between subcriteria, the scheme ACT-S fulfils the highest number of subcriteria (67%) for action plan definition and deployment. Three subcriteria were not met, namely, the consideration of uncertainties, the consideration of other sustainability parameters and the absence of public case studies. The lack of mention of uncertainties (quantitative and qualitative) is an issue as uncertainties are often important in organisation GHG emissions (Klaassen and Stoll 2021). The relatively recent development of the scheme since its origin in 2020 could explain the lack of case studies. Nonetheless, the organisation and scientific communities would benefit from accumulating experience, for example, through public case studies. Two criteria were only partially met: although ACT-S is mentioned in the scientific literature (Blin-Franchomme 2017; Pesqueux 2021; Rekker et al. 2022; Vargas-Gonzalez 2018), it has not been published in scientific journals with peer review. Likewise, although the scheme is available online, associated tools are not. In the same category, the QUANTI-GES scheme fulfils less subcriteria but include uncertainties, accessibility to all resources and published case studies. This scheme has a narrower focus compared with ACT-S, as it aims to quantify a particular climate change mitigation action within an organisation. It could therefore be utilised in conjunction with the action phase of ACT-S, providing a more robust quantification of GHG emission reduction.

### 3.3.5 | Monitoring of Progress, Reporting and Verification

About 16% of schemes aim at monitoring of progress, reporting and verification, that is, four schemes. Of these, two schemes, the CDP Climate Change questionnaire for all types of organisations and CA100+ for financial organisations, met 67% of the criteria and therefore are the recommended schemes for this step. The three schemes targeting any type of organisation in this category (viz., CDP reporting, GRI 305 and B Impact Assessment) are the only ones fulfilling the subcriteria of the consideration of

other sustainability indicators out of 25 schemes. However, all schemes lack specific guidelines for the scope of organisations' governance involvement and, importantly, for mandatory quantification of uncertainties linked to the disclosed information. In reporting frameworks, we recommend including the disclosure of governance approach to tackle climate-related concerns. For instance, a demonstration could be reported on how the integration of climate change mitigation occurs within decision-making processes and strategic levels. Additionally, mandatory reporting of uncertainties and strategies to manage them is recommended.

## 3.4 | Toward a Comprehensive OCCMS Methodological Framework

### 3.4.1 | OCCMS Framework

Build on the previous analysis, we present a first OCCMS framework to harmonise the methodology, with available schemes as complementary starting points, examples of operational elements for each step, as well as with key aspects to be careful about integrating throughout the strategic development. Figure 5 lays the foundation of an OCCMS framework, with an emphasis directed towards a comprehensive approach applying for all types of organisations. The initial step of goal and scope definition is regarded as a preliminary stage within the framework, akin to similar approaches in impact assessments or strategic developments. However, no corresponding scheme is delineated for this first step, as the review did not identify schemes specifically serving this purpose. Although no scheme across any category fully satisfies all subcriteria for scientific integrity, certain schemes outperform others and are therefore depicted in the framework as starting points, to consolidate best practices.

This framework shows potential to aid robust organisational transition plans to make organisations accountable. OCCMS extend beyond GHG emission accounting and climate change mitigation target formulation, which are commonly but wrongly perceived as comprehensive organisation climate change strategy (Kuramochi et al. 2020). The proposed OCCMS framework include strategic considerations, complementary qualitative and quantitative approaches, involvement of stakeholders, among other factors. Moreover, the review methodology presented in this article can be used to evaluate and compare upcoming schemes, while also highlighting gaps in their development. It also parallels ongoing institutional efforts to establish initial reporting standards and therefore holds the potential to function as a methodological framework for facilitating organisation information reporting.

The proposed framework constitutes an initial step towards standardising and consolidating OCCMS schemes within a comprehensive and robust approach, addressing a literature gap.
<table><caption>TABLE 3 | Research agenda on OCCMS, step by step.</caption><thead><tr><td>Steps in OCCMS</td><td>Challenges, gaps and needs for further research</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MEASURE<br>GHG emission accounting</td><td>Large uncertainties in corporate GHG emissions, jeopardising the consistency, harmonisation and accuracy of the assessments<br>Incompleteness of GHG emission accounting exercises with lack of justifications and transparency<br>Lack of data among the value chain for Scope 3 emissions<br>Lack of consolidated harmonised observatory of organisation GHG emissions, preventing bridges between organization value chain GHG emissions and other scales (regional, sectoral, national, global)</td></tr><tr><td>ANALYSE<br>Strategic analysis of the current situation</td><td>Lack of guidelines to link OCCMS with other climate-related issues (e.g., climate change adaptation, avoided emissions and global net-zero)<br>Lack of guidelines to link OCCMS with other corporate sustainability issues and associated schemes (e.g., with Science-Based Targets for Nature, the Global Biodiversity Score, or with the Doughnut theory at the corporate level)<br>Lack of guidelines to define climate change mitigation-related monitoring indicators at organisational level (intensity, sectoral indicators, avoided emissions, operational indicators, etc.)<br>Lack of comprehensive study on the relation between distributive justice and organisation climate-related strategies depending on countries, sectors, type, size of organisations</td></tr><tr><td>COMMIT<br>Climate change mitigation targets definition</td><td>Lack of complete methodological framework and decision-making tools for downscaling global climate-related goals to the organisational level (as well as national, regional, sectoral levels), that take climate justice and ethical allocation principles into consideration<br>Lack of recommendations and transparency regarding all parameters of climate change mitigation targets, lack of sensitivity analysis of these parameters (e.g., the influence of the base year on climate change mitigation trajectories)<br>Lack of study on the relation between SBTi targets, carbon imbalance and market laws (e.g., newcomers, B2B, B2C, evolving activities and innovation)<br>Is the process of setting targets efficient? Re-evaluation of SBT organisations progress after the new 1.5°C criteria is adopted, analysis of imbalance between aggregate organisation targets and global emissions</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENT<br>Action plan definition and deployment</td><td>Lack of case studies on OCCMS, lack of methodological framework on the action plan definition and deployment step of OCCMS (e.g., lack of studies on ACT-S methodology)<br>Lack of scientific guidelines and comprehensive standards to structure OCCMS for organisations to define low-carbon strategies<br>Lack of studies about the role of the private sector regarding CO<sub>2</sub> removal and CO<sub>2</sub> offsets in organisation targets and strategies, in relation with CO<sub>2</sub> emissions reduction<br>Lack of analysis of public data, observatory of organisation climate-related actions and relation with other scales (global, national, sectoral)</td></tr><tr><td>REPORT<br>Reporting and verification</td><td>Incompleteness of most of the GHG emission accounting exercises<br>Lack of transparency in the definition of the system boundaries and difficult comparison between corporate GHG emissions<br>Lack of study on the additionality of the published targets, past and current GHG emissions, and different projected future emissions scenarios<br>Lack of structured guidelines related to transparency in choices, hypothesis, perimeters, parameters of OCCMS strategy</td></tr></tbody></table>
However, it presents certain limitations and holds potential for further development. Firstly, its current scope encompasses generic schemes, yet sector-specific adaptations capturing unique attributes would be required across sectors. Secondly, it should be noted that some of the schemes discussed in this study, which are not recommended in the OCCMS framework, could still be highly relevant in other contexts as they have a wider scope than just climate change mitigation. For instance, the Net Zero Initiative (NZI) framework and the B Impact Assessment (BIA) are respectively addressing the contribution of organisations in reaching global carbon neutrality, and the sustainability and CSR performance of organisations, which are relevant, albeit being outside the scope of this study. Thirdly, areas for attention vary according to the steps of an OCCMS as depicted in the right column of Figure 5, and further specific research is required for each of them. For instance, uncertainty management emerges as pivotal for quantifying GHG past and future emissions, in the steps of GHG emission accounting and climate change mitigation target definition.

### 3.4.2 | Research Agenda for Further Development of OCCMS Schemes

This review indicates whether schemes adhere to the basic principles of an OCCMS. There are still gaps in research and schemes for all steps of an OCCMS, as they have specific objectives that may require additional criteria to be considered. For instance, Marlowe et al. specifically examined carbon accounting schemes and associated research gaps (Marlowe et al. 2022), whereas other authors focused on climate change mitigation target-setting schemes (Bjørn, Lloyd, and Matthews 2021; Faria and Labutong 2020; Krabbe et al. 2015). Such specific complementary studies are needed for the step of action plan definition and deployment in an OCCMS. This includes inductive approaches with case studies and in-depth analysis of certain schemes (e.g., ACT-S). This is particularly relevant in the areas of strategic planning, low-carbon management and climate change mitigation action plan definition, which are currently underrepresented in scientific literature. Lastly, the implementation of the consolidated methodology necessitates testing and validation procedures in published case studies.

Further research, categorized in Table 3, is therefore needed in all steps of an OCCMS and associated schemes, in order to build a harmonised, robust and comprehensive climate change mitigation framework for organisations.

### 3.5 | Limitations of the Study

A number of limitations were highlighted throughout the study, as follows:

Firstly, the literature review yielded a finite set of schemes applicable to one stage of the OCCMS framework. Certain schemes were excluded from the review process. Although this limitation is acknowledged, the authors invite developers of new or existing schemes to utilize this evaluation support tool to assess and compare their proposals.

Secondly, the collection of scheme data, particularly for schemes lacking information on specific subcriteria, presented challenges. Direct contact with the organisations responsible for creating these schemes could have provided more comprehensive data. However, given the study's scope, which was limited to online accessible data from academic and private research sources, the absence of private data was not considered a significant drawback. Such direct contact would have mitigated uncertainty in the assessment of certain schemes, enabling a more exhaustive comparison of all schemes.

## 4 | Conclusion

To address the need for a robust and standardised scheme to derive climate change mitigation strategies at organisational levels, this study conducts a meticulous assessment of schemes that can potentially contribute to the definition of such strategies. We define 15 subcriteria based on established scientific methodologies and use them to evaluate 25 schemes in terms of fundamental principles of scientific integrity. Based on this review, we proposed a first framework to define climate change mitigation strategies in organisations and drew up needs for further research for each step.

The proposed framework, presented in Figure 5, is organised around the various stages of a transition plan, allowing for tailored recommendations depending on organisations' maturity levels. These review and framework highlight further research needs, depicted in Table 3. The results of this study can be used to evaluate existing and future schemes, to assess existing organisation climate change strategies or to assist organisations in their climate mitigation efforts and hold them accountable.

We recommend that scheme developers, whether in the private sector or in academia, consider and use the framework proposed here in their future work on climate change mitigation strategies, in order to be transparent about the strategic step and the gaps they address as well as to take a further step towards the standardisation of organisation climate change strategy schemes. For organisation stakeholders, the results of this article can serve as a guideline for assessing the maturity level of their organisations, for considering climate change in their decision-making processes and for enhancing the robustness of their climate change mitigation strategies.

There is a need to move beyond necessary yet insufficient organisation emission measurements and commitments, shifting focus towards comprehensive organisation climate strategies that also integrate climate-related action plans, influence strategies and model transformations. This study paves the way to build scientific guidelines to structure robust and credible organisational climate change mitigation strategies, and to set the research agenda in this area.

## References

Aggeri, F., and M. Cartel. 2017. "Le changement climatique et les entreprises: Enjeux, espaces d'action, régulations internationales."
Entreprises et Histoire 86, no. 1: 6–20. https://doi.org/10.3917/EH.086.0006.

Andersen, I., N. Ishii, T. Brooks, et al. 2021. "Defining 'Science-Based Targets'." *National Science Review* 8, no. 7: nwaa186. https://doi.org/10.1093/NSR/NWAA186.

Barre-Bon, S., P. Ghesquière, and G. Roudaut. 2017. "Objectifs de Développement Durable et entreprise: enjeux et opportunités."

Berrou, R., P. Dessertine, and M. Migliorelli. 2019. "An Overview of Green Finance." 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22510-0_1.

Bjørn, A., N. Bey, S. Georg, I. Ropke, and M. Z. Hauschild. 2017. "Is Earth Recognized as a Finite System in Corporate Responsibility Reporting?" *Journal of Cleaner Production* 163: 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.095.

Bjørn, A., S. Lloyd, and D. Matthews. 2021. "From the Paris Agreement to Corporate Climate Commitments: Evaluation of Seven Methods for Setting "Science-Based" Emission Targets." *Environmental Research Letters* 16, no. 5: 054019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ABE57B.

Bjørn, A., H. D. Matthews, M. Hadziosmanovic, N. Desmoitier, A. Addas, and S. M. Lloyd. 2023. "Increased Transparency Is Needed for Corporate Science-Based Targets to Be Effective." *Nature Climate Change* 13, no. 8: 756–759. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01727-z.

Blin-Franchomme, M. 2017. "QUEL RÔLE POUR L'ENTREPRISE APRÈS L'ACCORD DE PARIS?" http://publications.ut-capitole.fr/34015/1/CLIMAT_SFDE_Blin.pdf.

Busch, T., M. L. Barnett, R. Burritt, et al. 2023. "Moving Beyond "the" Business Case: How to Make Corporate Sustainability Work." *Business Strategy and the Environment* 33: 776–787. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.3514.

Castilho, A. R. B., and S. R. Barakat. 2022. "The Relationship Between Climate Change Mitigation Strategies and the Financial Performance of Brazilian Companies." *Journal of Industrial Ecology* 26, no. 4: 1294–1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/JIEC.13265.

CDP. 2021. "Climate Transition Plan: Discussion Paper." https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/002/840/original/Climate-Transition-Plans.pdf?1636038499.

CDP. 2022. ""Are Companies Developing Credible Transition Plans?" 2022 Climate Transition Plan Disclosure." https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance/guidance-for-companies/climate-transition-plans#43117a35d53e5c5f8de2b41c36088a8d.

Chan, S., P. Ellinger, and O. Widerberg. 2018. "Exploring National and Regional Orchestration of Non-State Action for a < 1.5°C World." *International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics* 18, no. 1: 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10784-018-9384-2/TABLES/1.

Daimi, S., and S. Rebai. 2022. "Sustainability Governance Indicator-Based Framework for Public Transport Companies in Developing Countries." *Journal of Cleaner Production* 380: 134942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.JCLEPRO.2022.134942.

Demastus, J., and N. E. Landrum. 2023. "Organizational Sustainability Schemes Align With Weak Sustainability." *Business Strategy and the Environment* 33: 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.3511.

EC-JRC. 2010. *ILCD Handbook—General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed Guidance*. Luxembourg: Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability.

EFRAG. 2022. "Draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards—ESRS E1 Climate Change."

Eleftheriadis, I., and E. Anagnostopoulou. 2017. "Measuring the Level of Corporate Commitment Regarding Climate Change Strategies." *International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management* 9, no. 5: 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-09-2016-0145.

European Commission. 2018. "Sustainable Finance: Commission's Action Plan for a Greener and Cleaner Economy." https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_1404.

European Commission. 2023. "Q&A Adoption of European Sustainability Reporting Standards." https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_23_4043.

European Parliament. 2020. "Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the Establishment of a Framework to Facilitate Sustainable Investment, and Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (Text With EEA Relevance)." https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852.

European Parliament. 2022. "Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 Amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting (Text With EEA Relevance)." https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464.

Faria, P. C. S., and N. Labutong. 2020. "A Description of Four Science-Based Corporate GHG Target-Setting Methods." *Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal* 11, no. 3: 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2017-0031.

Giesekam, J., J. Norman, A. Garvey, and S. Betts-Davies. 2021. "Science-Based Targets: On Target?" *Sustainability* 13, no. 4: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13041657.

Grishunin, S., E. Naumova, E. Burova, S. Suloeva, and T. Nekrasova. 2022. "The Impact of Sustainability Disclosures on Value of Companies Following Digital Transformation Strategies." *International Journal of Technology* 13, no. 7: 1432–1441. https://doi.org/10.14716/IJTECH.V13I7.6194.

Hale, T. N., S. Chan, A. Hsu, et al. 2020. "Sub- and Non-State Climate Action: A Framework to Assess Progress, Implementation and Impact." *Climate Policy* 21, no. 3: 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1828796.

Iken, N., F. Aggeri, and S. Morel. 2019. "How to Conduct a Sustainability Transition at the Company Level? The Role of Impact Valuation Tools and Management Instruments." *R&D Management Conference* 2019: 18.

Imbrogiano, J. P., and E. Nichols. 2021. "How to Serve Sustainability Performance in Businesses? An Appetizing Recipe to Link Practices to Performance in Business Sustainability Research." *Business Strategy and the Environment* 30, no. 4: 1610–1622. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2697.

IPCC. 2018. "IPCC Special Report 1.5—Summary for Policymakers." In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.

Kang, H., and J. Kim. 2022. "Analyzing and Visualizing Text Information in Corporate Sustainability Reports Using Natural Language Processing Methods." *Applied Sciences* 12, no. 11: 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP12115614.

Klaaben, L., and C. Stoll. 2021. "Harmonizing Corporate Carbon Footprints." *Nature Communications* 12, no. 1: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26349-x.

Köves, A., and Z. Bajmocy. 2022. "The End of Business-as-Usual?—A Critical Review of the Air Transport Industry's Climate Strategy for 2050 From the Perspectives of Degrowth." *Sustainable Production and Consumption* 29: 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.010.

Krabbe, O., G. Linthorst, K. Blok, et al. 2015. "Aligning Corporate Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Targets With Climate Goals." *Nature Climate Change* 5, no. 12: 1057–1060. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2770.

Kuramochi, T., M. Roelfsema, A. Hsu, et al. 2020. "Beyond National Climate Action: The Impact of Region, City, and Business Commitments on Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions." *Climate Policy* 20, no. 3: 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1740150.
Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., D. Vazquez-Brust, C. J. Chiappetta Jabbour, and D. Andriani Ribeiro. 2020. "The Interplay Between Stakeholders, Resources and Capabilities in Climate Change Strategy: Converting Barriers Into Cooperation." *Business Strategy and the Environment* 29, no. 3: 1362-1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2438.

Marlowe, J., A. Clarke, J. Marlowe, and A. Clarke. 2022. "Carbon Accounting: A Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research." *Green Finance* 4, no. 1: 71-87. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2022004.

Molin, M., L. Pizzol, M. Pesce, et al. 2022. "An Integrated Decision-Making Framework for Corporate Sustainability." *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management* 30: 1145-1160. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSR.2410.

NewClimate Institute. 2023. "Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2023." http://newclimate.org/publications/.

Park, S. B. 2023. "Bringing Strategy Back In: Corporate Sustainability and Firm Performance." *Journal of Cleaner Production* 388: 136012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136012.

Persson, Å., and J. Rockström. 2011. "Business Leaders." *Nature Climate Change* 1, no. 9: 426-427. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1290.

Pesqueux, Y. 2021. "La responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise (RSE) après l'Accord de Paris de 2015 et la pandémie covid-19 de 2020 - Archive ouverte HAL." https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02545949/.

Rashed, A. H., and A. Shah. 2021. "The Role of Private Sector in the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals." *Environment, Development and Sustainability* 23, no. 3: 2931-2948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00718-w.

Rekker, S., M. Ives, B. Wade, C. Greig, and L. Webb. 2021. "The Paris-Compliant Company: Measuring Transition Performance Using a Strict Science-Based Approach."

Rekker, S., M. Ives, B. Wade, C. Greig, and L. Webb. 2022. "Measuring Corporate Paris Compliance Using a Strict Science-Based Approach." https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/no-2021-03-measuring-corporation-paris-compliance-using-a-strict-science-based-approach/.

Ryberg, M. W., M. Owsianiak, J. Clavreul, et al. 2018. "How to Bring Absolute Sustainability Into Decision-Making: An Industry Case Study Using a Planetary Boundary-Based Methodology." *Science of the Total Environment* 634: 1406-1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.075.

Sanchez-Planelles, J., M. Segarra-Oña, and A. Peiro-Signes. 2021. "Building a Theoretical Framework for Corporate Sustainability." *Sustainability* 13, no. 1: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13010273.

SBTi. 2019. "Science-Based Target Setting Manual—Version 4.0 (Issue April)." https://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/C2A-guidelines.pdf.

SBTi. 2022. "SBTi Progress Report 2021—Science Based Targets." https://sciencebasedtargets.org/reports/sbti-progress-report-2021.

SBTi. 2023. "SBTi CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEAR-TERM TARGETS."

Steffen, B. W., and J. Rockström. 2015. "Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet." *Science* 347, no. 6223: 1259855.

TCFD. 2015. "Publications/Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures." https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/.

The White House. 2022. "FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Proposes Plan to Protect Federal Supply Chain From Climate-Related Risks." The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-proposes-plan-to-protect-federal-supply-chain-from-climate-related-risks/.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2022. "Press Release: SEC Proposes Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors." https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46.

UNEP. 2022. "World Headed for Climate Catastrophe Without Urgent Action: UN Secretary-General." https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/world-headed-climate-catastrophe-without-urgent-action-unsecretary-general.

United Nations Environment Programme. 2016. "Climate Commitments of Subnational Actors and Business: A Quantitative Assessment of Their Emission Reduction Impact." In *Climate Commitments of Subnational Actors and Business*. Nairobi: United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/E7C2B4BB-EN.

Vargas-Gonzalez, M. 2018. "Integrating the Concept of Planetary Boundaries Into Decision Making Processes." In *Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies*, 407-412. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66981-6_45.

Walenta, J. 2019. "Climate Risk Assessments and Science-Based Targets: A Review of Emerging Private Sector Climate Action Tools." In *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change*. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.628.

Web of Science. 2023. "Web of Science." https://www.webofknowl edge.com/.

World Economic Forum. 2021. "The Global Risks Report 2021|World Economic Forum." Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021.

## Supporting Information

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section.

## Appendix A

### A.1 | Detailed definition of subcriteria

### A.2 | List of OCCMS schemes and sources

1. ACT Initiative. (n.d.-a). ACT Methodologies—actiniative.org. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://actinitiative.org/act-methodologies/

2. ACT Initiative. (n.d.-b). Build your strategy—actiniative.org. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://actinitiative.org/build-your-strategy/

3. ABC (Association Bilan Carbone). (2017). Bilan Carbone®—Guide méthodologique—Version 8—Objectifs et principes de comptabilisation.

4. B Lab. (n.d.). B Impact Assessment. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/programs-and-tools/b-impact-assessment/

5. CDP. (n.d.). Guidance for companies—CDP. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance/guidance-for-companies

6. Climate Action 100+. (n.d.). Net Zero Company Benchmark|Climate Action 100+. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.climateaction100.org/net-zero-company-benchmark/

7. Climate Bonds Initiative. (n.d.). Climate Bonds Standard V3.0|Climate Bonds Initiative. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.climatebonds.net/climate-bonds-standard-v3
8. Climate Safe Lending Network. (n.d.). Taking the Carbon Out of Credit — Climate Safe Lending Network. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.climatesafelending.org/taking-the-carbon-out-of-credit

9. Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. (n.d.). Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero—Publications. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.gfanzero.com/publications/

10. ACCR. (n.d.). 2021 climate plan voting guidelines. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.accr.org.au/news/consulation-2021-climate-plan-voting-guidelines/

11. GHG Protocol. (n.d.). Corporate Standard|GHG Protocol. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-standard

12. GRI. (n.d.). GRI—Download the Standards. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/download-the-standards/

13. Investor Climate Action Plans. (n.d.). The Investor Agenda—A single and comprehensive framework. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://theinvestoragenda.org/icaps/

14. ISO. (n.d.). ISO 14064-1:2018—Greenhouse gases—Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.iso.org/standard/66453.html

15. Carbone 4. (n.d.). The Net Zero Initiative Framework. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.net-zero-initiative.com/en framework

16. Oxford Martin School. (n.d.). Oxford Martin Principles for Climate-Conscious Investment. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/oxford-martin-principles-for-climate-conscious-investment/

17. IIGCC. (2021). Net Zero Investment Framework 1.0. https://www.parisalignedassetowners.org/news-resources/resources/?resource_type=Methodology&case_study_TAGS

18. ADEME. (n.d.). Méthode QuantiGES—Quantifier l'impact GES d'une action de réduction des émissions -V3.2022. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://librairie.ademe.fr/changement-climatique-et-energie/4827-methode-quantiges-9791029718236.html

19. TCFD. (2015). Publications|Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/

20. Say on climate. (n.d.). GUIDE FOR COMPANIES—Say on climate. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://sayonclimate.org/guide-for-companies/

21. Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). (n.d.). The Corporate Net-Zero Standard—Science Based Targets. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero

22. SBTi. (2019). Science-based Target Setting Manual—Version 4.0 (Issue April). https://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploadds/2018/10/C2A-guidelines.pdf

23. ICMA. (n.d.). The Principles, Guidelines and Handbooks. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://www.icmagroup.org/sustainable-finance/the-principles-guidelines-and-handbooks/

24. Association Bilan Carbone (ABC). (n.d.). Excel ou logiciel, Bilan Carbone ou SM-GES ? Découvrez nos solutions. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://abc-transitionbascarbone.fr/agir/nos-solutions-et-outils/

25. Transition Pathway Initiative. (n.d.). Methodology and indicators report: Version 3.0. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from

https://www transitionpathwayinitiative.org/publications?tags=Methodology
<table><caption>TABLE A1 | Definition of subcriteria and associated three-level assessment method.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th rowspan="2">Criterion</th><th rowspan="2">Commentary &amp; Explanation</th><th colspan="3">Evaluation</th></tr><tr><th>Not fulfilling</th><th>Partially fulfilling</th><th>Fulfilling</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Multilevel applicability</td><td colspan="4">Quality of the method to be able to be applied or adapted to different situations</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptability to all sectors</td><td>Scheme specificity for different professional sectors, with differentiations for each sector</td><td>Only a general decarbonisation tool or no information</td><td>Specific for general sectors (purchase of goods, purchase of services)</td><td>Specific for precise sectors (auto, retail, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td>Applicability to all sectors</td><td>Scheme applicability to all professional sectors</td><td>Only applicable to a precise sector (industry, finance, etc.) or no information</td><td>Only applicable for a general sector (purchase of goods, purchase of services)</td><td>Applicable without any sectoral exclusion</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptability to all sizes and types</td><td>Scheme adaptability to all organisations size and types</td><td>Only applicable to a specific organisation size or no information</td><td>Applicable to almost all organisations sizes, but with at least one exclusion</td><td>Applicable to all organisations sizes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Scope</td><td colspan="4">Boundaries and extent of the scheme within the organisation</td></tr><tr><td>Climate-associated risks and opportunities</td><td>Consideration of the multiple risks (physical, political, environmental, economic, social, reputational) involved in a climate transition</td><td>No consideration nor mention of transition risks and opportunities in the scheme</td><td>Mention of transition risks and opportunities in the scheme but indirect use</td><td>Consideration and use of transition risks and opportunities in the scheme</td></tr><tr><td>Consideration of the initial organisational climate context</td><td>Consistency with the operational context of the organisation and its initial situation in terms of GHG emissions and associated climate change mitigation strategy</td><td>No consideration of the current strategy or operational context in the scheme</td><td>Partial consideration of the current strategy in the strategy creation (e.g., only a part of the strategy)</td><td>Consideration of the current strategy and maturity of the organisation in the scheme</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusion of all organisation activities</td><td>Implementation of the climate mitigation strategy within the organisation, at all levels and in all departments</td><td>No consideration or implication of all departments nor governance specified in the scheme</td><td>Partial consideration or implication of departments or governance specified in the scheme</td><td>Consideration of all department and governance specified in the scheme</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE A1 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th rowspan="2">Criterion</th><th rowspan="2">Commentary &amp; Explanation</th><th colspan="3">Evaluation</th></tr><tr><th>Not fulfilling</th><th>Partially fulfilling</th><th>Fulfilling</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Scientific robustness</td><td></td><td>Schemes ability to integrate scientific rigor and up-to-date science</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Uncertainty assessment</td><td>Assessment of uncertainties in the scientific quantitative data and information provided by the organisation</td><td>Uncertainty of data is not taken into consideration in the scheme</td><td>Uncertainty of data is partially included in the scheme (not all data or no mention)</td><td>Uncertainty of data is taken into consideration</td></tr><tr><td>Consideration of other sustainability parameters</td><td>Capacity to conduct systemic analysis considering other environmental or social indicators (e.g., carbon footprint, impact on biodiversity, chemical pollution and resources), in order to avoid burden shifting. This criterion has been added to take into account the systemic and interdependent nature of earth processes (characterised, for example, by the framework of planetary boundaries), as well as the links between climate issues and societal issues.</td><td>The scheme does not mention other sustainability indicators or impact categories than climate change mitigation</td><td>The scheme mentions other sustainability indicators or risk of burden shifting (e.g., in recommendations)</td><td>The scheme takes other indicators into consideration (e.g., qualitatively)</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific review of the scheme</td><td>Peer-review process in the scheme definition and publication in scientific journals</td><td>No scientific review from a third-party</td><td>Scheme cited in research articles or scientific committee</td><td>Scheme peer reviewed in scientific journals</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Accessibility and adoption</td><td></td><td>Clarity of the scheme and its outputs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accessibility</td><td>Possible access for all to every information and hypothesis of the different case studies and schemes</td><td>Impossible access or no case study</td><td>Partial access to summary versions, without all calculations, hypothesis, tools or information</td><td>Total access</td></tr><tr><td>Usage by organisations</td><td>Number of organisations that have already used the method</td><td>None or no information</td><td>Between 1 and 10</td><td>More than 10</td></tr><tr><td>Existing public case studies</td><td>Number of available case studies and business cases</td><td>None</td><td>Between 1 and 5</td><td>More than 5</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE A1 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Category</th><th rowspan="2">Criterion</th><th rowspan="2">Commentary &amp; Explanation</th><th colspan="3">Evaluation</th></tr><tr><th>Not fulfilling</th><th>Partially fulfilling</th><th>Fulfilling</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Stakeholders' involvement</td><td colspan="4">Participation of multiple stakeholders in the scheme</td></tr><tr><td>Involvement of multiple stakeholders in the processes</td><td>Need to involve external partners (e.g., customers and suppliers) in the scheme application</td><td>None or no mention</td><td>Scheme mentions stakeholders' involvement, but do not include associated processes</td><td>Stakeholders' involvement is possible and encouraged in the scheme</td></tr><tr><td>Support for organisations</td><td>Possibility for the organisation to be assisted by experts, to have trainings and capacity building</td><td>None or no information</td><td>Possibility to be helped by trained external expert, but no database</td><td>Database and processes for trained external expert (e.g., potential financial or technical)</td></tr><tr><td>Alignment with recognised authorities and policies</td><td>Alignment of the method with political targets (national, EU, NDC, etc.) and mention of the method in an official regulations or statements</td><td>No link with regulations and no mention in official recommendations</td><td>The scheme does mention relations with regulations</td><td>The scheme is mentioned in official texts or recommendations</td></tr></tbody></table>