As Systems for Climate Action Expand, Companies Stay the Course but Revisit Language

Carbon pricing systems are now in effect in jurisdictions representing 63% of global GDP. Such systems comprise an important infrastructure for corporate sustainability. This week’s newsletter covers how companies are responding.

Across the G7 (the largest economies), companies are maintaining their climate commitments even as they change how they talk about them. And the methodologies underpinning sustainability strategy — like double materiality — are maturing from compliance checklists into genuine decision-support management tools.

As reported by Carbon Herald, an update from the International Carbon Action Partnership documents 41 active emissions trading systems (ETS) worldwide, covering 26% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and more than half the world’s population. Japan, India, and Vietnam are all launching national systems this year, moving carbon pricing well beyond its early-adopter origins in Europe and North America.

The world’s second-largest economy, China, is preparing to shift its national ETS toward an absolute emissions cap by 2027. The EU is expanding its system to include transport and buildings. The State of California, which represents the world’s fourth-largest economy, has locked in its program through 2045.

Far from its origins as a policy experiment, the ICAP Secretariat describes carbon pricing as becoming “the architecture of the global climate response.” For companies navigating its impacts on the climate/compliance landscape, G&A has published three new resources relevant to carbon markets: (1) an “Ask the Analyst” explainer on the EU’s CBAM; (2) a resource paper on carbon pricing in the EU, and (3) a guide to getting climate terminology right and avoiding greenwashing. All three are available in our listing of G&A blogs and research below.

Meanwhile, a survey of more than 7,000 business leaders in the G7, covered by ESG Today, confirms that companies are staying the course with climate action. A dominant 81% say they’re concerned about future costs if they don’t prepare for climate change. Three-quarters say the economic risks of not transitioning outweigh the costs of doing so. However, many are revisiting their outward-facing approach: 61% admit they’ve shifted how they communicate about net zero in response to political backlash and media skepticism. BSI calls this “climate coding”, or reframing sustainability in terms of resilience, risk management, and business continuity, rather than environmental impact.

As an example of the political backlash coloring the regulatory landscape, ESG Dive reports on a proposed U.S. federal bill that would ban cities and states from bringing climate-related lawsuits. This new effort challenges the potential for state and local litigation to deliver climate accountability. Over the past year we’ve tracked sustainability decentralizing from Washington to regional courtrooms and statehouses. This bill is an explicit attempt to close that channel. Whether it advances or not, it signals that the legal front remains as contested as the regulatory one.

Fortunately, companies continue with the work of protecting their businesses and the planet by incorporating sustainability into their risk and strategy assessments. Supply & Demand Chain Executive reports on a rise in the use of double materiality assessments (DMAs), not just as a reporting requirement but as a strategic decision-support tool — helping companies identify which sustainability issues pose genuine financial risk and where they can create the most value.

For professionals tracking the broader landscape, this issue also covers the ISSB’s move to formalize guidance on nature-related disclosures, the EU’s new Sustainable Supply Chains Coalition, a €20 billion sustainable infrastructure fund, and why the fall in fossil fuel generation in China and India marks a turning point for global renewables.