Workshop follow-up: "Company and investor perspectives on corporate transition planning: incentives and dependencies"

As part of London Climate Action Week 2026, the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), its academic partner the TPI Global Climate Transition Centre (TPI Centre) at LSE and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development co-hosted two workshops designed to facilitate corporate-investor dialogue on identifying incentives and navigating external dependencies for corporate transition planning. 

Held at the London Stock Exchange Group on Wednesday 24 June, the two workshops brought together 24 participants, including investors and companies from a range of sectors, such as chemicals and oil and gas.  Their opinions were canvassed through discussions and live polling in facilitated roundtable sessions held under the Chatham House Rule. Here are the key insights that emerged:

Policy is seen as a fundamental driver of the transition to a low-carbon economy, but its fragmentation across jurisdictions is a key problem. Policy was identified as a consistent theme across both workshops. Participants saw it as a fundamental driver of transition planning, but raised concerns about fragmentation, uncertainty and the pace of change. Political cycles were seen as creating a ‘pendulum effect’ that makes long-term business planning difficult, while European Union (EU) regulation was criticised by some as overly detailed, slow and sometimes counterproductive. There was a call to action for policy to provide a clear ‘north star’ and for public-private collaboration to accelerate delivery at scale, unlock investment and support market creation, value and jobs.

Market and customer demand are compelling incentives. Demand was recognised as a powerful incentive and, for at least one participant, the most significant dependency shaping transition plans. Two main sources of demand-side pressure were described. First, end-market demand for lower-carbon products is already influencing corporate decisions, including in cases where liquefied natural gas is displacing coal. Second, customers are placing greater scrutiny on suppliers, asking not only whether they have science-based emissions targets, but also whether they are making genuine reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions. These developments were viewed as a shift beyond box-ticking towards a clearer test of whether suppliers' actions align with customers’ own climate ambitions.

Business case drivers – cost, efficiency and competitiveness – are strong motivators. Companies highlighted examples where decarbonisation aligned with commercial value. A cement producer’s move to lower-heat, less carbon-intensive production methods improved efficiency, reduced costs and created a more profitable, lower-emissions product. A paper manufacturer similarly described major investment in mill decarbonisation as a sound business decision, driven by lower energy costs and return on investment. However, discussants recognised that this win-win logic does not apply equally across all sectors or regions, for example, oil and gas, or parts of Southeast Asia, where the cost-competitive pathway is less clear.

During the live polling, participants identified which external dependencies most affect their organisations' ability to deliver transition plans. The top three dependencies from the poll can be seen below:

Geographic and regional constraints define what is possible. Regional context was the strongest theme in this discussion. It was noted that the economics and feasibility of transition vary significantly by market, and that frameworks designed for developed economies do not always translate well elsewhere. Some participants described operating in contexts where fossil fuel dependency is deeply structural, where geography limits the availability of renewable options, such as wind or solar power, and where the economics of transition are simply not comparable to those in markets where renewables are abundant and cheap. A recurring frustration was that renewable investment tends to flow toward more commercially attractive markets, leaving regions highly dependent on fossil fuels further behind. Finally, there was a strong call for greater regional representation and regionally sensitive metrics that reflect these varied realities. Some participants noted that the EU is one of the few jurisdictions with regional decarbonisation pathways and that granular regional data are rare elsewhere.

Adaptability matters more than adhering to fixed plans. Investors placed more weight on how companies respond to disruption than on whether they follow a stated transition pathway exactly. Recent geopolitical shocks and energy market disruptions were cited as examples of how even well-constructed transition plans can be overtaken by global events. A planned carbon-capture venture between an oil major and a large asset manager was reported to have stalled due to its dependence on a stable policy environment. The shared conclusion was that transition plans have a limited ‘relevancy window’, so robust processes for embedding and regularly updating targets matter more than locking in a single trajectory.

Disclosing specific dependencies in transition plans helps investors make decisions and candour should be rewarded rather than penalised. Investors wanted to understand exactly what a transition plan depends on, to what extent and over what timeframe. General caveats such as "uncertainty exists" are not enough. Participants strongly agreed that caveats should not be interpreted as weakening ambition, as detailed and specific disclosure of constraints, policy-consultation responses and partnerships can help investors assess whether companies are doing what they can within their control. Clearly explaining potential barriers to the delivery of transition plans can make these plans more credible. Attendees also recognised that caveats serve a defensive purpose, given the legal exposure associated with public commitments and the constraints this creates on candour.

Taken together, the workshops pointed to a consistent message: the bar for credible corporate transition planning is rising, not falling. Credible transition plans will need to combine ambition with specificity about the real-world dependencies that shape delivery, including policy, demand, regional conditions, infrastructure and cost competitiveness. 

Finally, as ever, we welcome your feedback. If you attended the event, we would be grateful if you could fill out the post-event survey. It will only take a few minutes.