A decade after the Paris Agreement, a paradox persists. Emissions reduction is embedded in corporate strategy, yet momentum is fading. Three forces are at play: a narrative that over‑weights footprint decarbonization alone, a fragmented patchwork of useful methods that are poorly articulated to one another, and the lack of a robust, fair, and comparable indicator of real corporate climate effort. This White Paper reframes the ambition: from a narrative of reduction to one of contribution. The point is not to replace reduction, but to expand it, recognizing, measuring, and valuing companies as engines of the transition and providers of climate solutions.
The Climate Contribution Framework (CCF) unifies existing initiatives under a common banner of action and a synthetic, decision‑useful indicator. It is designed to inform boards, C-level executives, investors, and regulators. The framework is built on three principles:
● Sector nuance by shifting rewards for companies for actions that don’t show up in the GHG inventory (e.g., developing climate solutions and climate financing)
● Comparability by enabling intra-industry comparison and competition to reach higher Contribution Performance scores over time
● Standards unification by acting as a unifying meta-framework that incorporates information on climate mitigation performance from other standards
The CCF aggregates actions across three complementary pillars, each scored on a 0–100 scale:
● Pillar A – Carbon Footprint Reduction: integrates performance to date, ambition and metrics, execution plan (including supplier and customer engagement), governance, and public policy alignment across Scopes 1–3.
● Pillar B – Climate Solutions: recognizes solution providers through current green revenue share, planned green revenue and the magnitude of impact via the avoided/induced emissions ratio.
● Pillar C – Climate Financing: values voluntary financing for mitigation beyond the value chain across a broader set of instruments (tonne‑denominated credits and outcomes, non‑tonne-denominated instruments, and investments with secondary climate impacts).
These pillars are not substitutable. They capture distinct forms of contribution that cannot offset one another. A high‑emitting sector’s primary responsibility remains Pillar A; a climate solution manufacturers’ primary lever is Pillar B; financially strong firms can and should contribute via Pillar C. Yet all companies retain responsibilities across all three.
Each sub‑pillar follows a generic formula. A Performance score (0–100), derived from the outputs of recognized frameworks (e.g., SBTi, ACT, TPI, InfluenceMap, EU taxonomy, WBCSD, AEP), is normalized via a Translation Kit and adjusted by:
● an Assessment Framework score (70% weight) reflecting the completeness and transparency of the framework used; and
● an Assessment Quality score (30% weight) reflecting robustness of data, independence, and assurance of the assessment.
In Pillar C, performance reflects the overall share of net profit allocated into the retained financial vehicles, while framework and quality are combined into a single integrity factor applied at the level of each financial instrument.
For companies not yet covered by external frameworks, a CCF “Simplified Approach” provides a structured first assessment, with appropriately lower credibility weighting but without excluding these actors from measurement.
Sector-specific pillars’ weightings α (A), β (B), and γ (C) are established at a NACE level across 100+ subsectors. They:
● reflect each sector’s climate materiality (α+β+γ ranges from 10% to 100%);
● focus assessment on the most material levers for each business model; and
● avoid bias between structurally low‑emitting sectors and high‑emitting or high‑solution‑potential sectors.
𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = (𝐴 × α) + (𝐵 × β) + (𝐶 × γ)
Weightings ensure cross‑sector fairness without preventing multi‑pillar contribution, and they prevent strong performance on one pillar from compensating for structural under‑performance on another.
Two tools ensure consistent, scalable adoption:
● Translation Kit: converts heterogeneous outputs (scores, tiers, certifications, unbounded metrics) to standardized 0–100 performance scores.
● CCF Simplified Approach: maturity matrices for Pillar A sub‑pillars to assess companies with limited external evaluations or disclosures.
The CCF produces three complementary outcomes:
● Contribution Potential (10–100): sectoral climate materiality, i.e., α+β+γ.
● Actual Contribution (0–100): current performance, adjusted for framework
completeness and assessment quality, weighted by α/β/γ.
● Contribution Performance (0–100%): ratio of actual contribution to potential.
A compact visual output combines pillar‑level scores with sectoral weightings, enabling rapid comparison, diagnosis of strengths and gaps, and prioritization of two improvement axes: demonstration (better measurement and third‑party evaluation) and action strengthening (raising ambition and execution on material levers).
● Companies: to plan credible strategies, balance reductions, solutions, and
financing, and report transparently.
● Investors and financial institutions: to apply a consistent lens and steer capital toward leaders of climate impact.
● Policymakers and civil society: to complement reporting rules with a
comparable, non‑duplicative benchmark.
By broadening the narrative from reduction to contribution and providing a robust, fair, and comparable indicator, the CCF shifts corporate climate action from defensive compliance to measurable, credible, and rewarded impact.