As we enter this new chapter, more companies will want to offer proof of follow-through in the form of empirical data showing that they’re adopting climate solutions. The subset of companies with an internal carbon price embrace the understanding that to put forth a credible climate strategy, details are key. In addition to showing whether companies are backing their targets with actions, details tell what companies are doing, and make it possible for learning to take place across companies.

This sort of data can be hard to capture and assess because approaches vary widely. But it’s possible. We recently analyzed the climate funding data of nearly 130 of the consumer brands that earned The Climate Label certification in 2025. The results show how they’re choosing to fund decarbonization, and preview the power that this type of data could have if collected at a larger scale.

Clearing the bar without breaking the bank

To earn The Climate Label, brands must make concrete investments in climate solutions, at a level proportionate to their carbon footprint. The level is based on a minimum internal carbon price of $15, which is applied to every tonne of their GHG emissions. The resulting dollar amount is known as a climate transition budget (CTB). Companies can only count verified decarbonization projects towards the CTB.

Last year, 96 percent of the 128 companies that earned the certification exceeded the minimum CTB of $15. Even counting companies that far exceeded the $15 per tonne level, median climate transition funding equaled just 0.3 percent of revenues, and 8 out of 10 brands met the CTB minimum for less than 1 percent of revenues.

While companies’ absolute emissions and total climate spend varied widely, CTB levels as a share of revenue showed little relationship to industry, company size or emissions profile. A meaningful level of funding for decarbonization may be more financially accessible than many companies assume.

Paying for value chain projects

A common criticism in corporate sustainability is that companies will usually opt for the easiest option—carbon credits—while continuing to make ambitious climate claims. The data, however, suggests the opposite.

Free to meet their CTBs with a mix of value chain projects and market-based mechanisms, certified companies directed an average of 70 percent of their funding into projects that involved corporate facilities and supply chains. This pattern held steady, regardless of sector or annual revenues, which ranged from a few million to hundreds of millions of dollars. Many companies noted they could better support their overall business strategy and long-term emissions reduction goals by making value chain investments.

Nonetheless, not all organizations have “shovel-ready” value chain projects at all times, particularly in the early stages of climate planning. As such, the flexibility t