2025 Outcomes Rubrics

This set of rubrics looks at the outcomes planned by 2025, particularly at how different actors are expected to behave.

Partners and Laudes Foundation will define the relevant rubrics and evaluative criteria at the design stage. Partners will regularly rate each rubric and discuss with Laudes how the initiative has contributed to the change, lessons learned and implications for the future. The evidence used to rate each rubric will vary according to the industry, sector and region of focus for the initiative, as defined at design stage.

C1 - Policymakers reform, implement, enforce and protect critical laws and policies that require 1a. climate-positive practices & 1b. equity and inclusion

  • Harmful
  • Unconducive
  • Partly conducive
  • Conducive & Supportive
  • Thrivable

Harmful

Efforts by policymakers to reform, implement, enforce and protect critical laws and policies that require climate-positive practices and equity  are clearly failing.

One or more of the following are evident:

  • There is virtually no buy-in for passing reforms that require climate-positive practices and equity. Any reforms passed are severely diluted with major loopholes and other critical weaknesses.
  • Policy implementation may be undermined by saboteurs within the involved agencies and/or is extremely ineffective due to seriously misaligned systems and processes that run counter to the policy intent.
  • There are very weak or no enforcement mechanisms for monitoring harmful practices; businesses failing to comply can virtually always avoid any meaningful consequences.

Existing policies that require climate-positive practices and equity  are insufficiently protected; they are under serious threat from – or have already been adversely affected by – widespread and effective counter-lobbying and backsliding efforts by businesses and industry groups.

Unconducive

Policymakers have made only minor progress so far in their agenda to reform, implement, enforce and protect critical laws and policies that require climate-positive practices and equity and that disincentivise and sanction practices that negatively impact climate and/or equity.

One or more of the following are evident:

  • Reforms that are introduced lack crucial buy-in and tend to be weak, with inadequate sanctions to compel change.
  • Agencies and organisations involved in policy implementation have a seriously misaligned understanding of the policy intent and/or may lack the necessary systems, processes and capabilities to deliver on that intent.
  • Enforcement is inconsistent and may be hampered by weak mechanisms for identifying harmful practices. Sanctions are only sporadically imposed on businesses that fail to comply; there is a definite need for more consistent enforcement, including strategic litigation when appropriate.

Counter-lobbying and backsliding efforts are often not identified until it is too late, which results in inadequate protection of reformed policies.

Partly conducive

Policymakers have made some progress and continue to engage in a growing agenda to reform, implement, enforce and protect critical laws and policies that require climate-positive practices and equity, and that disincentivise and sanction practices that negatively impact climate and/or equity.

Some or all of the following are evident:

  • Some reforms are robust and include meaningful sanctions, although many require more refinement to be effective or to minimise the potential for unintended negative consequences, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Agencies and organisations involved in policy implementation have a somewhat misaligned understanding of the policy intent; even though they have limitations in terms of systems, processes and capabilities, they frequently deliver on that intent.
  • Enforcement is becoming more consistent and effective, with mechanisms in place that identify many but not all harmful practices. Sanctions (and strategic litigation, when appropriate) are used to deter non-compliance, but may not be imposed in a sufficiently timely, consistent and/or public way to be effective.

Counter-lobbying and backsliding efforts are addressed when identified, but a reactive rather than a proactive approach means that protection of reformed policies is still somewhat weak.

Conducive & Supportive

Policymakers have made good progress and continue to engage in a comprehensive agenda to reform, implement, enforce and protect critical laws and policies that require climate-positive practices and equity, and that disincentivise and sanction practices that negatively impact climate and/or equity.

Policymakers ensure the following:

  • Most reforms are robust, difficult to circumvent and include meaningful sanctions, although some may require refinement to be more effective or to minimise the potential for unintended negative consequences, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Agencies and organisations involved in policy implementation have a reasonably strong shared understanding of the policy intent and have most of the right systems, processes and capabilities to deliver on that intent.
  • Enforcement is consistent and mostly effective, with mechanisms in place to identify harmful practices. With just a few exceptions, sanctions are imposed in a sufficiently timely and/or public way that they serve as an effective deterrent to non-compliance. Strategic litigation against select powerful businesses is helping to send a signal to the industry.

Reforms are successfully protected, most of the time, from backsliding efforts through collaborative initiatives involving policymakers, CSOs and cross-sectoral movements to identify and effectively thwart such attempts.

Thrivable

Policymakers have made substantial progress[1] already in a comprehensive agenda to reform, implement, enforce and protect critical laws and policies that require climate-positive practices and equity, and that disincentivise and sanction practices that negatively impact climate and/or equity.

Policymakers ensure the following:

  • Reforms are robust[2], difficult to circumvent, include substantial and proportionate sanctions and have been carefully designed to minimise the potential for unintended negative consequences, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Agencies and organisations involved in policy implementation have a strong shared understanding of the policy intent and have the right systems, processes and capabilities to deliver on that intent.
  • Enforcement is proactive and highly effective, with strong mechanisms to identify harmful practices. Sanctions are imposed in a sufficiently timely and/or public way that they serve as an effective deterrent to non-compliance. Effective use of strategic litigation sends a clear signal to the industry.

Reforms are successfully protected from backsliding efforts through an effective collaboration between policymakers and CSOs and cross-sectoral movements to identify and effectively thwart such attempts.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Some guidelines for interpreting progress or change descriptors in the rubrics.“Substantial progress/change” = the most important foundational work/changes have been completed. “Good progress/substantial change” = several important foundational reforms/changes have been completed; some important elements remain. “Some progress/change” = some important reforms/changes have been completed (or the process to do so is well advanced); however, there are still many important changes still needing to be made. “Minor progress/change” = some small reforms/changes have been made; much important work remains. “Yet to make any meaningful progress/change” = changes to date (if any) are extremely minor or trivial.
  2. ^ “Robust” = strong and comprehensive with no serious loopholes; not easy to circumvent.

C2 - Financial sector actors use their influence, policies, practices and valuation methodologies to ensure 2a. climate-positive practices and 2b. equity and inclusion

  • Harmful
  • Unconducive
  • Partly conducive
  • Conducive & Supportive
  • Thrivable

Harmful

Very few financial sector actors – perhaps none in the relevant region(s) and sector(s) – are using their influence, policies, practices and valuation methodologies to ensure climate-positive and socially equitable practices. Investors demand that companies maximise profit rather than consider climate and inequality.

Some or all of the following are likely to be evident in the relevant region(s) and sector(s):

  • Credit rating agencies typically do not publicly reflect the risks of climate change and social inequities  in their ratings.
  • With rare exceptions, banks and institutional investors are still lending to, investing in or underwriting new (or existing) harmful assets, including organisations engaged in climate-negative practices, that have a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequality, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Auditors typically do not write down stranded assets.

Major asset owners and managers still have portfolios that include substantial numbers of investments that are climate-negative and/or that contribute to the perpetuation or exacerbation of inequality.

Unconducive

As yet, only a few financial sector actors – likely not the most important ones - are using their influence, policies, practices and valuation methodologies to ensure climate-positive and socially equitable practices. They are poorly delivering on their climate and equity-related commitments. Investors are typically not exercising their agency to demand that companies act visibly and decisively on climate and social inequities.

Some or all of the following are likely to be evident in the relevant region(s) and sector(s):

  • A few of the credit rating agencies may now publicly reflect the risks of climate change and social inequities  in their ratings, but a clear majority do not.
  • A small number of banks and institutional investors are no longer lending to, investing in or underwriting new (or existing) harmful assets, including organisations engaged in climate-negative practices, that have a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequality, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Some auditors are starting to write down stranded assets.

A few asset owners and managers (probably no major ones) are starting to decarbonise their portfolios and some may inform investors about climate and inequality as important risks.

Partly conducive

Several key financial sector actors are using their influence, policies, practices and valuation methodologies to ensure climate-positive and socially equitable practices. They are delivering on their climate and equity-related commitments with reasonable success. A small group of progressive investors are maximising their agency to demand that companies act visibly and decisively on climate and social inequities.

All or most of the following are evident in the relevant region(s) and sector(s):

  • Several of the major credit rating agencies now publicly reflect the risks of climate change and social inequities  in their ratings.
  • Several major banks and institutional investors are no longer lending to, investing in or underwriting new (or existing) harmful assets, including organisations engaged in climate-negative practices, that have a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequality, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Several auditors, including some major players, are diligent in writing down stranded assets.

Several major asset owners and managers are working to decarbonise their portfolios and some now inform investors about climate and inequality as important risks.

Conducive & Supportive

Most key financial sector actors are using their influence, policies, practices and valuation methodologies in increasingly powerful and effective ways to ensure climate-positive and socially equitable practices. They are making reasonable progress in seeking to include more diverse perspectives and inputs in their own agenda-setting. They are delivering on their climate and equity-related commitments with good success. Several progressive investors are maximising their agency to demand that companies act visibly and decisively on climate and inequality. There are very early signs that capital flows are starting to reflect intolerance for climate-negative and socially inequitable practices.

All or most of the following are evident in the relevant region(s) and sector(s):

  • A clear majority of the major credit rating agencies now publicly reflect the risks of climate change and social inequities  in their ratings.
  • Most major banks and institutional investors are no longer lending to, investing in or underwriting new (or existing) harmful assets, including organisations engaged in climate-negative practices, that have a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequality, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Most auditors are diligent in writing down stranded assets.

Most major asset owners and managers are transparently and proactively decarbonising their portfolios, and many inform investors about climate and inequality as important risks.

Thrivable

A clear majority of key financial sector actors are using their influence, policies, practices and valuation methodologies in powerful and effective ways to ensure climate-positive and socially equitable practices. They are actively seeking to include more diverse perspectives in their own agenda-setting. They are delivering on their climate and equity-related commitments and are achieving the desired outcomes. Progressive investors are fully maximising their agency to demand that companies act visibly and decisively on climate and inequality. Capital flows are starting to reflect intolerance for climate-negative and socially inequitable practices.

All or most of the following are evident in the relevant region(s) and sector(s):

  • Virtually all[1] major credit rating agencies now publicly reflect the risks of climate change and social inequities  in their ratings.
  • Virtually all major banks and institutional investors are no longer lending to, investing in or underwriting new (or existing) harmful assets, including organisations engaged in climate-negative practices, that have a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequality, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • The vast majority of auditors write down stranded assets as standard practice.

Footnotes

  1. ^ A quick explainer of some prevalence terms, to use as a rough guide (not rigid cut points) when interpreting evidence using the rubrics. These are not purely numerical but should include consideration of what proportion of the most important actors are involved.“Virtually all” = all except a few less-important actors “The vast majority” = all except several less-important actors “A clear majority” = nearly all of the key players, plus most of the rest “Most” = most of the key players, plus several others “Several” = enough key players to be significant, plus some others “Some” = a number of key players, but not quite enough to be significant “A few” = a small proportion overall, with only a small number of key players “Very few” = small numbers overall - and none of the key players.

C3 - Businesses promote and implement bold, 3a. climate-positive policies, models and practices & 3b. that contribute to equity and inclusion

  • Harmful
  • Unconducive
  • Partly conducive
  • Conducive & Supportive
  • Thrivable

Harmful

The most influential businesses and industry associations/organisations with vested interests in maintaining the status quo in the relevant sector(s) and region(s) are actively taking measures to prevent any efforts or movements to invest in or adopt progressive climate-positive company or industry policies, business models and practices  that show demonstrable and measurable progress toward equitable outcomes for all affected groups, particularly the most vulnerable, including by their members.

One or more of the following is likely to be evident:

  • Industry associations/organisations have weak or non-existent industry standards and expectations with respect to climate and equity. They explicitly or implicitly endorse the maximisation of short-term profit for shareholders at the expense of both the environment and of providing workers, producers and communities with fair treatment and their fair share of benefits and resources.

Industry-supported advocacy efforts are a powerful influence in policy and legislation, often counter-lobbying successfully to block, dilute or backslide progressive policy reforms. This includes trying to block any efforts to increase transparency (e.g., due diligence on supply chains) and lobbying for loopholes that allow non-compliance.

Unconducive

Very few businesses and industry associations/organisations in the relevant sector(s) and region(s) have made or encouraged any meaningful progress towards adopting a comprehensive and coherent mix of bold, climate-positive company or industry policies, business models and practices  and that show demonstrable and measurable progress toward equitable outcomes for all affected groups, particularly the most vulnerable.

The vast majority are not transparent about their actions (and inaction) in these areas.

Participation mechanisms for workers, producers and communities to participate in decisions that affect them are weak and ineffective or there is active avoidance and/or co-optation of such mechanisms.

One or more of the following is likely to be evident:

  • Industry associations/organisations have generally ineffectual industry standards and expectations with respect to climate and equity. They do very little to encourage change from the vast majority of businesses that still engage in climate-negative practices or whose company policies and/or practices contribute to inequity or marginalisation. They explicitly or implicitly accept that many businesses choose to maximise short-term profit for shareholders, often at the expense of both the natural environment and providing workers, producers and communities with fair treatment and compensation.

Industry-supported advocacy efforts have considerable influence in policy and legislation and their lack of support for reforms and/or their efforts to dilute them has kept progress too slow.

Partly conducive

Some businesses and industry associations/organisations in the relevant sector(s) and region(s) have made reasonable progress towards adopting a comprehensive and coherent mix of bold, climate-positive company or industry policies, business models and practices.

Those businesses are becoming increasingly transparent about the changes they are making and their effects, which include, sometimes, demonstrable and measurable progress toward equitable outcomes for all affected groups, particularly the most vulnerable. However, there may be issues with the alignment or soundness of targets and practices, or there may be company or industry policies in place but as yet only partial implementation.

Only a few influential businesses seek and use support from investors to encourage change in their supply chains by committing to purchase from those using materials, processes and practices that are climate-positive  and that demonstrably increase social and economic equity for women and other historically marginalised groups, particularly the most vulnerable.

In addition, most or all of the following are likely to be evident:

  • A few reasonably influential industry associations/organisations have adopted clear standards for climate-positive practices and social equity, including methodologies that effectively measure value, risk and performance that are applicable across their membership. They demonstrate some leadership in encouraging, supporting and requiring change from the many remaining organisations still using business models and practices that are climate-negative and/or contribute to inequity or marginalisation.
  • There are some participation mechanisms that are starting to allow workers, producers and communities to participate in business and industry decisions that affect them – but may not effectively include those who have historically been most marginalised, adversely impacted and/or vulnerable.

A few reasonably influential industry associations/organisations, industry-supported advocacy efforts and/or business leaders are an increasingly progressive influence in policy and finance. They are engaged with policymakers and/or financiers, alongside CSOs and other stakeholders, in advocating for and protecting progressive legislation and policy reforms, as well as exposing harmful practices and influencing businesses to comply. They may be starting to encourage the integration into company reporting and scenario planning of costs and side effects incurred or experienced by others and/or the environment.

Conducive & Supportive

A clear majority businesses and industry associations/organisations in the relevant sector(s) and region(s) have made good progress towards adopting a comprehensive and coherent mix of bold, climate-positive company or industry policies, business models and practices.

Those businesses are transparent about the changes they are making and their effects, which include demonstrable and measurable progress toward equitable outcomes for all affected groups, particularly the most vulnerable.

Most influential businesses seek and use support from investors to encourage change in their supply chains by committing to purchase from those using materials, processes and practices that are climate-positive  and that demonstrably increase social and economic equity for women and other historically marginalised groups, particularly the most vulnerable.

In addition, most or all of the following are likely to be evident:

  • Most influential industry associations/organisations have set and enforced clear standards and expectations for climate-positive practices and social equity, including methodologies that effectively measure value, risk and performance that are applicable across their membership. They demonstrate good leadership in encouraging, supporting and requiring change from the remaining organisations still using business models and practices that are climate-negative and/or contribute to inequity or marginalisation.
  • Reasonably strong, inclusive participation mechanisms enable and encourage workers, producers and communities – including those who have historically been most marginalised, adversely impacted and/or vulnerable  – to participate in business and industry decisions that affect them.

Several influential industry associations/organisations, business leaders and industry-supported advocacy efforts are a progressive influence in public policy and finance. They are increasingly actively engaged, alongside broad networks of other stakeholders, in advocating for and protecting these new policies and frameworks, as well as exposing harmful practices and influencing businesses to comply. They may also be encouraging the integration into company reporting and scenario planning of costs and side effects incurred or experienced by others and/or the environment.

Thrivable

The vast majority of major businesses and industry associations/ organisations in the relevant sector(s) and region(s) have made substantial progress towards adopting a comprehensive and coherent mix of bold, climate-positive company or industry policies, business models and practices.

Those businesses are highly transparent about the changes they are making and their effects, which include demonstrable and measurable progress toward equitable outcomes for all affected groups, particularly the most vulnerable.

A clear majority of influential businesses seek and use support from investors to encourage change in their supply chains by committing to purchase from those using materials, processes and practices that are climate-positive  and that demonstrably increase social and economic equity for women and other historically marginalised groups, particularly the most vulnerable.

 In addition, all of the following are evident:

  • All of the most influential industry associations/organisations have set and enforced clear standards for climate-positive practices and social equity, including methodologies that effectively measure value, risk and performance, which are tracked across their membership to ensure compliance and progress toward targets. They demonstrate strong leadership in encouraging, supporting and requiring change from the few remaining organisations still using business models and practices that are climate-negative and/or contribute to inequity or marginalisation, particularly for the most vulnerable.
  • Very strong, inclusive participation mechanisms enable and encourage workers, producers and communities – including those who have historically been most marginalised, adversely impacted and/or vulnerable  – to participate in business and industry decisions that affect them. All industry associations and standard setting bodies have representation from workers, producers and communities. Communities have a seat at the local policy table; CSOs at national and global levels.

The most influential industry associations/organisations, business leaders and industry-supported advocacy efforts are an important positive influence, alongside broad networks of other stakeholders, for climate-positive and equitable public policies. They are highly engaged in advocating for and protecting such legislation, policy, taxation and financial reforms, as well as exposing harmful practices and influencing businesses to comply. They encourage the integration into company reporting and scenario planning of costs and side effects incurred or experienced by others and/or the environment.

C4 - Workers and producers claim rights and build power to organise and advocate for 4a. climate positive policies and practices & 4b. equity and inclusion

  • Harmful
  • Unconducive
  • Partly conducive
  • Conducive & Supportive
  • Thrivable

Harmful

At a global level or in specific regions or industries where system shift is being evaluated, efforts to create a cross-sectoral movement or collective actions involving workers, producers and communities to claim rights and build power are being actively and successfully sabotaged or repressed by business, finance and/or policy groups, typically by those who have historically held disproportionate levels of power and influence.

Representation of workers, producers and communities in decision-making fora is non-existent or tokenistic; decisions are most strongly influenced by groups that have historically held the most power to serve their own interests rather than those of vulnerable and historically marginalised groups.

Efforts by workers, producers or communities to publicly disclose evidence of harmful practices are promptly and effectively discredited and/or kept from the media, or those raising the issues are threatened or endangered.

Unconducive

At a global level or in specific regions or industries where system shift is being evaluated, cross-sectoral movements including workers, producers and communities have not yet emerged with any noticeable strength. The few efforts from isolated groups to claim rights and build influence and power to advocate for equitable and climate-positive change  in policy, finance, business and industry produce few or no noticeable results.

Representation of workers, producers and communities in relevant decision-making fora is very limited; not enough for their voices to really be heard in policy, industry and finance decisions that affect them. This is especially true for vulnerable and historically marginalised groups.

Worker, producer and community groups have had very limited engagement in collective action and negotiations with stakeholders in government, the finance sector and business and industry. As a result, they have had little to no success in demanding that those key actors publicly support, invest in and transparently share their progress on adopting bold policies, models and practices that are climate-positive and that contribute to equity and inclusion.

Even though there may be evidence that effectively assesses value, risk and performance relating to climate and economic equity, those groups are not yet using it or are making poor use of such evidence to highlight successes and publicly disclose evidence of harmful practices. They have had virtually no success holding others to account.

Partly conducive

At a global level or in specific regions or industries where system shift is being evaluated, cross-sectoral movements with representation from workers, producers and communities have started to claim rights and build influence and power to advocate and create pressure for equitable and climate-positive change  in policy, finance, business and industry. Such movements still lack strong representation and leadership, especially from groups that have historically been most marginalised or exploited.

These movements have secured seats at the table in some decision-making fora (likely not the most influential ones), and some participation mechanisms are helping their voices to start to be heard in policy, finance, business and industry decisions that affect them. However, the process for engaging historically marginalised, adversely impacted and vulnerable groups  may not align with their preferred ways of engaging, making it only partially effective for meaningful consultation.

Worker, producer and community groups are starting to engage in collective action and negotiations with stakeholders (not yet the most influential ones) in government, industry and the finance sector. They have had limited success in demanding that those key actors publicly support, invest in and transparently share their progress on adopting bold policies, models and practices that are climate-positive and that demonstrably increase economic equity, particularly for vulnerable and historically marginalised groups.

They are starting to use evidence that effectively assesses value, risk and performance relating to climate and economic equity  to highlight successes and publicly disclosing evidence of harmful practices. As a result, they are having some limited success in holding others to account.

Conducive & Supportive

At a global level or in specific regions or industries where system shift is being evaluated, relatively strong cross-sectoral movements with reasonably diverse representation from workers, producers and communities have claimed rights and built influence and power to advocate and create strong pressure for equitable and climate-positive change  in policy, finance, business and industry. They have relatively strong and diverse leadership and some representation from groups that have historically been most marginalised or exploited.

These movements have secured seats at the table in some influential decision-making fora, as well as relatively strong participation mechanisms that help their voices are heard in policy, finance, business and industry decisions that affect them. Historically marginalised, adversely impacted and vulnerable groups  are included via a process that mostly honours their preferred ways of engaging and that ensures meaningful consultation with affected groups.

Worker, producer and community groups are engaged in collective action and negotiations with some of the most influential stakeholders in government, industry and the finance sector. They demand with good success that those different actors publicly support, invest in and transparently share their progress on adopting bold policies, models and practices that are climate-positive and that demonstrably increase economic equity, particularly for vulnerable and historically marginalised groups.

They make good use of evidence that effectively assesses value, risk and performance relating to climate and economic equity  to highlight successes and publicly disclose evidence of harmful practices. As a result, they are largely successful in holding others to account.

Thrivable

At a global level or in specific regions or industries where system shift is being evaluated, strong cross-sectoral movements with diverse representation from workers, producers and communities have claimed rights and built strong influence and power to advocate and create unstoppable pressure for equitable and climate-positive change  in policy, finance, business and industry. They have strong, diverse leadership and strong representation from groups that have historically been most marginalised or exploited.

These movements have successfully secured seats at the table in the most influential decision-making fora, as well as very strong and inclusive participation mechanisms that help ensure that their voices are heard in policy, finance, business and industry decisions that affect them. Historically marginalised, adversely impacted and vulnerable groups  are included via a process that honours their preferred ways of engaging and that works effectively for them.

Worker, producer and community groups are actively engaged in collective action and negotiations with the most influential stakeholders in government, industry and the finance sector. They demand with very high success that those key actors publicly support, invest in and transparently share their progress on adopting bold policies, models and practices that are climate-positive and that demonstrably increase economic equity, particularly for vulnerable and historically marginalised groups.

They make powerful use of evidence that effectively assesses value, risk and performance relating to climate and economic equity  to highlight successes and publicly disclose evidence of harmful practices, very effectively holding others to account.