The emissions of greenhouse gases need to be cut by 45% between 2010 and 2030 and reach net-zero by around 2050 (IPCC, 2018) to limit global temperature-rise to 1,5 degrees C. More companies are committing to net-zero emissions, but the overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the world are still going up, and previous research shows that there is an implementation gap and lack of plans in companies. This thesis examines the hindering and supporting factors for companies’ net-zero transition. It is also exploring how SBTi, sustainability reporting, and sustainability ratings influence the net-zero transition in companies according to sustainability practitioners. The key findings are that companies alone cannot do the net-zero transition; they are dependent on other stakeholders and factors such as investors, customers and suppliers. Investors and customers are strong drivers for some companies to make the transition to netzero, but they are also the strongest hindering factors not wanting to pay extra or sacrifice dividends for the transition in companies’ value chains. Companies are also dependent on their suppliers and customers to measure and cut their value chain scope 3 emissions. To reach net-zero, new ways of collaboration are needed across the value chain. Internally, the implementation has not started properly in many companies. The key hindering factor internally is money, the investments needed will impact the profits, and often bonuses of managers, and GHG emission reductions need to be valued on the same level as money. Investors and financial actors play a large role pushing companies to set net-zero targets through SBTi. SBTi is a key framework to make companies cut emissions in line with science, but its control mechanisms are weak. If the control mechanisms are strengthened through audits, accountability and litigation, SBTi has the potential to be a very strong supporting factor for companies’ net-zero transition. Sustainability reports and ratings are the way companies communicate their net-zero performance with their stakeholders, but the reports are a polished truth, and it is difficult to understand the net-zero performance in companies. Ratings such as CDP do not reward emission reductions enough, instead they reward processes and documents which can make the companies look greener than they are.

In March 2018 the European Commission published the Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth. One of the main objectives with the actions presented in the action plan is to reorient capital flows towards sustainable investments, i.e. to influence more investors to invest sustainably. The action plan was followed by three proposals for transparency regulation regarding an EU taxonomy on sustainability, sustainability benchmarks and sustainability disclosures. Furthermore, the action plan included actions regarding two other transparency measures – sustainability labels and sustainability ratings. The first purpose of the thesis is to investigate if transparency regulation in the EU can be used as a tool to influence investors to choose sustainable investment funds. One of the main aims of the actions presented in the Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth, as well as the accompanying regulation proposals, is to reorient capital flows towards sustainable investments, i.e. to influence more investors to invest sustainably. In light of this, the Commission’s three proposed transparency regulations, as well as the concept of sustainability labels and ratings, are used as a basis for the investigation. The second purpose of the thesis is therefore to critically review the three regulation proposals and the concept of sustainability labels and ratings in order to gain an understanding of how different transparency measures can influence investors to choose sustainable investment funds. The transparency regulations and measures are analysed and critically reviewed in light of their objective to influence more investors to invest sustainably. A behavioural economics perspective, as well as consumer behaviour theories and decision-making models, are applied in order to analyse the transparency regulations and measures from an external perspective. Based on the analysis there are many indicators that transparency regulation can be used as a tool to influence investors to choose sustainable investment funds. However, to what extent transparency regulation can influence investor behaviour varies depending on which transparency measures are used and how they are designed. Sustainability benchmarks seem to have the least potential to influence investor behaviour, while the EU taxonomy on sustainability and sustainability labels seem to have the best potential to influence investor behaviour.