Investments in climate solutions have emerged as a critical lever to accelerate the global transition to limit global warming to 2 C. Since the world crossed the first year of temperature rise over 1.5 C in 2024, the urgency of accelerating global economy decarbonisation has become more apparent. Achieving these goals requires more than just allocating capital; it demands deliberate strategies that prioritise the most meaningful investment options. This framework, produced with support from Nuveen—which manages $37 billion USD in impact and transition strategies—provides practical guidance for asset owners to identify and prioritise climate solutions investing strategies that contribute meaningfully to global climate objectives.

Executive summary

The framework addresses the challenges asset owners face when assessing the likely effectiveness of forward-looking climate strategies. It focuses specifically on mitigation solutions that remove, sequester, or significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To achieve global transformation, capital must flow towards these solutions at a scale sufficient to transition to a decarbonised economy. The methodologies currently available cannot assess the sufficiency of strategies on their own, necessitating a systematic approach to portfolio construction and a breadth of investments across commercial ecosystems. Portfolios incorporating climate solutions can target a range of financial returns, with strategies potentially drawing from an impact AUM pool such as the $22.3 billion designated as impact within Nuveen’s total $37.5 billion impact strategy AUM.

Laying the groundwork: Foundational concepts

The framework identifies eight foundational concepts essential for understanding climate solutions investing. It is distinct from strategies that merely reduce a portfolio’s own operational emissions, focusing instead on scaling solutions across the broader economy. Contributions vary by asset class, and investment structures differ in their ‘transmission value’—the degree of efficiency with which an investor’s capital is used to solely and directly support solutions. Transitioning requires investing in solutions of varying maturity and building supporting ecosystems. Furthermore, the sufficiency of a strategy must be carefully assessed relative to investment needs and viable pathways. Managing uncertainty is critical, as modelling future climate benefits relies on dependencies like technology diffusion and policy shifts. Multiple tools, including GHG accounting and avoided emissions metrics, are required for a holistic assessment. Finally, financial risk and return profiles vary significantly across opportunities.

Understanding your climate goals as an asset owner

Asset owners must determine the nature of the achievements they aspire to deliver through three categories of contribution:

• Innovation: Early-stage investments, such as seed or venture capital, where the investor’s contribution is primarily the provision of new capital for new climate solutions to emerge.
• Scaling: Primary market investments, including project finance, private debt, and public equity IPOs, that provide larger amounts of capital for proven technologies to replicate and scale.
• Signalling: Liquid public market investments that signal mainstream adoption and provide low-cost, highly liquid capital for efficient operation and recycling.

Differentiating among these helps asset owners communicate their impact and align investments with their strategic asset allocation (SAA).

Assessing strategies

The framework identifies four criteria to differentiate manager strategies and identify those most likely to generate portfolios with sufficient climate impact on global goals.

1. Identifying a strategy’s climate thesis

A climate thesis is the logic behind portfolio construction, involving assumptions about necessary changes in economic sectors to achieve a low-carbon or 2 C world. Strategies rooted in analysis of transition pathways are more likely to achieve durable results. Managers should be evaluated on their sector and geography selection, technology selection, and specific investment selection. Quality assessment involves understanding if scientific sources, such as the IPCC or IEA, inform assumptions regarding baselines and the timing or scale of technology deployment.

2. Assessing the approach to quantifying contribution to economy-wide decarbonisation

Quantitative measurement is vital for assessing individual investments. Methodologies include Lifecycle Assessment (LCA), which provides per-unit emissions data, and avoided emissions (Scope 4) quantification, which measures reductions compared to an alternative scenario. Efficiency measures, such as ‘carbon yield’, combine avoided emissions with market value to articulate impact per dollar deployed. Sequestration methodologies—covering forestry, agriculture, ocean-based solutions, and carbon capture and storage—are also essential. Managers must be transparent about models, inputs, and assumptions to support informed decision-making.

3. Understanding the approach to prioritisation

Prioritisation contextualises climate mitigation potential. Key factors include the results time frame, geographic context (including target market needs and baseline conditions), and minimum performance thresholds. For instance, some venture capital funds set a minimum threshold of one gigaton of avoided emissions potential as a qualifying basis, while others may target a 25-50% emissions reduction within a specific sector. Taxonomies and scenarios are also used to contextualise data, helping managers evaluate investments in relation to economic or policy scenarios.

4. Understanding the methodologies used to manage uncertainties

Climate solutions investing is inherently forward-looking and involves significant uncertainty. Asset owners should assess the number of assumptions underlying a manager’s analysis and the frequency of research updates. Robust monitoring and third-party assurance processes are necessary to validate projections and manage risks such as policy shifts or evolving consumer preferences. Providing transparency to asset owners regarding material changes to assumptions and models is critical for ensuring trust throughout the investment lifecycle.