The fact that COP31 will be held in Antalya on 9–20 November 2026 represents more than a diplomatic hosting opportunity for Türkiye. It also creates an important threshold for companies to rethink their climate, regulation, financing and competitiveness agendas. The UNFCCC’s “Road to Antalya” process defines a preparatory pathway between the COP30 Presidency and the incoming COP31 Presidency, focused on implementation, inclusiveness and building shared understanding. From a corporate perspective, this means that COP31 should not be seen merely as an international summit to follow, but as a turning point that will test the resilience of business models. (unfccc.int)
Until recently, many companies have approached the climate and sustainability agenda largely from a compliance perspective: reporting, data collection, emissions accounting, regulatory monitoring and responding to stakeholder expectations. All of these remain necessary. But they are no longer sufficient. Climate is increasingly connected to company valuation, access to capital, customer preferences, supply chain positioning, export competitiveness, legal risk and board responsibility.
This is why the key question boards should ask before COP31 is no longer simply: What do we need to comply with? It is: Are we still managing sustainability as a compliance obligation, or are we treating it as a strategic lever that will shape the company’s future competitive advantage?
Harvard Business Review notes that climate governance has entered the boardroom, but the real issue is the maturity of that governance. According to HBR, while many boards have started to oversee climate-related matters, effective climate governance should not be limited to risk and compliance oversight; it should also be connected to strategy, innovation and long-term value creation. (hbr.org)
This distinction is critical. A compliance mindset usually begins with the question: “What are we required to do?” A competitive advantage mindset asks: “Where can we get ahead in this transition?”
1. Is climate risk truly on the strategy agenda, or is it sitting in a reporting file?
The first place boards need to look is where climate risk sits within the organization. If climate is treated only as the responsibility of sustainability, corporate communications or reporting teams, the company is likely missing the strategic dimension of the transition.
IFRS S2 frames climate-related disclosures not merely as environmental performance data, but in relation to cash flows, access to capital, cost of capital, business model, value chain, financial position and strategic resilience. The standard requires companies to disclose climate-related physical risks, transition risks and opportunities through governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets. (ifrs.org)
This sends a clear message to boards: climate is no longer just a “sustainability report” topic. It is a financial strategy issue that affects future cash flows, investment priorities and competitive positioning.
2. Are we managing the cost of compliance, or measuring the value potential?
McKinsey argues that sustainability investments should be assessed through two lenses: defensively, by reducing value erosion, regulatory risk, reputational risk and market loss; and offensively, by creating new revenue pools, green products, price premiums, operational efficiency and new business models. (mckinsey.com)
This framework offers a practical distinction for boards. If a company sees sustainability investments only as a mandatory compliance cost, it will try to minimize them. But if the same company evaluates these investments through energy efficiency, resource productivity, low-carbon product development, customer acquisition, supply chain reliability and access to finance, sustainability stops being a cost center and becomes an area of value creation.
Before COP31, boards should therefore ask: Which sustainability investments are merely protecting us from regulatory risk, and which ones are opening new growth opportunities?
3. Are we looking at European regulations only as an export risk, or as a market positioning issue?
For many companies in Türkiye, European regulations are directly linked to competitiveness. Under the CSRD, the first companies began applying the new rules for the 2024 financial year, with reports to be published in 2025. Companies are expected to report according to the ESRS standards. Although the EU’s Omnibus simplification package has changed some implementation timelines and obligations, the European Commission’s latest updates show that the broader sustainability reporting and due diligence framework has not disappeared. (finance.ec.europa.eu)
On CBAM, the picture is even more concrete. According to the European Commission, CBAM’s transitional period covered 2023–2025, and the definitive regime started on 1 January 2026. This means that for companies exporting to Europe, especially in carbon-intensive sectors, embedded emissions data, carbon costs and supplier management are now part of commercial competitiveness. (taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu)
Boards should therefore ask: Are we preparing for European regulations merely to comply, or are we positioning our low-carbon and traceable production capabilities as a commercial advantage?
4. Is our transition plan a real business plan, or a statement of good intentions?
Net-zero targets and climate commitments no longer create trust on their own. In fact, commitments that are not sufficiently concrete can expose companies to greenwashing and legal risk. Bloomberg Law notes that global ESG disclosure regimes will require companies to disclose more information on emissions, net-zero transition plans and sustainability impacts, while also increasing scrutiny of inconsistencies between what companies say and what they do. (news.bloomberglaw.com)
For this reason, a board-level transition plan should include short-, medium- and long-term targets; emissions reduction levers; investment needs; technology options; supply chain impacts; product portfolio transformation; financial implications; ownership; metrics; interim milestones; and regular performance tracking.
IFRS S2 also expects climate strategy to be considered together with the business model, value chain, financial planning and scenario analysis. This turns the transition plan from a communications document into a matter of capital allocation and strategic resilience. (ifrs.org)
The question boards should ask here is clear: Is our climate transition plan integrated with finance, operations, procurement, technology and commercial strategy?
5. Is our sustainability data auditable, comparable and decision-useful?
The value of sustainability reporting lies not only in publishing a report, but in improving the quality of decision-making inside the company. Deloitte emphasizes that the focus of sustainability reporting is shifting from “reporting for compliance” to “reporting for value creation.” Reporting can become a tool for growth, cost reduction, resilience, energy transition and circularity. According to Deloitte’s 2025 C-suite Sustainability Report, 83% of executives increased their sustainability investments over the past year, while 40% said they had started transforming their business model to place sustainability at the core. (deloitte.com)
At this point, data quality becomes a board issue. Incomplete, inconsistent or unreliable ESG data does not only create a reporting problem. It can lead to poor investment decisions, supply chain risks, customer loss, legal claims and reputational erosion.
The board should therefore ask: Is our sustainability data good enough only to be included in a report, or is it reliable enough to guide investment, pricing, supplier selection and risk management decisions?
6. Are our climate claims legally defensible?
The gap between words and actions in climate and ESG is increasingly becoming a source of legal risk. The LSE Grantham Research Institute’s 2025 report on climate litigation highlights that senior courts are playing an increasingly important role in shaping climate governance, and that 276 climate-related cases had reached senior courts between 2015 and the end of 2024. (lse.ac.uk)
Latham & Watkins also emphasizes that ESG litigation can have deep implications for a company’s business purpose, reputation, corporate values, risk management approach, investor relations, supplier relationships and customer trust. According to the firm, ESG claims, public reports and commitments to voluntary standards can trigger new litigation risks. (lw.com)
This is why boards should challenge every claim the company makes, especially in periods such as COP31 when climate-related communication is likely to intensify. Each claim should be evidence-based, measurable and aligned with the company’s actual strategy.
The question to ask is: Can we support claims such as net zero, carbon neutral, sustainable, green, circular or low-carbon with data, methodology and a credible action plan?
7. Does the board have the capabilities required to govern this transition?
The climate agenda can be technical, but it is too strategic to be left only to technical teams. A study by BCG, INSEAD and Heidrick & Struggles, based on input from more than 400 directors, shows that boards are making progress on sustainability, but that companies still face gaps in turning sustainability shocks into competitive advantage. According to the research, the share of directors saying their companies lacked a plan to turn sustainability-related shocks into competitive advantage fell from 46% in the previous year to 27%. This is meaningful progress, but it still points to a significant remaining gap. (bcg.com)
The World Economic Forum similarly notes that climate and nature issues are redefining markets, accelerating innovation, influencing investment flows and changing stakeholder expectations. When proactively integrated into governance, these issues can strengthen competitiveness, growth opportunities and trust. (weforum.org)
Climate, energy transition, sustainable finance, regulation, value chains, data governance and technology should therefore no longer be treated as “nice to have” topics in the board skills matrix. They are now part of the board’s strategic oversight capacity.
Boards should ask themselves: Do we have the right knowledge, committee structure, external expertise and performance indicators to govern this transition?
Three critical shifts for companies before COP31
As companies prepare for COP31, they need to make three important mindset shifts.
The first is a shift from a compliance calendar to a competitiveness roadmap. Regulations must be monitored, but not only through deadlines, reporting formats and mandatory disclosures. They should be interpreted through their impact on the business model.
The second is a shift from the sustainability department to the corporate operating model. Climate strategy should be managed together with finance, operations, procurement, R&D, legal, risk, human resources, investor relations and commercial strategy.
The third is a shift from reputation narrative to investment story. Companies can no longer rely only on explaining that they are “doing good things.” They need to show which risks they are reducing, which efficiencies they are creating, which new markets they are preparing for, which technologies they are investing in, and what financial value they are protecting or creating.
COP31 will create an important visibility platform for Türkiye. But for companies, the real opportunity is deeper than being visible at the summit. It is the opportunity to reposition the climate agenda at board level before COP31.
Because in the coming period, the companies that win will not be those that simply report sustainability. They will be the ones that integrate it into strategy, investment, supply chains, products, data and governance.
For boards, the real question is therefore this: Will we enter COP31 with a compliance story, or with a credible transformation story that creates competitive advantage?
