When climate disasters strike, the question isn't just whether organisations were prepared, but whether their preparation actually worked. Five years after ISO 14090 became the world's first international climate adaptation standard, a troubling reality has emerged: organisations can demonstrate compliance without showing improved climate resilience.​

With adaptation effectiveness declining sharply once warming exceeds 1.5°C - from 90% effectiveness at 1.5°C to 69% at 2°C - the stakes for getting measurement right have never been higher. Yet current standards focus overwhelmingly on process compliance rather than outputs, delivering questionable resilience outcomes.​

ISO 14090's fundamental problem lies in its design philosophy. Created as a deliberately high-level framework to ensure cross-sectoral flexibility, the standard resembles a recipe with a list of ingredients but omits the actual cooking instructions. Organisations receive detailed guidance on conducting climate risk assessments and developing adaptation plans, but little direction on measuring whether these efforts actually reduce climate vulnerability.​

Critics within the climate adaptation community highlight three core weaknesses. First, the standard's intentionally non-linear approach confuses organisations accustomed to structured project management. Second, it demands substantial resources - time, personnel, and climate expertise - that many organisations cannot provide. Third, and most critically, ISO 14090 offers no standardised metrics for measuring adaptation effectiveness, leaving organisations to develop their own success indicators.​ The result? A standard that can certify process completion while climate risks remain unchanged. As a review of the UK’s railway infrastructure managers’ adaptation plans noted: We can tick all the ISO 14090 boxes, but still have no idea if our infrastructure is actually more resilient.​

ISO 14090 operates within a crowded field of fragmented frameworks, each with distinct strengths, but plenty of blind spots. The UK's Adaptation Reporting Power mandates climate risk assessments for major infrastructure providers, creating regulatory accountability that ISO 14090 lacks. However, this approach remains limited to critical infrastructure sectors, specifically in the UK.​

Financial disclosure frameworks like the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) focus on investor-relevant climate risks but emphasise disclosure over action. Meanwhile, emerging green taxonomies seek to channel investment toward genuinely resilient activities, though they remain in the development stages and, importantly, also lack standardised measurement protocols.​

Sector-specific codes offer the most practical guidance - construction standards include climate allowances, water management systems incorporate flood projections, but these operate in isolation. European infrastructure standards now embed climate considerations, yet coordination and comparability between sectors remain weak.​

The fundamental challenge spans all frameworks: measuring adaptation effectiveness remains "inherently challenging" because success typically means calculating impacts that have been avoided - a counterfactual impossible to measure directly.​

Despite widespread adoption, peer-reviewed evidence on adaptation standard effectiveness remains surprisingly sparse. Most success stories rely on process indicators - plans developed, assessments completed and staff trained, rather than resilience outcomes.​

Where outcome data exists, the picture proves mixed. National adaptation strategies show variable implementation success, with developed countries achieving better compliance but uncertain effectiveness. Gold Standard's Pilot Adaptation Framework attempts to address this gap by requiring measurable adaptive outcomes, but uptake remains limited.​

The few rigorous effectiveness studies reveal concerning trends. Research analysing 320 adaptation projects across 12 countries found that while economic returns average over $10 for every $1 invested, most benefits stem from co-benefits like infrastructure improvements rather than climate risk reduction specifically.​ For example, adaptation intervention effectiveness for water-related risks declines markedly above 1.5°C warming, suggesting current approaches may prove inadequate for the climate impacts already locked in.​

Fixing climate adaptation standards requires abandoning the process-obsessed approach in favour of outcome-focused measurement. Drawing from successful examples and expert recommendations, five principles should guide next-generation standards:

Climate adaptation standards represent our best opportunity to systematise investments in resilience in an uncertain world. Yet current approaches risk creating elaborate compliance theatre while genuine climate risks remain unchecked. With the global adaptation gap widening despite increased investment, the cost of ineffective standards compounds daily.​

The path forward demands uncomfortable honesty about current limitations combined with rigorous focus on measurable outcomes. Organisations implementing adaptation standards should not ask "Are we compliant?" but "Are we safer?". Regulators should reward demonstrated risk reduction over documentation quality. Investors should demand resilience metrics alongside carbon disclosures.

The climate is changing whether our standards work or not. The question is whether we'll measure progress to effectively catalyse adaptation investments before it's too late.

Know someone interested in adapting to a warmer world? Share Liveable with someone who should be in the know.

Or copy and paste this link to share with others: https://research.liveable.world/subscribe