Discussions highlighted a fragmented and rapidly evolving market characterised by diverse definitions, data sources, modelling approaches, and service offerings. While climate risk is increasingly recognised as important, its prioritisation varies significantly across institutions and remains shaped by regulatory pressures and leadership perspectives.

Participants identified critical gaps in the current landscape, including mismatches between available data and user needs (particularly at near-term and asset-level scales), ability to process large quantities of data, limited transparency and comparability of models, and insufficient treatment and communication of uncertainty—especially for complex risks and emerging AI tools.

There was broad agreement on core characteristics of “quality” in climate analytics, including fitness for purpose, scientific robustness, transparency, usability, and credibility. However, current quality management practices remain inconsistent and largely informal across the market.

Standardisation was widely recognised as a potential mechanism to improve trust, comparability, and market functioning. However, views diverged on its role and implementation. Participants emphasised the need for a flexible and layered approach, combining common baseline requirements with sector-specific practices, while avoiding constraints on innovation.

Key enablers of standard uptake include regulatory support, clear added value for users and providers, and credible certification mechanisms. Barriers include costs, lack of consensus, and concerns around competition and intellectual property.

Overall, the workshop highlighted both the urgency and complexity of strengthening governance in the climate analytics market, with standardisation representing a promising but contested pathway.