By mid-2023, Neuberger Berman (NB), an active asset manager, had grown its assets under management to about half a trillion dollars and took pride in its client centricity and innovative spirit. Responding to client demand for investment products that integrated climate-related risks and opportunities, NB had designed an innovative measurement system, the Net Zero Alignment Indicator, assessing companies' alignment with the world's goal to reach net zero emissions around mid-century, built engagement capabilities among its research analysts and portfolio managers, and offered several investment products across asset classes and geographies. While most climate transition strategies almost completely divested from the energy sector and relied on a single quantitative data metric, NB's approach invested in energy and other high carbon intensive companies, used a plethora of quantitative metrics and qualitative analyst judgments, engaged with management leveraging bottom-up fundamental analysis, and over time re-assessed firm alignment with net zero goals. Given that NB's climate transition approach included high carbon emitters and its complexity, how could NB communicate its approach effectively to asset allocators? A second question revolved around "how high to set the bar." NB had to make critical design choices regarding the Net Zero Alignment Indicator and derivative investment strategies that would have significant implications for the climate transition and clients. Lastly, climate focused funds had seen significant inflows in China and NB wanted to integrate its net zero alignment indicator into the construction of investment products there. Given this, should the net zero transition alignment standards be different across geographies?