The study aims to analyse if and to what extent, policy framing strategies (positive versus negative), the type of market-based climate policy (carbon pricing versus subsidies) and the focus on sustainability reporting issues (environmental versus social focus) affect political trust, the perceived effectiveness and fairness and whether these factors interact and impact one another. To explore these cause-and-effect relationships, a scenario-based 2 (policy framing strategy: positiveversus negative) x 2 (market-based climate policy: carbon pricing versus subsidies) x 2 (sustainability focus: environmental focus versus social focus) experiment was conducted with 104 survey participants. Results of the quantitative analysis show that subsidies were perceived as more effective and fairer than carbon pricing. However, political trust was not significantly affected by the type of market-based policy. Additionally, scenarios with a social focus achieved higher scores for political trust, perceived effectiveness, and fairness compared to an environmental focus. No significant effect was found for political framing strategies on political trust, perceived effectiveness, or fairness. Interaction effects between the variables were also less significant. The findings of this experimental vignette study with a scenario-based survey add to existing literature on public attitudes towards climate initiatives and have practical implications for policymakers. It can be suggested to emphasize the social impact of climate policies and consider public perceptions of fairness and effectiveness when designing and communicating these policies.