Are Companies Quietly Meeting Climate Goals?

The latest Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025 is a deep, 165-page analysis of the #climate strategies of 55 major global companies (https://lnkd.in/eNKsG7iB). And the results? They are are not great, to say the least. The analysis finds that NONE of the 20 companies assessed demonstrate a climate strategy with ‘reasonable’ or ‘high’ integrity—where integrity reflects the credibility, transparency, and sector-specific robustness of a company’s climate approach. Only a few, such as H&M Group, adidas, and Danone, achieve a “moderate” rating, reflecting early steps toward more credible strategies and sector-specific transition efforts. One word that comes to mind when reviewing the report is messiness. For example, the authors note they can’t calculate a median reduction commitment for 2030 due to persistent structural obstacles—like sector-specific accounting malpractices and incomplete emissions disclosures—that make it increasingly unclear what companies are actually committing to. But this messiness isn’t accidental. It reflects not only flaws in the current assessment and validation systems like #SBTi or #TPI (see pp. 13–14 of the report), but also the deeper dysfunctions of sustainability-as-usual. The problem isn’t just tactical or strategic—it’s #systemic. Companies operate within a framework that prioritizes short-term growth and profit maximization, making anything outside that logic—including meaningful #climateaction—extremely difficult to pursue. This will only change when the system itself changes. Until then, companies will continue to make mostly incremental progress—but it will remain insufficient, because truly sufficient progress would require rethinking and redesigning their #businessmodels. And that kind of transformation still lacks both the leadership courage and the ‘permission’ of financial markets needed to move forward.

Where did all the corporate climate pledges go? They didn't disappear - they went underground. Check out what PwC dug up 👇 This isn't greenwashing or virtue signaling - it's smart business strategy. PwC's latest State of Decarbonization report reveals the quiet revolution happening in corporate sustainability: → 4k+ companies reported climate commitments in 2024, up 9x in 5 years → Companies expect 1/3 of revenue to come from climate transition by 2030 → But only 45% are properly measuring their products' environmental impact → Median revenue of companies with SBTs is $1.3B, down from $3.6B → 83% of companies are investing in low carbon R&D → Products with sustainable attributes get 6-25% more revenue Leaders are separating from laggards through four critical practices: ✅ Strong governance that integrates sustainability into core decision-making ✅ Strategic capital allocation for climate initiatives with longer-term payback ✅ Mature supplier and customer engagement across the value chain ✅ Product innovation that delivers both sustainability and premium pricing But there are still plenty of challenges to solve: ❌ Only 54% are on track to meet Scope 3 targets ❌ Supplier engagement maturity remains low - just 22% score highly ❌ Less than a quarter use cradle-to-grave lifecycle assessments ❌ Scope 1 reduction efforts lag significantly behind Scope 2 The headlines about sustainability's death are not just wrong - they're dangerously misleading. The data shows companies that effectively combine climate targets with product sustainability are positioned to capture significant revenue and margin upside. The market is rewarding sustainability - is your company positioned to capture this value?

Most Companies Are Stalling on Net Zero — and It’s Becoming a Business Risk A new EY Global Climate Action Barometer shows what many of us are seeing across the market: progress on Net Zero is far too slow. A few data points that stand out: • 64% of companies say they have a transition plan — but only 12% are making strong progress. • Fewer than 48% have targets aligned with science. • 63% rely on carbon credits instead of real decarbonization. • 92% have assessed physical risks, yet only 44% have adaptation measures in place. The era when “everyone looks the same” on climate reporting is ending. Leaders will move ahead. Laggards will feel it in valuation, capital access, and talent. Gen Z already treats sustainability as a baseline expectation for the products they buy and the employers they choose. The real issue? Climate disclosure has outpaced the market’s ability to turn data into financial decision-making. Until transition risks and opportunities show up in cash flows, cost of capital, and investment allocation, climate ambition will continue to stall.

We see the headlines and believe them: companies are scaling back their climate commitments.   But the real story behind these headlines is rather nuanced: yes, some companies are pulling back commitments but many are staying the course or doubling down. They're just doing it quietly.   About 32% of companies studied in an HBR article (link in the comments), are accelerating their commitments. Meaning new targets, increased investments, deeper operational integration, and more investor engagement. Another 13% are reaffirming their commitments and 40% are in a holding pattern.    In total, that is 85% of all companies studied.    So, why are the headlines misleading us?   The real shift that we're seeing is about intentionally reducing visibility and not the underlying strategy. Companies are increasingly aware of becoming political targets based on their ESG work and thus are resorting to greenhushing as their dominant strategy. Think of your peers: have you noticed any downplaying their sustainability progress?    While greenhushing can feel like the safest option in the current political climate, it does come at a cost. Greenhushing also means weakening collective progress, reduced talent attraction, and no differentiation where customers still value sustainability leadership.    What is the alternative to greenhushing?    The research points to three traits that predict resilience during volatile times: operational integration, value-chain anchoring, and stable leadership. The companies still moving forward are the most integrated. When sustainability is wired into how the business runs — procurement, capex, product, risk — it stops needing to be defended every news cycle.

Who's ahead? Who's behind? A new analysis of 2000 companies' net-zero progress The latest ‘State of the Corporate Transition 2025’ report from the TPI Global Climate Transition Centre (TPI Centre) at LSE assesses 2,000 high-emitting public companies, representing about 75% of global listed market capitalisation. Key Takeaways:  ✔️ 30% of companies align with 1.5°C (up from 9% in 2020), yet over half remain off track, especially in the short and medium term.   ✔️ Management quality shows modest gains, with more Scope 3 disclosure and climate scenario use, but credible transition planning is rare (<10% meet advanced indicators). ✔️ 56% of high emitters rely on carbon capture and offsets, raising questions about delivery risks. ✔️ Companies are set to overshoot the 1.5°C carbon budget by 61% through 2050. ✔️ Oil and gas, aluminium, and coal mining are the most misaligned sectors. My View  🔷 Contrary to the headlines, companies are not giving up on climate.  🔷 Credibility depends on near term action. Too many firms are still setting distant net zero targets while avoiding near term cuts and capital shifts. 🔷 Short- and medium-term alignment with pathways is essential or climate and transition risks will run rampant across sectors.  👉 Want deeper analysis on this and all the big developments in sustainability and finance? Check out this week’s newsletter: https://lnkd.in/e3aapKHd  #ClimateChange #NetZero #Sustainability #EnergyTransition #CorporateGovernance #ClimateRisk 

YES, sustainability is under fire But clearly NO, it is not in retreat 🌎 A couple of days ago, Harvard Business Review published research that challenges the narrative that sustainability is dead. Political pressure is real. It shapes corporate choices, influences how leaders communicate their goals, and has driven exits from once powerful coalitions. Yet the idea of a widespread retreat is misleading. The study analyzed 75 major companies worldwide, and the results tell a more nuanced story. While 13% have rolled back their programs, these are the visible retreats that dominate the news cycle and create the impression of a broader collapse. Looking closer, the majority of companies have taken a different path. 40% continue to run their programs quietly, with little or no external communication. This silence is deliberate. It shields firms from political scrutiny but also risks creating the perception that sustainability has been abandoned. This pattern is increasingly described as “greenhushing.” The work continues, but away from the spotlight. While this can be an understandable defensive strategy in a volatile environment, it comes at a cost, weakening the collective momentum that coalitions once generated. Alongside this group, there are also firms that have chosen visibility. 13% have publicly reaffirmed their commitments. Backed by boards and leadership teams, these firms demonstrate that consistency and credibility are possible even in the face of political pressure. Even more encouraging is the group that has chosen to accelerate. 32% of companies are setting new targets, increasing investment, and embedding sustainability into core operations, supply chains, and investor engagement. For these leaders, climate action is directly linked to performance and competitiveness. Taken together, 85% of companies have either held steady or moved forward. This perspective shifts the focus: sustainability has not disappeared, it has adapted to political and economic realities. Of course, the political environment has changed the way companies communicate. But it has not erased the business logic. Efficiency gains, supply chain resilience, and investor expectations continue to be powerful drivers pushing firms to advance their commitments. The concern lies in whether silence becomes the dominant strategy. When progress is hidden, peers lose reference points, coalitions lose momentum, and investors lose the signals they need to reward performance. In this sense, transparency is not just a communication tool; it is a competitive asset. Resilience, as the research suggests, emerges when sustainability is integrated into operations, connected to value creation, and reinforced by stable leadership. Headlines will continue to highlight withdrawals and coalition breakdowns. Yet if we look beyond the surface, the broader reality is more complex and more hopeful. Source: HBR #sustainability #business #sustainable #esg

🌍 Many large companies talk about fighting climate change, but actions speak louder than words—and progress is too slow. The Net Zero Tracker, provides an overview of the progress in setting net-zero targets across the entire economy, tracking the performance of over 4,000 entities. The latest Net Zero Tracker shows that while 60% of major companies have "net-zero" targets, only 5% have credible strategies, according to UN criteria. Worse, the Transition Pathway Initiative found fewer than 10% provide full carbon reporting across all scopes (1, 2, and 3). Key concerns: 🌡️ Only 30% of high-emission companies have long-term emission targets aligned with the Paris Agreement 📉 While this is up from 7% in 2020, it’s still far from what's needed 🏭 Less than 10% of companies offer comprehensive carbon reporting across all scopes 🤔 Why does this matter? BCG reported that 25% of leading companies see cost savings, waste reduction, and greater efficiency from decarbonization efforts. ⚠️ The climate emergency is accelerating. It's time to turn words into action! Oxford Net Zero,Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, Data-Driven EnviroLab, and the NewClimate Institute #sustainability #netzero #positiveimpact

Despite intensifying #climate impacts, most global businesses remain slow to turn commitments into actionable transition plans: (1) Of 2,000 listed companies ($87trn market cap), only 2% have disclosed capital-shifting strategies aligned with #decarbonization goals. (2) While 95% have a climate policy, just 10% score highest for integrating climate into core strategy. (3) 22% fail basic disclosure tests (policy, #emissions, or targets). (4) Nearly 1/3 don’t disclose Scope 3 emissions, a major part of #supplychain impact. The stakes are high: researchers warn of a potential 17% drop in global economic output by mid-century, and up to 60% by 2100. Climate disasters alone could cut global growth by 3% in the next five years. There is progress: 30% of companies are now aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, up from 9% in 2020. But sectors like oil & gas continue to lag, while shipping shows rare leadership. Commitments are not enough. Businesses must move from pledges to credible, capital-backed transition plans to safeguard long-term resilience and competitiveness. #ClimateAction #Sustainability #NetZero #ESG #CorporateStrategy #Decarbonisation https://lnkd.in/d3t5ug5G

📦Amazon Prime: work hard, have fun, make history and see where it takes you......(Hint: it's not a sustainable future)🌎💨 Amazon made a big, bold Climate Pledge in 2019... and then turned around and delivered something else entirely: 25% MORE emissions📦🚛 They’re moving at Amazon Prime speed — just in the wrong direction. From 2019-2023, Amazon noted: ✈️ 67% jump in air freight emissions (Amazon, are we shipping to Mars?) 🚚 190% spike in delivery van pollution (One-day shipping at what cost?) And don’t forget about their 5.8 million metric tons of CO2 last year. That’s like powering 500,000 homes with pure pollution, as per Stand.earth All the while, they’re promoting shiny electric vans—which only cover a fraction of the pollution problem. But hey, it's not just Amazon. The entire fast-retail industry is stuck on a toxic treadmill🚴♂️💨 In the research I led at the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) on ESG investments and corporate carbon management by some of the biggest tech companies, I found this common theme: big bold and brilliant promises, but often weak follow-through. From questionable offsets to unregulated carbon targets, companies are often playing climate dress-up without the substance. We need real action, not just fancy words and stunning reports 📢 It’s time for Amazon—and all big brands—to step up and deliver on their climate promises. P.S. Don’t worry, your two-day shipping is safe. It’s just the planet that’s on backorder🌍😅 🔗 Study I led at Columbia University CGEP and published with the Government of India: https://lnkd.in/d-EzfDKS 🌎 Stand.earth publication and campaign: https://lnkd.in/gYKsmfMu 🎁 What’s your company doing for the planet? Or are they just packaging their pollution with a bow? #ClimateCrisis #Retail #Technology #Greenwashing #Carbon #ESG 📸 Generative AI art created with NightCafe Studio.