In a year of political and economic turbulence, it was reassuring to hear many companies say they were sticking with their sustainability commitments. But the “staying the course” narrative omits something critical: Commitments are table stakes. What really matters is progress toward those goals, and the story there is much less comforting.
The past 12 months saw a wave of companies report slower-than-expected emissions reductions. Others are almost certain to do the same in 2026. At the heart of the issue is a fundamental gap between the emissions cuts that companies say are possible and the scale of the change they are being asked to deliver.
The rest of this article could be filled with examples. To state just a few from 2025: HSBC said it would achieve net-zero operations by 2050, two decades later than originally planned; PepsiCo watered down interim 2030 goals and pushed its net-zero date from 2040 to 2050; Salesforce set a new 2030 that requires little more progress than it has already made; and Intel quietly dropped a key commitment to reduce supply-chain emissions, its second-largest source.
Hard truths
There are notable exceptions, such as Ingka Group. The retail behemoth operates most IKEA stores and was one of the first companies we profiled in Chasing Net Zero, our company-by-company look at progress toward emission goals. Leaders there place sustainability at the heart of business decisions and are on track to halve emissions by 2030. But there are also many businesses that aren’t even at the starting line, like the 56 percent of large U.S. companies that by 2023 had still not set interim emissions targets — or the 12 percent that did not even report direct emissions.
One factor behind the troubled targets is maturity: The sustainability profession is growing up and discovering some painful truths. Talk to people who were in the room when the first round of net-zero targets were set — many between five and 10 years ago — and you hear tales from a different era.
The prevailing advice, said Alison Taylor, a business-school professor at New York University, was to set over-ambitious targets to signal ambition and galvanize change — even if the path to execution wasn’t clear. With companies in court over net-zero marketing and emissions reporting mandatory in some regions, legal and compliance departments are also now at the table.
Another sustainability leader, who requested anonymity while discussing their former employer, recalled sending the company’s first net-zero commitment to in-house lawyers around five years ago. They quickly said all looked good — a speedy turnaround unthinkable today. “I can’t believe we got those climate commitments out the door,” the leader said.
Out of reach
Still, this evolution on its own doesn’t explain why so many goals now seem out of reach. A bigger factor is the slow pace of global decarbonization. Under current policies, the world is on track to warm 2.6 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the nonprofit Climate Action Tracker. Most large companies are exposed to a slice of the global economy through their suppliers and customers, which often make up 70 percent or more of a company’s footprint. Yet net-zero frameworks typically require companies to decarbonize in line with a 1.5C future, far faster than current policies enable. It’s no wonder many are saying they can’t.
A challenge of this magnitude can seem unsurmountable, especially as the current U.S. administration has another three years to run. But that doesn’t mean sustainability professionals can’t work to change the dynamics that are causing companies to miss targets.
One area to explore is the widening array of tools that allow companies to decarbonize supply chains and deduct the benefits against emission inventories. These include industry-specific coalitions in aviation, concrete and other areas that aggregate demand for emerging low-carbon technologies, as well as carbon accounting rules with the potential to unlock “vast new climate finance.” Government support for these schemes would be welcome, but it’s not essential — the tools are ready now and available to use.
How not to be undermined by lobbying
Then there’s the long-standing and decidedly thorny issue of company lobbying. One reason global policies are off track is that companies lobby against legislation that would cut emissions, either directly or through membership of trade organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The ambitions of sustainability teams, in other words, are being undermined from within. (Check your company’s position on the Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard from advocacy group Climate Voice.)
Going head-to-head with company lobbyists is a daunting ask at the best of times, and even more so when sustainability professionals are feeling marginalized. But advocating for lobbying reform need not require career-imperilling tactics, as Climate Voice’s advice shows. Many companies now routinely review trade association membership, and those reviews are an opportunity for sustainability teams to highlight the conflicts that membership brings. Or focus on strength in numbers: pressure from employee groups has been cited by executives as a key force in changing sustainability strategies.
These two interventions feel very different. But both change how the game is played. And change of that nature is what’s required right now, because the existing rules are not delivering the decarbonization that a habitable planet requires.
