Why most net-zero pledges will fail by 2027
Most corporate net-zero pledges made between 2020 and 2024 will not survive the next two years intact. By "not survive" we don't mean failure to hit the 2050 target — that's too far off to falsify yet. We mean failure of credibility in the near term, as 2025-2027 milestone years arrive and the gap between pledged trajectory and actual reduction becomes impossible to hide.
This is an editorial rather than methodology piece. Take it as our considered opinion, not a methodological argument.
The setup
Between 2020 and 2024, roughly 4,000 large companies globally announced net-zero or science-based targets. Most of these targets had a 2030 milestone (typically 40-50% reduction against a 2018-2020 baseline) and a 2050 endpoint.
These pledges were made in an era of cheap capital, regulatory tailwinds, and investor enthusiasm for ESG. The targets were ambitious in absolute terms but pleasant to communicate. The hard work — actually reducing emissions on a credible timeline — was largely deferred.
The combined assumptions underlying most pledges were:
- Linear or near-linear reduction between pledge year and 2030
- Grid decarbonization to handle Scope 2 reductions without much company-specific effort
- Carbon offsets as a fallback for residual emissions
- Technology cost curves continuing to favor electrification and renewables
- Continuous investor pressure to maintain accountability
Some of these assumptions have held; most have not.
Where we are now
Of the roughly 4,000 companies with public pledges, only about 700 are currently on the trajectory their stated 2030 target requires. The rest are behind — some by small margins, some by significant ones.
The companies on track share a few characteristics: they started early (pre-2020), they have technically literate sustainability teams, and they invested capital before the cheap-capital window closed. They are disproportionately European, manufacturing, and family-owned or long-tenured public.
The companies behind their trajectories tend to be: large-cap US listed, with sustainability functions reporting to communications rather than operations. They've spent the past five years issuing reports rather than reducing emissions.
What 2025-2027 will do
Several things are converging.
1. The 2030 milestones are now visible. Five years out, a 40% reduction target can be plausibly portrayed as on-track even if no work has been done. Three years out — which is where many companies sit now — the math is harder to obscure. Linear trajectory requires roughly 8-10% annual reductions for a company currently flat against baseline. Almost no industrial business achieves that without major capital deployment.
2. CSRD assurance is arriving. Limited assurance in 2025, reasonable assurance shortly after. The disclosures that previously read as marketing now have to survive professional scrutiny. Many won't.
3. The voluntary carbon market has lost credibility. Several high-profile offset programs have been exposed as either non-additional, double-counted, or methodologically invalid. SBTi has tightened its rules on offset use. The "buy our way out" path has narrowed sharply.
4. Investor pressure has shifted. Where 2020-2023 favored ESG, 2024-2026 has favored returns. Boards face less external pressure to maintain ambitious targets and more pressure to manage capital tightly. Quiet target revisions are increasing.
5. Politics has worsened. US federal sustainability policy is in retreat. EU regulation continues but faces simplification pressure. The macro environment for ambitious corporate action is less favorable than it was at pledge-time.
What the failures will look like
We expect three patterns to dominate.
Quiet target revisions. Companies will revise 2030 targets to 2032 or 2035 with carefully-worded press releases. The revision is communicated as a "refinement" or "alignment with best practice". The actual reason is the original target was undeliverable.
Increased reliance on offsets. Despite credibility problems, companies will lean harder on offset purchases to claim progress. Expect the boundary between "real" and "purchased" reductions to blur further.
SBTi removals. The Science-Based Targets initiative has begun removing companies that miss milestones from its commitments database. This was rare before 2025; we expect it to accelerate. Removal will be communicated as a "review process" but will be visible to anyone watching the list.
What we'd advise
The honest version: don't make pledges you can't deliver. The companies that will look best in 2030 are the ones that pledged less aggressive targets in 2022 and hit them, not the ones that pledged ambitious targets and missed.
For companies already in the trap:
Revisit the target now, not in 2029. A target revised three years before its milestone is professional housekeeping. A target revised three months before is a scandal.
Prefer absolute over intensity. Intensity targets (per unit of revenue, per ton of product) hide the absolute emissions story. Absolute targets are harder to game and easier to verify.
Reduce reliance on offsets explicitly. Cap offset use at 10% of pledge reductions or less. Communicate the cap. Buy only Gold Standard or equivalent high-quality removal credits, and disclose every project.
Hire technical leadership. A sustainability function that reports to marketing will produce marketing-quality work. One that reports to operations and includes engineers can actually reduce emissions.
Why we're writing this
We work with companies. Our consulting practice is, in some sense, in the business of helping clients meet their pledges. Writing about the broader landscape of failure could be read as bad business sense.
We think the opposite. The companies that will hire us in 2026-2028 are the ones taking this seriously. Helping the field reset expectations is good for the work and good for the planet. It is also, frankly, more interesting work than writing polite reports about other people's optimistic targets.
If your company is in the trap and you'd like a frank conversation about getting out of it, we are available. We will not promise to help you hit your existing target if we don't believe you can. We will help you set a target you can actually deliver, and we will help you deliver it.