The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

Climate leadership has changed a lot in recent years. In the U.S., there are fewer flashy announcements. Instead, many companies are evolving their programs to meet increased demands for precision, detail and pragmatism. They’re updating targets to address the reality of changing baselines in sectors where “business as usual” means something different every month (hello, AI). And importantly, they’re bolstering internal credibility so that potential high-impact investments will receive executive approval when the time is right. 

All of this work happens quietly. No big announcements. No fanfare. But without it, high-impact climate work in the next few decades will slow considerably. 

Foundational standards for greenhouse gas measurement and accompanying claims are undergoing significant revisions. At the same time, expectations for accuracy and precision are higher than ever before. The intensifying scrutiny and legal exposure from attorneys general is a double-edged sword. Increased accountability? Excellent. Criticizing companies when their flashy announcements of yesteryear are replaced by less shiny — but much more rigorous — impact statements? Unhelpful, unrealistic and fundamentally missing the point of corporate climate action in 2025. 

An evolution of commitments and communication

Ten years ago, companies were celebrated for bold, ambitious climate commitments. But public pledges often preceded detailed implementation plans. Headlines came first and details came later — or sometimes never at all. For practitioners, big commitments would often drive internal pressure to secure the resources necessary to actually achieve those lofty goals. 

Today, audacious commitments without accompanying plans to achieve them simply don’t fly. That’s a good thing. Holding companies accountable for actually doing meaningful climate work is important. Do corporate commitments seem less exciting today? Sometimes, yes. But this isn’t a surprise. The rules of the game are changing in real time, making it especially tricky to make grand statements in this era of intense scrutiny. When a company makes fewer big announcements, that doesn’t necessarily mean their ambition has stalled. 

For companies that are established sustainability leaders, this era necessitates an especially complex dance. Will strategies and commitments set five years ago remain relevant? Will they still reflect the most accurate and effective way to frame the companies’ work? 

Almost certainly not. And yet, all too often critics seem thrilled to point a finger at companies that are increasing the candor and detail of their disclosures. In this moment of increased accountability and honesty, candor should be rewarded. 

Where to channel criticism

At the same time, some corporate voices are conspicuously absent. This is an especially complex time to execute sustainability work, but that certainly doesn’t mean that companies should get a free pass for doing nothing. In this time of rapid change, critics should focus their attention on the companies with no climate programs — or those actively backpedaling. Companies that have no public climate disclosures and no commitments. Companies that make claims without transparency or substantiation. Companies that are downsizing their teams and backing out of partnerships. Increase the pressure to get these laggards into — or back into — the boat while climate leaders navigate the choppy waters and conflicting currents of this murky and jagged GHG accounting maelstrom.

Many corpo