The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
There’s a moment approaching in corporate climate action that very few people are willing to name aloud: a reckoning of net zero.
For the past few decades, companies have announced climate targets with impressive ambition. Net zero by 2050. Halving absolute emissions by 2030. Entire value chains transformed within a business cycle. According to Net Zero Tracker, almost two-thirds of the Forbes Global 2000 have such targets, covering $36.6 trillion in revenue.
These commitments have shifted expectations in boardrooms, unlocked capital, accelerated technological innovation and helped move climate change from the fringes of corporate responsibility into the centre of corporate strategy.
But the calendar has an inconvenient habit of speeding towards target dates. And as 2030 draws nearer, I’m hearing whispered panic. A quiet catastrophe emerging inside sustainability departments around the world: Many companies won’t meet their stated 2030 targets.
Not because they’ve abandoned the effort or that the targets were cynical exercises in greenwashing. Instead, the societal systems within which companies operate haven’t transformed at the pace those targets assumed.
Handled badly, this moment could become a public scandal. A narrative collapse that feeds every critic who has spent the past decade insisting corporate climate commitments were always little more than reputational theatre. Handled well, however, 2030 could represent something more constructive: the moment corporate climate action reckons with societal emissions.
It’s too quiet out there
Over coffee at conferences, chats include hushed admissions that companies are five, 15 or significantly more percentage points off the trajectory required to meet their 2030 emissions reductions.
The reasons vary. Supply chains have proved slower to decarbonise than anticipated (Scope 3 is painfully difficult). Energy infrastructure hasn’t transformed uniformly across regions (governments didn’t decarbonise grids). New forms of digital demand, particularly the explosive growth of artificial intelligence, have placed huge pressure on electricity systems. Meanwhile, geopolitical turbulence has made long-term policy certainty elusive.
The sustainability community isn’t blind to any of this, just too anxious to speak up. A recent global survey of more than 800 sustainability experts found that over 90 percent believe the current sustainability agenda requires revision, with more than half calling for a radical overhaul.
Publicly, this reality remains restrained. Companies continue issuing progress reports framed in optimistic language. NGOs continue pressing for accelerated ambition. Consultants continue constructing increasingly sophisticated decarbonisation roadmaps. Or even worse, charging for off-ramp strategies from net zero, promising they can “manage stakeholder response.”
Everyone, in short, is behaving as though we’re not teetering on the edge of a mass failure.
A fragile framework
We reached this precarious position because of how corporate climate commitments evolved. Many early net-zero pledges were made before today’s definitions had fully crystallised. I stood in boardrooms in 2021 trying to explain why a net-zero goal set in 2019 meant something much harder than initially thought.
But while those goalposts moved, many of us assured ourselves about the trajectory of the global economy. Some anticipated rapid decarbonisation in key manufacturing regions, combined with the continued globalisation of supply chains. Others assumed political momentum behind climate policy would strengthen steadily through the 2020s. Reality has proved more complicated.
More fundamentally, the philosophy of corporate climate commitments was built on a subtle but consequential premise: that companies could reduce emissions in their value chains largely through their own efforts. That it was possible to become a net-zero organisation in isolation, even if those around yo
Read More
