24 July, 2026

A few years ago, corporate climate commitments were everywhere. Net zero pledges, recyclable packaging targets and sweeping promises of transformation were standard. Now, a growing number of companies are quietly revising, delaying or abandoning those goals altogether as the gap between the bold promises and the realities of delivering them grows.

Some businesses admitted they will miss climate targets, others have pushed deadlines further into the future or introduced new metrics that make performance look more favourable. A recent study found nearly one third of the companies worldwide that set emissions targets for 2020 reported no results at all. Walmart made headlines when it reported it would miss its emissions reduction targets for 2025 and 2030. Elsewhere, Google, Amazon and Microsoft warned that the explosive growth of AI is increasing energy demand and making previously ambitious climate goals harder to achieve. CSO recently noted that while the company’s sustainability goals were once described as a “moonshot”, nearly five years on, the moon seems further away.

Nevertheless, appetite for target setting remains strong. While some companies are revising, delaying or scaling back commitments, the number of businesses setting independently verified climate targets keeps growing. More than 10,000 companies worldwide now have validated science based targets through the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), suggesting that businesses continue to see value in setting targets and driving progress through them.

To be fair, cutting emissions across complex global supply chains was never going to be easy. Technological limitations, rising costs and shifting political priorities are all valid barriers to progress. The challenge is that not all missed targets are equal. Some reflect changing circumstances and genuine obstacles, while others raise questions about whether commitments were realistic in the first place or backed by the investment and action needed to deliver them. So, what happens when sustainability commitments prove harder than expected? If circumstances change, should companies hold fast to the targets they set years earlier, or adapt their ambitions to reflect current realities while continuing to drive meaningful action and progress?

The risks are not purely reputational. Withdrawing or revising climate targets can attract scrutiny from regulators, investors, customers and other stakeholders, making it a decision that should not be taken lightly. Ambitious targets remain important, but credibility increasingly depends on transparent reporting, honest acknowledgement of setbacks and clear evidence of progress. Stakeholders are becoming more sophisticated and are looking beyond headline pledges to understand what is actually changing in practice. Independent frameworks such as the SBTi also provide clear boundaries for target setting that help companies focus on what is needed for science alignment rather than making promises that may prove difficult to deliver.

The companies leading the next phase of corporate sustainability may not be those with the boldest promises, but those who continue to set stretching targets, drive progress and communicate openly about both achievements and setbacks. The real test is not simply setting a target, but being transparent about the challenges of delivering it and responding credibly when circumstances change.

By Meg Seckel