We examined the climate strategies of 25 major global companies to distinguish between real climate leadership and unsubstantiated greenwashing.
The 2022 edition of the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor shows that when it comes to transparency and integrity, there is plenty that household name businesses can improve.
The headline climate pledges of the assessed companies translate to an average commitment of reducing emissions by only 40%, rather than achieving full net-zero as their claims suggest.
Only one company's net-zero pledge was rated as having "reasonable integrity," while the majority were assessed as having "low" or "very low" integrity.
Many companies plan to rely heavily on carbon offsetting, often through methods like afforestation, which may not provide permanent solutions to emissions.
The interim targets set for 2030 are inadequate, averaging only a 23% reduction in full value chain emissions, falling short of the reductions needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
There is a significant lack of clear and consistent disclosure regarding companies' climate strategies, making it challenging to assess their actual progress and commitments.
“Companies must face the reality of a changing planet. What seemed acceptable a decade ago is no longer enough. Setting vague targets will get us nowhere without real action, and can be worse than doing nothing if it misleads the public. Countries have shown that we need a fresh start when adopting the Paris Agreement, and companies need to reflect this in their own actions.”
Gilles Dufrasne, Lead on Global Carbon Markets, Carbon Market Watch
Governments must regulate corporate climate pledges rather than relying on voluntary action, which has proven insufficient and misleading in many cases.
Corporate targets should be science-based, include short-term milestones, and transparently cover the full value chain (Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions), avoiding vague or cherry-picked scopes.
Companies must prioritse real emissions reductions over carbon offsetting. Any contribution claims must be framed as such, not as “neutralisation” or “net-zero” if emissions persist.
Avoid terms like “net-zero” unless backed by comprehensive and verifiable emissions reductions. The report criticises companies for overstating ambition and creating false perceptions of progress.
Credibility must not be outsourced to rating or standard-setting initiatives without scrutiny. Standards must be improved and not lend false legitimacy to weak targets.
Tech giant Amazon now sells carbon credits to its corporate customers. While this offers companies a low-cost way to appear to be taking climate action, it does nothing to cut their real-world emissions.
Dozens of stakeholders have signed a joint statement urging companies and organisations to ditch outdated ‘carbon neutrality’ models and replace them with robust alternative approaches to climate action outside corporate value chains that provide much-needed finance without making unsubstantiated claims.
Despite its talk of making the World Cups climate friendly, FIFA is clearly following the money, whether it is from wealthy and polluting corporate sponsors or countries with questionable human rights and sustainability credentials.
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
