How to view climate target failures

𝗔𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗕𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗱𝗜𝗻. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱. What the article missed is that this is really about the fragility of climate ambition when not rooted in governance, capital allocation, or executive accountability. This is not because net-zero pledges are too ambitious, but because sustainability remains siloed from business strategy. 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆. 𝗔𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹. This isn’t just a retreat from climate ambition; it’s a signal to investors that these businesses never took climate action seriously. Firms that haven’t integrated sustainability into their model are rudderless and vulnerable to every gust of political or market pressure, drifting on an open ocean. 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗡𝗲𝘁 𝗭𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗡𝗲𝘁 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 When climate goals are voluntary, they’re also expendable. When targets live on the CSR page but not in the boardroom, they will crumble with the first wave.  And as climate risks intensify, so does the cost of superficial action. Businesses built on solid foundations will weather the storm. The illusion of progress with promises is now more dangerous than inaction. 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝘀 Corporate action must now match the reality of systemic, compounding risks from both physical and transition risks. Companies must: 🔸 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝘂𝘁𝘆—not as a compliance issue, but as a material risk 🔸 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆—from capex and incentives to stakeholder engagement and supply chain operations 🔸 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮—verified disclosures, science-based targets, and third-party assurance 𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 The collapse of voluntary climate pledges is not the failure of ambition—it’s the failure of integration. We’re moving into a phase where climate leadership will be defined not by what is promised, but by what is embedded. The firms that internalise climate risk as a governance issue will be better positioned to navigate volatility, secure capital, and build trust. It's time to treat climate as you would any other threat to the business, measure it, model it, and manage it. Resilience isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s now the price of long-term relevance. Source: https://lnkd.in/e5BiCnD5 #NetZero #ClimateRisk #ESG #Sustainability  #Resilience #Governance #CorporateStrategy #Leadership #Bloomberg ____ 𝘛𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥, f𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘥𝘐𝘯: Scott Kelly

The EPA’s latest GHG projections show Ireland is far off track to meet its legally binding carbon budgets. Even with optimistic assumptions, emissions are projected to fall just 23% by 2030, less than half the 51% target. https://lnkd.in/eprb9Ync That 23% drop assumes a best-case scenario with major policy measures delivered, including rapid EV uptake, offshore wind in operation by 2030 and building retrofits. But the scenario based on current policies - the one we’re actually on - projects emissions falling by just 9%. That’s the reality. And it’s not nearly enough. Policies themselves are too weak, and so is their delivery. Implementation is badly lagging. The cost of inaction will be enormous, not just in accumulating climate damages - the cost of not meeting EU targets will be up to €26 billion - the equivalent of 12 children's hospitals! It's a massive missed opportunity to invest in clean and secure energy, food and land use now. Even worse, this failure is giving rise to a narrative of defeatism - "these targets were never realistic in the first place" and that economic growth based on fossil fuel expansion should get priority over decarbonisation. For example, former EirGrid CEO Mark Foley was reported to say that the tech industry is facing an "existential crisis" and that data centres should run on gas - if only this was the existential crisis we can afford to pay attention to! https://lnkd.in/eP7V2kJY

New study showing that firms face little to no consequences when they do not meet their decarbonisation targets. Key insight: "Failing targets is not associated with negative consequences, while announcing targets provides firms with benefits." The study (n=1,041) looked at the consequences of firms not meeting their 2020 decarbonisation targets. 1️⃣ Of the 1,041 firms, 8% had failed their 2020 emissions target, while for 31% of the firms the target simply disappeared (either because the 2020 target was silently removed or because the target was pushed into the future). 2️⃣ "Our findings suggest that firms do not face penalties for failing their emissions reduction targets." Assessed consequences of not meeting a target included: market reaction, ESG rating score, and media sentiment. 3️⃣ Although failing targets is not punished, announcing targets provides firms with benefits (e.g., media coverage). Overall, the announcement of decarbonization targets gained more visibility than the actual outcomes. Corporate decarbonization targets risk being a "free lunch". The media plays an important role in this context: media coverage of achieved targets was more likely than for failed/disappearing targets. Worrying is the high number of firms where targets disappeared. Disappearing targets prevent acknowledgement of failure. Failure as such can (and should) be an opportunity to learn, unless there is a systematic problem.... === Study (open access): https://lnkd.in/dZBDFR4W #sustainability, #esg, #climatechange

🚨 New Research Alert: Alarming Findings on Corporate Climate Target Accountability A new Nature Climate Change study reveals concerning gaps in corporate climate accountability. Analyzing 1,041 companies with 2020 emissions targets: 👉 61% achieved their targets (👏) 👉 9% failed 👉 31% silently abandoned their targets Even more concerning: Failed targets faced virtually no consequences. The study found: ❌ No significant market reactions ❌ No negative media coverage (only 3 failed companies received any coverage) ❌ No changes in environmental scores ❌ No increase in climate-related shareholder proposals This lack of accountability raises serious questions about the credibility of corporate climate commitments, especially for targets ending in 2030 and 2050. 🔗 Link to study: https://lnkd.in/dNy33kK6 These findings align with our recent research at the Max Planck Net Zero Lab on carbon markets: 🔗 Recent paper in Nature Communications showing less than 16% of analysed carbon credits represent real reductions https://lnkd.in/dhfvQyUM 🔗 Our working paper revealing most companies spend <1% of capital expenditure on carbon credits https://lnkd.in/damKtHZU Key message: We urgently need stronger accountability mechanisms for both corporate climate targets and carbon markets. #ClimateAction #Sustainability #NetZero #CorporateAccountability

What happens when companies break their climate promises? Almost nothing. A new study has uncovered troubling truths about corporate climate commitments. Out of 1,041 companies with emissions reduction targets set for 2020: -9% (88 firms) openly failed to meet their goals. -31% (320 firms) stopped reporting on their targets without explanation. What happens when companies miss these targets? Practically no consequences: -Only three failed companies faced media scrutiny. -No significant market backlash, media sentiment shifts, or ESG rating downgrades. In contrast, companies were rewarded with positive press and improved ESG ratings simply for announcing these targets. The bigger issue: This accountability gap threatens the credibility of ambitious 2030 and 2050 climate pledges. Unlike financial targets, which are rigorously monitored, emissions goals often exist in a vacuum—without oversight or real consequences for failure. Interestingly, the study found that: -Firms in common-law countries and those with stronger media accountability had better success rates. -High-emitting sectors like energy and materials struggled the most, with the highest rates of "disappeared" targets. With more companies backing away from climate action, we cannot afford to let this cycle continue. It’s time for corporate sustainability leadership to move beyond announcements and deliver measurable, transparent results. Accountability mechanisms—demanded by both regulators and stakeholders are urgently needed. A great piece of work by Xiaoyan Jiang, Shawn Kim, and Shirley Simiao Lu! Let’s learn from these insights to ensure that corporate climate pledges actually deliver. #climatechange #netzero #esg

When climate commitments vanish into thin air... A new study from researchers at NYU, UC Berkeley, and Harvard Business School reveals a startling truth: 40% of companies either missed or stopped reporting their 2020 emissions targets. Yet almost no one was held accountable. Are corporate climate pledges little more than PR? The study found that out of 1,041 firms setting 2020 emissions targets: - 9% (88 companies) openly missed their goals - 31% (320 companies) stopped reporting without explanation Despite these failures, almost nobody was held accountable—only three faced media scrutiny, and there was no notable market or ESG rating fallout. Yet announcing targets alone often brought positive publicity and improved ESG scores. Unlike financial goals, emission targets often lack oversight or penalties. The researchers also found that firms in common-law countries with stronger media scrutiny performed better, while high-emitting sectors like energy and materials had the highest rates of “disappeared” targets. With more organisations backing away from climate commitments, it is crucial for corporate leaders to provide measurable, transparent progress. Regulators and stakeholders need to demand genuine accountability to ensure real action. ♻️ Repost and follow Gus Bartholomew (Leafr 🌿) for more. 🖐️ Wish your company had instant access to top sustainability experts to tackle your goals? Try Leafr

When #climate projects stumble, the first explanation we often hear is #money. ➡️ Not enough funding. ➡️ Funds arriving too late. ➡️ Budgets spread too thin. But our research shows that many failures can’t be explained by budgets alone. Projects fail because they ignore local realities. Because they don’t make use of climate data. Because they overlook opportunities for innovation. In our recent study of #adaptation projects across multiple countries, we found that success had less to do with perfect management structures and more to do with the right combination of factors. For example, projects that embedded #climateinformation into decision-making, fostered #institutionalcoordination, and created space for #innovation were far more likely to deliver results. That’s good news. It means #failure is not inevitable and success doesn’t always require a bigger budget. It requires listening more carefully to #communities. Building with the best available #science. And being #bold enough to try new approaches, even in challenging contexts. If we want adaptation to succeed at scale, we must move beyond a narrow focus on resources and instead prioritize the enabling conditions that allow projects to thrive. Every failed project is a community left more vulnerable than before. We can, and must, do better. Especially in #FCAS - Fragile and Conflict Affected States, highly vulnerable to climate shocks and stressors. Read more about our study on this and our findings here: https://lnkd.in/eyuKrWsi Dr. Alvaro Lario Stephanie Speck Ana Maria Loboguerrero Ruben G. EcheverriaTess Morris Todd Rosenstock Ehtisham ul Hassan Ashwani K. Muthoo Dr Dhanush Dinesh Romina Cavatassi Margarita Astralaga CGIAR Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT

New Research Alert: Corporate Climate #Targets Lack Accountability ⁉️ A new study in Nature Climate Change exposes serious gaps in corporate climate commitments: Out of 1,041 companies with 2020 emissions targets: ✅ 61% met their targets ❌ 9% failed 🤫 31% silently abandoned their targets... But here’s the real problem: There were virtually no #consequences for failure. The study found: ⚠️ No significant market reaction ⚠️ Almost no media coverage (only 3 failed companies were mentioned) ⚠️ No impact on environmental scores ⚠️ No rise in climate-related shareholder pressure With major targets looming for 2030 and 2050, can we really trust corporate climate pledges without real accountability? 🔗 Read the full study: https://lnkd.in/dNy33kK6 This aligns with other research at the Max Planck Net Zero Lab, where they found: 📌 Less than 16% of analysed carbon credits represent real reductions → https://lnkd.in/dhfvQyUM 📌 Most companies spend less than 1% of capital expenditure on carbon credits → https://lnkd.in/damKtHZU Key takeaway: Without stronger #accountability mechanisms, corporate climate targets risk becoming just PR exercises. It’s time to demand real action. 👊 Keen to hear from CSO's and business leasers reading this posts, please share your thoughts 👇 #ClimateAction #Sustainability #NetZero #CorporateAccountability

🚨 31% of 2020 Emissions Targets "Disappeared," 9% Failed—raising questions about corporate accountability A recent study in Nature Climate Change reveals an alarming trend: of 1,041 firms with 2020 emissions targets, 31% "disappeared" without disclosing outcomes, and 9% failed outright. Even more alarming, these failures led to no significant market consequences, media scrutiny, or ESG rating downgrades. This lack of accountability for short-term targets raises serious concerns about the credibility of medium- and long-term goals, such as those set for 2030 and 2050. If companies cannot demonstrate transparency and deliver on shorter timelines, how can stakeholders trust their ambitious long-term objectives? 💠 Key issues at play: 🔻 Weak accountability: Many companies abandon or fail to meet targets without facing consequences. 🔻 Insufficient transparency: Over 30% of targets disappeared from disclosures, often in high-emission sectors, making scrutiny impossible. 🔻 Undefined boundaries: Many emissions targets lack clear information on what they include, such as the greenhouse gases covered, the activities and regions considered, or reliance on offsets. ✅ What investors and stakeholders must demand: 🔺 Clear disclosure boundaries: Targets must specify four critical dimensions: - GHG boundary: Which greenhouse gases are covered? - Activity boundary: What business activities and regions are included? - Organisational boundary: Operational or financial control/equity share? - Offset use: How much of the target will rely on offsets? 🔺 Comprehensive transition plans: Medium- and long-term targets must be supported by decarbonization strategies and capital allocation aligned with net-zero goals. 🔺 Enhanced accountability mechanisms: Regulators, investors and the media should hold firms accountable, ensuring transparency and comparability across disclosures. Access the Nature article below. For more on the target disclosure boundries read the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) Centre's submission to TCFD: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://lnkd.in/dvEmd3-8 Valentin Jahn, Ali Amin #NetZero #Sustainability #ESG #ClimateAction #Decarbonization #Transparency #Accountability #ClimateTargets #GreenFinance #TransitionPlans #CorporateResponsibility #CarbonNeutrality #InvestingInClimate #SustainableFuture #GHGReduction