Corporate climate leadership has moved on. The critics haven’t

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 corporate sustainability leaders are quietly considering more impactful investments than ever before. But the guidance that will allow them to credibly account for the impact of these investments — and to make claims against them — is still in the process of being written. Without a clear way to reputably take credit for such investments, companies are understandably hesitant to fully commit. When these companies get dragged through the mud for perceived incrementalism in the meantime, their sustainability teams’ ability to make the case for game-changing investments, or even for continuing the work they’re doing today, is significantly undermined.

Moving through this messy moment

So how do we move through this messy moment? How do we speed toward the kind of clarity that will unleash large-scale corporate investment and the accompanying absolute decarbonization that’s so desperately needed? Accounting and claims guidance that incentivizes the highest impact investments — both inside companies’ value chains and beyond — must be finalized as quickly as possible. That’s because today’s ambiguity is diminishing tomorrow’s climate impacts.

But there’s another reason that’s even more important: There has been a continued focus on inside value chain decarbonization, to the exclusion of beyond value chain investment. Without adding the power of markets into the mix, we won’t achieve global decarbonization at the necessary speed and scale.

Companies must continue decarbonizing their value chains with a focus on maximizing absolute reductions. Programs focused on direct and supply chain decarbonization are table stakes at this point. But some of the highest impact investments that companies can make will never be traceable back to their supply chains. For example, a company might have an opportunity to invest in a project in a sector not related to their value chain that results in a total reduction of GHG emissions that’s higher than any intervention they can execute in their own supply chain. The impact of such an investment should not be reflected in their inventory, of course, but it certainly makes sense for the company to be able to reputably quantify and communicate its impact separately.

Normalizing the necessity of high-credibility, third-party assurable beyond value chain investments — and their associated claims — is critical. Both GHGP and SBTi are conducting consultations that could reshape how companies frame these investments. And newer guidance from The Task Force for Corporate Action Transparency (TCAT) and the Center for Green Market Activation’s AIM Platform provides detailed ways to leverage the power of markets while also maintaining the necessary foundation of direct decarbonization.

To address the climate crisis, we need everything, everywhere all at once. More companies need to be taking action and companies that already have climate programs must be incentivized to take more impactful action. Criticizing and undermining the work happening now, in this fractious moment, is a dangerous game. Let’s hold companies accountable to the kind of leadership that tomorrow will need, not to the expectations of the past.