Voluntary climate action isn’t so voluntary anymore

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

For a decade, corporate climate action has been described as largely “voluntary.” But that’s starting to change. 

Between 2018 and 2025 an explosion of corporate climate commitments led to more than two-thirds of the world’s largest companies setting a net zero target or similar. Such high-level proclamations have always been met with a degree of public and civil society scrutiny about the true plans and motivations behind these targets. That skepticism is supported by research showing a limited accountability system in the public levers. Studies show companies routinely adopt emissions-reduction pledges but face little real consequence, from investors nor the public, if they fail to meet them. Furthermore, voluntary initiatives themselves have low capacity and leverage for checking on their membership and enforcing compliance. 

So why are companies continuing to set record new voluntary climate targets and, more importantly, invest in decarbonization solutions to overcome barriers to their transition plans? Part of the answer lies in the value proposition of climate transition planning itself. 

For many firms, climate targets and plans have been tied to positive business outcomes, including competitive advantages and improved strategic cohesion. Surveys of companies with science-based targets find a clear majority report positive impacts on overall business performance, stakeholder confidence and long-term planning. Additional research indicates that setting science-based targets doesn’t harm profitability and may support decarbonization without compromising economic growth.

But it’s not only internal motivation that may be driving continued climate action. Our dataset at the University of Oxford, gathered by hundreds of lawyers from jurisdictions around the world, shows that what was once described as the “voluntary net-zero governance landscape” is increasingly not so voluntary.

From common practice to policy 

Climate regulation across major economies is spreading, with policies across the G20 now recommending or requiring aspects of climate target setting, disclosure, transition planning and risk management. The Oxford Climate Policy Monitor, which tracks climate rules across 37 jurisdictions covering over 85 percent of global emissions and 87 percent of global GDP, shows that since 2020, every tracked  jurisdiction has shown a net increase in climate policy strength and breadth — even if the pace and quality vary.

Across the most recent policy cycle, policymakers strengthened climate rules 82 times, and weakened them 42 times. In other words: despite political turbulence, the overall direction is still upwards.

A more striking shift: The regulatory centre of gravity is moving. Three-quarters of all new climate policies adopted between 2024 and 2025 were outside Europe and North America. Latin American, African and Asian jurisdictions now have more ambitious rules on average than many European and North American countries — especially on climate-related disclosure and carbon crediting/carbon market integrity rules.

One of the fastest-growing areas is climate-related corporate disclosure, with many jurisdictions tightening expectations about what companies must report and how. While disclosure is only a starting line for climate action, it tells a story about the way voluntary standards scale and ratchet over time towards more wide-spread and stricter regulation. If disclosure standards pose the question, standards like the ISO Net Zero Standard help to answer them. The question remains whether such normative policy tools follow the path taken by disclosure standards and spread into government action over time. 

An emerging trend

Overall, government regulation is starting to catch up with “voluntary” corporate climate action, and companies may be aware of this by staying committed to voluntary initiatives and standards. However, this trend may just be a direction of travel, not the final destination. Implementation as to how mandatory rules are being rolled out and enforced is still weak and varied. When regulations are assessed against global best-practice benchmarks from the voluntary governance system, only a minority of regulations require what it takes for organisations to align with net-zero best practices in line with Paris Agreement temperature goals.

In some key sectors, particularly carbon crediting rules and methane policies, progress has moved surprisingly fast to close previous gaps in climate governance. While much work is still needed in these domains, we’ve seen new standards emerge, integrity principles tighten and clearer expectations begin to form over a couple of years. What we have now is a hybrid governance system. Over the next several years it’s likely that voluntary frameworks (like the Science Based Targets initiative) will continue to play a critical role as they shape corporate strategy, define what “good” looks like, offer comparable guardrails, and help companies organise around a common vision for the future. But public regulation is increasingly embedding key criteria from voluntary standards into practice.

Much like the real economy, global climate governance is in the midst of transition as regulation ratchets. Companies that want to keep up with both transitions will be watching this space.