In the past few decades, we’ve seen remarkable progress in the public acknowledgement of climate action as an important business imperative. As someone who’s been working in the sustainable business space since before my beard was gray, I celebrate this development. After all, we are in the midst of an all encompassing global crisis, and we absolutely need the business world to step up if we are going to maintain a livable climate.
However, my enthusiasm is also tinged with a healthy dose of skepticism. Because, while targets and goals can help drive the scale of change we need on a planetary level, they’ll only do so if we actually reach them. And that’s where things don’t always go to plan. (It’s easy, after all, to get a CEO to commit to Net Zero by 2050 if they’ll be long-since retired before accountability for that goal really sets in.)
As research by Berkeley Haas Business School professor Sharn Kim has shown, nearly 40% of companies missed or abandoned their 2020 climate targets — a pattern that established early warning signs about the challenges of corporate climate commitments. While it’s imperative that companies do all they can to achieve the goals they set, the reality is that some will inevitably be missed — sometimes despite the best efforts of those tasked with achieving them. Particularly in cases where overly vague or unrealistic goals were set in the first place, a recalibration may actually be in everyone’s best interests. Still, how companies respond to evolving benchmarks can determine whether they maintain stakeholder trust or face lasting reputational damage.
The transparency imperative
Of course, the science tells us that every ton of carbon emitted matters, and that means that any missed climate goal is a missed opportunity to move the needle on decarbonization. Yet sometimes, just as damaging as the miss itself is the manner in which companies handle communicating that miss.
Coca-Cola, for example, had previously set a very public climate-adjascent goal of delivering 25% of its products in reusable or refillable containers by 2030. When it replaced that goal with a less ambitious commitment of 35 to 40% recycled content by 2035, it faced significant backlash not just for missing the original target, but for the “quiet” way it removed the commitment from its website ahead of a global plastics summit. Similarly, Amazon’s deletion of its Shipment Zero program was reportedly discovered by Will Evans of the Center for Investigative Reporting, not initially announced or publicly explained by the company itself. This resulted in negative headlines and criticism from internal employee groups — both of which drew attention away from the fact that Amazon continues to invest heavily in decarbonization across its operations, and could credibly be argued to be a leader in the space.
Context matters
Transparency doesn’t just mean announcing a goal revision; it means explaining why. Companies can even use these moments to build trust and expand the conversation. When a company misses shipping decarbonization targets because sustainable aviation fuels remain prohibitively expensive compared to traditional jet fuel, for example, they could use this as an opportunity to explain what needs to happen on the societal level, and to advocate for policy changes that would level the playing field.
“Companies cannot transform the operating environment alone, so calling on policy makers to also do their part is key to creating the ecosystem where a sustainable economy is possible,” says Michael Rohwer, an independent sustainability consultant. In other words, even among some of the largest corporations in the world, ‘we can’t do this alone,’ is a legitimate perspective when it comes to society-wide decarbonization.
No one-size-fits-all solution
The appropriate response to missing climate goals depends heavily on company profile, and the original communication strategy around the goals. A smaller or more business-to-business focused company is likely to face different stakeholder pressures than a consumer brand that will likely have a target on its back from activist groups. Similarly, a company that built its entire brand narrative around a specific sustainability target faces different reputational risks than one that included the goal as part of a broader commitment portfolio.
Consider the contrasting public responses to Google’s abandonment of carbon neutrality versus Shell’s weakening of its emissions reduction targets. In its 2024 Environmental Report, Google framed its shift as an “evolution of strategy” toward net-zero goals, making a credible case for why carbon offsets were insufficient for meaningful climate action. The response was generally positive, with media coverage focusing on the company’s enhanced ambition rather than the abandoned commitment.
Shell’s approach was different — the company cited “too much uncertainty” in the energy transition trajectory as justification for removing its 2035 milestone entirely. While nearly 80% of Shell shareholders supported the revised strategy, media headlines were predominantly negative, with activist groups questioning the company’s ultimate net-zero commitment.
The difference lies not just in messaging, but in the underlying strategic coherence. Google positioned its change as a move toward more meaningful action, while Shell’s revision was perceived as a retreat from ambition. (Of course, it’s also relevant here that Shell is primarily and most prominently in the business of extracting and producing fossil fuels that emit vast amounts of carbon — meaning the level of public trust will be low.)
Action before communication
Perhaps the most critical principle for companies facing missed goals is that action should precede communication. And missed targets can and should serve as a catalyst for doubling down.
Writing for Fast Company about missed corporate targets, Matt Paver emphasizes this point: companies that miss targets while simultaneously increasing their climate investments and expanding their sustainability teams face less stakeholder criticism than those that simply revise targets downward without demonstrating enhanced commitment.
This might mean implementing an internal carbon price that funds climate action even when external targets prove challenging to meet. It could involve doubling down on research and development for breakthrough technologies, or making strategic acquisitions that enhance decarbonization capabilities.
Meanwhile, the Gold Standard — a leading organization for certifying high-quality carbon offset projects — has made the following recommendations for companies missing Scope 3 targets: rather than simply revising targets, companies should first demonstrate enhanced supplier engagement, increased investment in supply chain decarbonization, and expanded collaboration with industry peers to address systemic challenges. In response to a huge rise in emissions due to AI-related data centers, for example, Google — in addition to continued efforts to lower its own emissions — committed to investing heavily in nascent carbon removal technologies, and recently signed the world’s first corporate agreement to purchase energy from small modular nuclear reactors, thus helping to scale up what many believe are much needed technologies that could eventually have industry-wide significance.
Strategic stakeholder engagement
Effective communication around missed goals requires proactive engagement with the full spectrum of stakeholders — not just investors, but executive leadership, employees, employee interest groups, environmental organizations, activist investors, and supply chain partners. And crucially, this engagement should begin before public announcements, not after.
Amazon’s experience illustrates the risks of stakeholder communications that are perceived as inadequate. When journalists first revealed that Amazon was abandoning its Shipment Zero goal in May 2023, even Amazon’s own employee climate group, Employees for Climate Justice, was taken by surprise. In a statement, the group claims that it learned about the Shipment Zero abandonment through media reports rather than internal communication. Their response was predictably critical:
“How are we supposed to conclude anything other than that senior leadership has yet again decided to deprioritize getting Amazon's business [to] zero emissions?”
In response to the reporting, Amazon denied that it was in danger of missing the goal and stated that it was still committed to rolling out 100,000 electric delivery vehicles by 2030 — a key pillar of its original target. It also issued a very short public statement arguing that it was now more focused on its broader Climate Pledge, and that it “no longer made sense to have a separate and more narrow Shipment Zero goal that applied to only one part of [their] business.”
It’s important to note that, as outside parties, it’s hard to know exactly what outreach was done — internally or externally — to communicate this change. It’s also worth emphasizing that, since abandoning its Shipment Zero goal, Amazon continues to make significant and very public investments in sustainability. It has, for example, made many of its proprietary decarbonization resources free for anyone to use through its public Sustainability Exchange. As the Supercool podcast discussed recently in a rare interview with Chris Roe, Amazon’s Director of Worldwide Environment, Carbon, and Chris Atkins, the Director of Worldwide Operations, Sustainability, the company has also continued to make progress specifically on shipping. They’ve achieved a 33% reduction in per-shipment emissions intensity since 2019. All of which suggests there is some credibility to Amazon’s claim that the work continues, even if the specific goal has been deleted.
Nevertheless, the question remains: Given the clear and very significant commitments that Amazon is making to continue decarbonization, could the communication around this specific goal have been handled more transparently?
Adam Colette, Program Director for the forest protection nonprofit Dogwood Alliance, argues that many ESG professionals would benefit from rethinking their relationship with campaign groups, even oppositional ones. It’s helpful for activists to hear from companies about what needs to change on the policy level, for example. And once channels of communication are open, there’s also potential for even closer collaboration. While Dogwood Alliance has run campaigns against high profile corporations, the organization has also partnered with businesses — sometimes the very same ones that were originally campaign targets.
“Years ago, Dogwood was going after Staples for what we saw as inadequate sustainability commitments,” says Colette. “Yet the team at Staples was willing to engage with us and opened up a dialogue. I think both sides were surprised by how much we could ultimately help Staples to step up its ambition and achieve its goals. If I had one wish, it would be that corporate ESG professionals and activists learned to see each other as peers, not just adversaries.”
Balancing ambition with realism
Those tasked with setting corporate climate goals are in an unenviable spot. Given the undeniable threat posed by climate change, they are being asked to balance very real, known and aggressive emissions cuts that the science says are necessary to stay (or go back below) 1.5°C. And yet they also have to find a way to pursue those goals without jeopardizing the long-term commercial health and competitiveness of their employer. If goals become too easily achievable, they lose their transformative power and risk falling short of what we know needs to happen. Yet we must also avoid the trap of “aspirational” goals that companies never seriously intend to meet.
Companies should also consider diversifying their goal portfolio. Rather than betting everything on a single, highly visible target, they might establish a combination of stretch goals, intermediate milestones, and foundational commitments that collectively drive progress while providing flexibility when circumstances change.
Moving forward: A framework for goal revision
For companies facing the prospect of missing or revising climate goals, a strategic framework can help navigate the communications challenge.
Assessment Phase: Before any external communication, conduct a thorough analysis of why goals are being missed. Is it due to internal execution challenges, external market conditions, technological limitations, or regulatory barriers? The answer will shape the appropriate response.
Action Enhancement: Identify concrete actions that demonstrate enhanced commitment, even if specific targets need revision. This might include increased investment, new technologies, expanded partnerships, or policy advocacy.
Stakeholder Preparation: Engage key stakeholder groups proactively, seeking their input on revised approaches before making public announcements. This consultation process often generates valuable insights while building support for new directions.
Transparent Communication: When communicating changes, lead with the “why” rather than the “what.” Explain the systemic challenges, market conditions, or technological barriers that necessitated revision, and demonstrate how the company is working to address these broader issues.
Future-Focused Messaging: Position goal revisions as part of an evolution toward more impactful action, not a retreat from climate commitment. Show how lessons learned from missed targets are informing more effective strategies.
An ongoing conversation
The complexities of corporate climate goal management resist simple prescriptions, and I would be lying if I said we had this all figured out. I would also caution that, for any of the cases discussed above, there is sometimes a gap between public perception and what actually happened. But that’s all the more reason why anyone in the corporate sustainability space needs to be extremely intentional about how they communicate shifts in their strategy or goals.
Rather than offer a one-size-fits-all solution, at thinkPARALLAX, we recognize that navigating missed or revised climate goals requires nuanced judgment and stakeholder-specific approaches. And we’re eager to hear from our community:
For corporate sustainability leaders: What internal processes have helped you navigate goal revisions while maintaining stakeholder trust?
For consultants and advisors: What frameworks or methodologies have proven most effective in helping clients communicate about missed targets?
For activists and NGO representatives: What do you want to see from companies when they revise their climate commitments? How can businesses maintain your support even when original goals prove unattainable?
For investors: How do you evaluate companies that miss climate targets versus those that consistently meet less ambitious goals?
If you’ve got thoughts on this topic, or are facing similar challenges, I would love for you to reach out at sami@thinkparallax.com, or DM me on LinkedIn. Or maybe you’re involved with one of the companies mentioned in this article, and feel like we missed some important outreach or context? Either way, we would love to hear from you. In the ever changing fields of sustainability and climate action, the most effective approaches will emerge through collaborative learning and honest dialogue about what works, what doesn’t, and what we can do better.hat we can do better.
