The current narrative surrounding corporate climate commitments is one of retreat, but the reality is more complicated. There are clear signs climate action in the US private sector is still occurring and might exceed your expectations. But getting a clear picture of what is happening on the ground is a challenge.
Despite the hostile political environment, more than 300 US companies, which represent over $12 trillion in total revenue, still have net zero commitments. This shows that corporate climate action has not collapsed. Yet, it is difficult to read if corporations are fully committed and growing ambitions, or plan to withdraw in the future.
Understanding what companies are actually doing on climate today requires looking beyond a single metric or public statement. This makes the overarching picture of US corporate climate action murky, and it will continue to be. But digging further we can see current trends point towards corporations continuing to act on climate change and different indicators to see how committed they are to this path.
Pressure on Corporations, From Different Directions
On climate change, corporate actors are navigating an unusually difficult moment, with several forces converging at once.
The Trump administration has taken an openly hostile stance toward clean energy, blocking renewable energy projects and redirecting investment toward fossil fuels. Federal climate disclosure rules, which would have required companies to report emissions data with the same rigor as financial data, have been scrapped. Although, the end of US climate disclosure rules will have limited impact for many corporations. Anti-ESG legislation and lawsuits from Republican state attorneys general have added legal risk to public climate commitments.
Economic shocks have added to the pressure. The war in Ukraine and military conflict in Iran leading to the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, volatile electricity and gas prices, and tariffs have disrupted supply chains and affected capital budgets. The rise of AI, meanwhile, is leading to a surge in data center energy demand which is straining the clean energy commitments of tech companies, which are some of the most prominent corporate climate leaders.
The standards landscape is also uncertain. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has revised its guidance on corporate climate target setting and the carbon market is witnessing multiple initiatives to provide evidence of its integrity leading some corporations to remain on the sidelines rather than take new action. At the same time, voluntary commitments made several years ago are now seeing challenges that were not anticipated when they were originally announced.
Three Paths for Corporate Climate Commitments
Against the current backdrop, US companies have sorted into three broad groups: The Champions, the Greenhushers, and the Retractors.
The Champions
Some companies are moving ahead with their commitments and saying so publicly. This group is signing long-term renewable energy contracts, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and maintaining or strengthening their emissions targets.
Technology companies make up a large share of this group. Since renewables are often faster to deploy than new fossil fuel capacity and clean energy credentials matter to their customers, employees, and investors, they are incentivized to move forward with their climate commitments. Amazon, Microsoft, and others have expanded their clean energy investments and explored emerging technologies, such as next-generation nuclear and carbon removal. Microsoft, however, has notably scaled back its procurement of renewable energy and caused a stir with rumors of halting purchases of carbon removal credits.
Despite this group moving forward during the current political environment, Climate Advisers believes these companies still warrant a closer look. With the AI boom driving sharp increases in energy demand, some tech companies may move toward energy sources and growth trajectories that could undermine their climate pledges. When companies face financial pressures, voluntary climate commitments might be the first thing to be rolled back.
The Greenhushers
A second group is continuing climate-related actions while being quiet about it. This trend, known as greenhushing, has become one of the defining features of the current moment.
The pressure to be quiet about climate goals comes from different directions. Conservative politicians and media outlets have targeted and criticized public climate commitments. At the same time, climate advocates scrutinize corporate claims and are quick to call out, or even sue, what they see as insufficient ambition or greenwashing. Holding corporations sharing dishonest claims of action accountable is needed, but for many companies this environment might position silence as the easiest and most strategic path.
Some major financial institutions reflect this pattern. Firms that were prominently vocal about climate commitments just a few years ago have pulled back their public messaging, even though they continue to incorporate climate risk into investment decisions. Despite their withdrawal in some arenas, financial institutions still have significant reasons to continue acting on climate change.
What makes greenhushers particularly difficult to assess is that their silence tells very little about their intentions. Some may be quietly advancing their decarbonization strategies, waiting for political conditions to change before going public again. Others may shift toward inaction, using the political cover to avoid difficult decisions. For some, meeting their climate targets will be impossible, but they won’t signal this publicly.
Without looking at the full picture, particularly actual emissions trajectories, it is very difficult to tell which direction is true for any given company.
The Retractors
The third group, which is the most visible and the easiest to identify, has scaled back or abandoned climate commitments altogether.
Their motivations for walking back their commitments may include high abatement costs, limited consumer pressure, political risk, or a judgment that climate targets are no longer strategically necessary. Oil and gas and chemicals companies are disproportionately represented in this group.
The rollback of voluntary US commitments, however, does not mean complete disengagement from climate considerations. Companies that operate globally still face the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) require climate-related disclosures and actions regardless of the US political environment. The global policy landscape creates a floor below which even retractors cannot easily fall.
The Limits of What We Can See
The three categories above are based largely on what companies say publicly through announcements, sustainability reports, website language, and press releases.
That means we are limited in what we see.
Companies that appear to be leading on climate may be engaged in greenwashing or may be quietly deprioritizing their targets as economic pressures mount. The current champions of today may not remain champions tomorrow.
Greenhushers, by definition, are not telling you what they are doing. Their silence might be a sign of climate retreat. At the same time, staying quiet could also be a strategic choice to continue progress without drawing backlash or precede greater climate ambitions as the landscape changes.
Retractors are easier to spot. But even some companies pulling back from formal commitments retain climate-relevant activities that are driven by global regulations, investor pressure, or long-term risk management.
Assessing Corporate Climate Commitments Requires Looking Deeper
Even though some companies are checking the right boxes and saying the right things, they may not be making progress. A company can have a net zero target but be nowhere near on track. PwC’s assessment of 214 large US companies found that while 91% have short-term Scope 1 and 2 (direct and indirect energy-related emissions) goals, only 56% are on track to meet them. Net Zero Tracker gave an A or A- grade to just 7.8% of S&P 500 companies in 2024, down from 21.6% the year before.
Getting a clear view of corporate climate action requires pulling together multiple factors, which include actual Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions trajectories, capital investment in decarbonization, participation in carbon markets, supplier engagement, political activity, and how climate strategy connects to long-term business planning.
That kind of general assessment is challenging, but that is the only way to cut through the noise. How to develop that deeper understanding is what we will be digging into in the posts ahead.
