20 of 50 Largest Firms with Net-Zero Targets Show Backtracking

Twenty of the 43 largest listed companies that hold net-zero targets show evidence of backtracking, according to the Net Zero Tracker's latest stocktake — even as the overall share of the world's roughly 2,000 largest public companies with such commitments held flat at 64 percent across all regions.

The tracker, an independent research consortium based in Europe and the U.S., assembled its database with the help of hundreds of volunteers. Its findings complicate two years of media reports, including coverage by Trellis, describing corporate climate targets made less ambitious, deadlines delayed and goals quietly abandoned.

"There's no massive withdrawal," said Louise Bammel, a policy analyst at the NewClimate Institute in Germany, one of the partners in the tracker.

What do the regional numbers show?

Regional shifts were modest. In the United States, the share of companies with net-zero targets dropped a single percentage point from last year's report, to 51 percent. The European Union moved in the opposite direction, gaining one point to reach 85 percent.

China posted the sharpest gain. Net-zero coverage among tracked Chinese companies grew to 28 percent, up from 24 percent in 2025 and 18 percent the year before. Across all regions combined, the total remained roughly unchanged at 64 percent.

The study defines backtracking as making "mostly negative" changes to existing targets — narrowing the scope of emissions covered, or converting a commitment into an aspiration.

Where is backtracking concentrated?

The sharpest signal sits in finance. Of the 50 largest tracked companies, 43 hold targets, and 20 of those appear to be backtracking. Eleven of the 18 financial institutions in the group show evidence of the practice. The pattern will not surprise sector specialists: the Net Zero Banking Alliance folded roughly a year ago after multiple members exited.

The remaining backtracking cases break down as follows:

• Four oil and gas businesses
• Two technology firms
• One semiconductor manufacturer
• One retailer
• One pharmaceutical company

Bammel declined to name the organizations.

The most common forms of backtracking were keeping but weakening targets, followed by outright withdrawal of a goal. Together, the two categories account for nearly nine in 10 of the negative changes the researchers observed.

Do weakened targets signal bad faith?

Not necessarily, the study argues. Among the top 50 companies, most targets were set in 2020 and 2021. Companies have learned a great deal since. When PepsiCo downgraded its goals in 2025, the company cited a lack of support from policymakers.

Sometimes, Bammel noted, pushing back a target or weakening it reflects a company that has examined the key factors — its emissions, its mitigation options — and concluded a delay is the only realistic course. "That shows that a company is actually taking its target seriously," she said.

She contrasted that posture with the one adopted by technology companies clinging to targets even as data center investments drive emissions upward. Microsoft and Google, for example, remain committed to targets with 2030 deadlines despite reporting annual emissions increases of 25 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

"If you take a target seriously, you have to update it," said Bammel.

The study is among the first to examine backtracking as a distinct phenomenon, and it flags a measurement problem: assessing the intention behind any given change remains difficult from the outside. A weakened target may mark a genuine recalibration or a quiet retreat — the filing rarely says which.

What happens next?

The milestone to watch is the 2030 deadline cluster. Microsoft and Google have kept their commitments while their emissions rise; PepsiCo has already reset its goals. Whether the remaining 23 target-holders among the top 50 revise, hold or abandon their pledges — and whether China's coverage growth continues at its current pace — will define the next stocktake.