Corporate net-zero has gone mainstream. Thousands of companies now describe themselves as “aligned with 1.5°C”, and the share of global market capitalisation covered by science-based targets has passed 40%, with Asia one of the fastest‑growing regions for validated targets. Yet inside boardrooms, a quieter question keeps surfacing: are these firms actually cutting emissions fast enough, or have net-zero pledges become another line of corporate jargon?
A useful way to answer that question is to stop treating net-zero as a distant 2050 endpoint and start treating it as a near-term delivery test. The UN High-Level Expert Group argues that credible net-zero commitments are anchored in tough interim targets (for 2025–2035), transparent transition plans, rapid cuts in real-economy emissions, and a disciplined view of offsets as “beyond value chain” contributions, not a substitute for decarbonisation. In practice, a company that looks genuinely on track usually does four things: it covers Scope 1 and 2 plus material Scope 3 emissions; it focuses on absolute emission reductions, not only intensity metrics; it publishes a transition plan that links targets to capital, procurement and operations; and it limits offset use, with clear-quality criteria.
The global picture is one of strong momentum with stubborn fault lines. On the positive side, SBTi’s Trend Tracker shows that in just 18 months to mid‑2025, the number of companies with near-term science-based targets almost doubled, and those with both near-term and net-zero targets grew by 227%. Companies with validated or committed targets now represent about 41% of global market capitalisation, and 25% of global market revenue. Asia stands out: a joint PwC–NUS assessment finds that more than half of large listed Asia Pacific firms surveyed have some form of net-zero commitment, and climate disclosure is improving.
But when independent monitors move from slogans to substance, the gaps become clearer. CDP’s analysis of climate transition plans shows that while many companies claim 1.5°C‑aligned plans, only a small minority disclose robustly against all key indicators, particularly strategy and financial planning. The Transition Pathway Initiative finds that more firms are integrating climate into management structures, but only a small fraction reach the highest management-quality levels that require detailed, costed transition plans and evidence of capital shifting away from carbon‑intensive assets. NewClimate Institute’s Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor similarly concludes that median 2030 value‑chain reductions implied by current corporate targets fall well short of what 1.5°C-consistent pathways demand, often because of partial scope coverage and heavy reliance on offsets.
Country and company experiences make this tension more tangible. In Denmark, for example, TDC NET has committed to net-zero in its own operations by 2028 and across its value chain by 2030, decades earlier than typical 2050 pledges. Its plan rests on accelerating energy‑efficient network technology, rapid renewable electricity procurement and intensive supplier engagement, so the transition shows up in decisions about equipment, contracts and sites today, not in 2049. In Asia Pacific, by contrast, the PwC–NUS study finds that while net-zero language is now widespread, only a minority of companies have SBTi‑validated targets or detailed, costed transition plans, especially in heavy industry. In India’s services sector, Wipro’s SBTi‑validated commitment to net-zero by 2040 and to a 55% absolute emissions cut by 2030 from a 2020 base year illustrates what a more concrete pathway looks like in a fast‑growing economy. Yet many regional peers still rely on intensity targets and partial Scope 3 coverage, allowing total emissions to rise even as reported performance improves.
Financial institutions highlight another fault line. A UK example is Phoenix Group, which has published a detailed net-zero transition plan for its operations and investment portfolio, with interim milestones and specific levers such as portfolio stewardship and sector decarbonisation targets. The plan makes it easier for savers and regulators to ask whether portfolio emissions are actually falling and whether capital is moving out of high‑carbon assets. Still, TPI’s broader analysis shows that only a limited share of financial institutions have capex and portfolio strategies aligned with their net-zero rhetoric.
Across these settings, several repeat patterns explain why corporate net-zero efforts slip off track. Scope 3 emissions are frequently postponed or carved out, even in sectors where they represent the bulk of climate impact. Many companies anchor on a 2050 destination but leave 2030 under‑specified, despite 2030 being the critical checkpoint for a 1.5°C pathway. Intensity targets sometimes mask rising absolute emissions where growth outpaces efficiency gains. Offsets and vague promises of future removals are still used as a crutch, despite clear guidance from the HLEG and others that they should not substitute for near‑term value‑chain reductions. And while governance is improving, only a minority of firms disclose convincing evidence that capex, R&D and lobbying are aligned with their stated climate goals.
For boards and readers, a simple checklist helps separate aspiration from trackable transition: First, do targets clearly cover Scopes 1, 2 and material Scope 3, in line with SBTi and GHG Protocol guidance: Second, are there absolute 2030 targets with a clear base year and annual progress data; Third, is there a published, quantified transition plan linking actions to investment; Fourth, is capital visibly shifting away from carbon‑intensive activities; and last, are offsets used sparingly and transparently, as beyond‑value‑chain mitigation. Verification, for example through SBTi, cannot guarantee delivery, but when combined with robust plan disclosure it does raise the floor on target quality.
The uncomfortable bottom line is that corporate net-zero cannot be judged by the existence of a pledge. It has to be judged by whether emissions are falling fast enough this decade, across the full value chain, with capital, products and day‑to‑day decisions pulling in the same direction.