‘Greenhushing’ provides cover for companies making progress on their carbon reduction plans. Or does it? By David Burrows
Click on any major news site and you’ll probably encounter headlines about companies scaling back — or even dropping — their sustainability initiatives. These headlines create the impression that corporate sustainability efforts are buckling under unrelenting economic, political and regulatory pressures. But look closer and you will find a very different reality, one that’s been quietly unfolding behind the scenes.
So said PwC as it launched its State of Decarbonisation report 2025 this month. Given the number of such ESG-related reports that the big consultancies churn out each year, it’s no surprise that they are seeking points of difference. PwC this time used GenAI (of course it did) to produce “tailored insights” that “reveal specific strategy, governance and execution variables that make the difference in whether companies are on or off track to succeed”.
And the consultants reckon that corporate sustainability initiatives “aren’t slowing down — rather they’re quietly progressing and becoming more rigorous”. Maybe in some sectors. But while the report shows decent progress on scope 1 and 2 emissions, the experts admit “the real breakthrough is still ahead with scope 3”.
Honing in on the agri-food results, as is our want, this disconnect becomes clear. Agriculture, food and beverage companies have managed to cover off almost all their scope 1 and 2 emissions within their reduction targets (see page 7 of the report). For scope 3 the gap between emissions covered by reduction targets and total reported emissions is considerable (almost 3 billion tCO2e are not accounted for). In other words, for every 100tCO2e emitted by this sector’s companies, only around 30 are in corporate reduction targets. And let’s not forget this analysis is using data from only companies reporting to CDP.
Last year, efforts also seemed to have come to a sudden stop (see page 8 of PwC’s report), with fewer additional scope 3 emissions covered by new commitments in 2024. Momentum has stalled. And what’s worrying is that those that have been at this for a few years have begun to rethink their targets as fewer and fewer companies join the carbon reduction club.
Can anyone hear the greenhush?
Coca-Cola won’t like us reminding everyone about its recent greenrinsing of some environmental targets. But this segue requires it, as planet pundits wonder what on earth is going on as companies change their green goalposts. “Are we seeing a massive outbreak of socially contagious fatalism amid a net-zero recession?” wondered John Lang, who leads the Net Zero Tracker on behalf of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), in a piece for the Context website. Nope, he wrote. “What we’re actually seeing is that when you shake this system hard, a bunch of companies are going to fall out of the bottom. And the system is being shaken to its core.”
Lang makes some decent points, among them that the ’race’ to net-zero thrust climate into boardrooms and “the corridors of hundreds of thousands of businesses. However, all of this is irrelevant if emissions don’t plummet soon,” he explains. “The renewed focus on reducing emissions; implementing supply chain and product-use interventions; maximising the clout of companies across their full spheres of influence; and pursuing beyond value chain mitigation to allow companies to take responsibility for their unabated greenhouse gas emissions are welcome developments.”
Lang is convinced that “quiet but meaningful progress is being made. Several companies are shunning offsets in favour of more direct emissions reductions,’” he adds. Maybe there is hope within the greenhush? I’m not as sure as Lang. Maybe I’m being pessimistic? Maybe I don’t see the progress made in other sectors, many of which have an arguably easier time of reducing emissions? Maybe one to many corporate commitments have been broken by agri-food firms?
A recent report by GlobalData, which owns the Just Food website, found the proportion of respondents who feel ESG is the theme that will most impact their business in the next 12 months is at one of its lowest points for at least three years. That’s surely a risky approach.
Fair investment?
The FAIRR Initiative, the world’s fastest-growing ESG investor network representing over $70trn in combined assets, recently calculated that in its 2°C ‘Business as Usual’ scenario, 40 livestock companies would suffer a 7% reduction in profit margins on average compared to 2020 levels, representing $23.7bn overall. That’s more than four times Tyson Foods’ 2022 profits. Under this scenario and without mitigations, 20 companies, including JBS, Tyson Foods and WH Group (owners of Smithfield), would be operating at a loss.
Potential hits to profits are driven largely by an increase in climate-related costs: higher feed prices and expected carbon taxes on emissions from livestock production. “[…] the allure of investing in meat and dairy could be approaching an expiration date unless companies take action to address climate risk,” said Fairr chair and founder Jeremy Coller. “To mitigate the clear risk to the bottom line, companies should take a scientific approach and explore the best available strategies, including diversifying products and portfolios towards plant-based alternatives,” he added.
NewClimate Institute (NCI) tends to agree: share of protein sales from plant-based products should be one of four ‘transition-specific alignment targets’ set by agri-food companies. According to the think-tank, the most promising options for targets that can contribute to the transition from animal- to plant-based protein are: % protein sales from plant-based products (share of volume in tonnes); % protein sales from plant-based products (share of revenue); and % of protein products offered for sale that are plant-based. The first is perhaps the most accurate reflection of progress on a transition to increasing plant-based protein, however the latter might be easiest for companies to set targets on. Targets based on share of revenue should be taken with a pinch of salt given plant-based products can be pricier.
Target mismatch
The guidance comes as part of a report in which NCI “reimagines” corporate climate targets in order to drive real progress. In three annual iterations of its Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor between 2022 and 2024, pledges have clearly evolved to be less vague. However, there is a “significant mismatch between targets and actions. Most critically, companies’ 2030 emission reduction targets often fail to translate into meaningful business model changes addressing the key transitions that global net-zero goals depend on,” NCI warned. Transition-specific alignment targets provide “a focused framework for corporate climate leadership, prioritising near-term actions and sector-specific transitions”.
It’s maybe too early to determine what the shifting sands of carbon reduction targets mean, but we are clearly in a key period for these to evolve. After all, the International Standards Organisation (ISO), the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the GHG Protocol are all developing the next generation of corporate climate standards. More on some of those next time, but a spoiler alert is that supporters of offsets might not like v2.0 of the SBTi’s corporate net-zero standard. “Despite the deluge of proposals to water down corporate climate targets by allowing offsetting, the scope and role of carbon credits is limited in this new draft version,” noted Carbon Market Watch policy expert Inigo Wyburd.
“We have a limited carbon budget left,” posted SBTi on social media, calling for feedback on the new version. “Companies must act at pace to accelerate climate action, driving transformation, building investor confidence and unlocking long-term growth.”
