Tepid efforts dominate when it comes to corporate climate action

None of 55 major global companies achieved a high or even reasonable integrity in regards to their climate strategies. This is what the 2025 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) found out. The report analyses the climate strategies of 55 major global companies and evaluates the transparency and integrity of their climate pledges. It also identifies examples of good practice for replication and highlights areas where improvement is needed.

This year, publisher NewClimate Institute also assessed the companies’ progress on key transitions necessary for deep emission reductions in four sectors: food and agriculture, tech, fashion and automotive manufacturing. 

“While awareness of what constitutes credible corporate climate action is growing among companies and standard setters, even the most ambitious companies often fail to align their business models with the speed and scale needed to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degree Celsius goal,” commented Frederic Hans, senior climate policy advisor at the NewClimate Institute.

H&M, Inditex, Lululemon commit but fail to back up with concrete plans

Of the five global fashion players that were analysed - Adidas, H&M, Inditex, Lululemon and Shein - the first three achieved a moderate integrity rating, Lululemon a low one and Shein a very low one. This was primarily due to missing plans to electrify manufacturing processes and other shortcomings in their climate commitments.

While H&M and Inditex ranked reasonably on transparency due to early progress on robust strategies and piloting high-integrity approaches, the overall category remained that of moderate integrity. A headline pledge of reaching net zero by 2040 placed them ahead of Adidas with a headline pledge of net zero by 2050 and moderate transparency.

While Lululemon shares Adidas’ main pledge and transparency ranking, the company’s poor integrity evaluation due to weak targets pushed it into the low integrity category.

“H&M, Inditex and Lululemon have committed to sourcing renewable electricity within their supply chains. However, these are not supported by concrete plans to electrify manufacturing processes. H&M is the only company to disclose detailed energy use data, and although it leads on transparency and circularity, its efforts still fall short in critical areas such as electrification,” finds the report.

Key transition areas not sufficiently addressed

With a pledge of reaching net zero by 2050 and a poor transparency and very low integrity evaluation, Shein’s overall ranking was in the very poor integrity category due to minimal commitments and a lack of action on critical transitions.

“Key transition areas – including electrification of manufacturing and renewable energy sourcing – are not sufficiently addressed and reliance on false solutions such as biomass and fossil gas continues to undermine credibility. No company assessed achieved a rating of reasonable or high integrity, highlighting the urgent need for more robust, transition-aligned strategies across the fashion sector,” is the verdict in regards to the five fashion giants assessed.

False solutions risk delaying real progress

All four companies except Shein, which does not disclose energy information and continues to rely on coal, plan to shift to biomass or fossil gas as coal substitutes. However, these alternatives deliver limited emission reductions and risk locking in carbon-intensive systems. Biomass also raises significant environmental and social concerns, such as biodiversity loss and food insecurity.

“Many fashion companies promote bioenergy as a sustainable alternative to coal, but this is simply not true. Bioenergy is not an emissions-free energy source and may have a range of negative implications for local communities and ecosystems,” states Silke Mooldijk, climate policy and corporate climate responsibility at NewClimate Institute.

This tallies with findings of the “2024 Clean Energy Close Up” report by environmental advocacy group Stand.earth as well as various environmental advocates that earlier slammed major brands for “greenwashing” the biomass transition.

When looking at a comparison of the four sectors evaluated, none stands out as a trailblazer; most apparent is a host of question marks that indicate no progress or insufficient data across the board.

Recommendations

The report underscores the need for more prescriptive guidance on key transitions. Companies should therefore complement Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets with clear goals for key transitions, prioritising electrification and renewable energy.

“A shift away from high-volume fast fashion is also essential to align with long-term decarbonisation goals” is also a key recommendation, which cannot be underlined enough as linear models are not fit for circular transition. Thus, the report calls on standard setters such as ISO, GHG Protocol and SBTi and regulators to “provide clearer guidance for measurable transition goals, including limits on biomass use and to introduce policies to reduce overproduction”.  

They should also require transition alignment targets from companies to guide their strategies on these key transitions more accurately and to evaluate the integrity of company commitments.