Can We Rely on Corporations to Help Fight Climate Change?

We know intuitively that fossil fuel companies have little incentive to support the development of clean energy. A future built on renewables threatens their core business model. For decades, these companies have worked to shape public opinion—denying climate science, spreading misinformation, and using lobbying and campaign donations to block meaningful climate policies.

But what about other corporations, those not directly tied to oil, gas, or coal? A clean energy economy doesn’t threaten their existence. In fact, most non-fossil fuel companies have publicly committed to achieving “net-zero” emissions within the next 10 to 20 years. Tech companies, in particular, have branded themselves as climate-conscious leaders, pledging significant resources toward what appears to be serious climate action. It is therefore fair to ask whether these companies are truly following through on their climate pledges—and, more specifically, to consider the following three questions:

1. Do CEOs Take Climate Change Seriously?

Each year, global CEOs are surveyed by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) about their top concerns. They typically list short-term business risks such as inflation, regulations, and cybersecurity—not climate change, environmental damage, or economic inequality.

This focus reflects the priorities of their shareholders—primarily the wealthiest 1% of the global population. These investors have little incentive to support the deep, systemic changes necessary to address climate change, as such reforms would challenge the very foundations of their wealth and lifestyle. Their economic interests and carbon-intensive habits are deeply entwined with the causes of climate change, making meaningful action both personally and financially inconvenient.

2. Do Corporations Support What the Public Wants?

Public opinion polls have shown for years that people around the world overwhelmingly support stronger government action on climate change. Yet many major companies, outside the fossil fuel industry often work against effective policy solutions.

Consider the Biden Administration’s 2021 climate proposals. Opposition to Build Back Better plan came not only from the manufacturing and healthcare sectors, but also from major tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft. While these companies publicly supported climate action, they quietly opposed key parts of the plan through influential business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. Why? Because the legislation included corporate tax increases. These companies framed their opposition in familiar terms—claiming “economic harm” and “job losses”—despite broad public support for the measures. In the end, the proposals were significantly watered down.

Globally, fossil fuel lobbyists have long influenced decisions at the UN’s annual climate conferences (COP). But now, tech companies are gaining influence too. At COP29 in 2024, many tech firms promoted emerging technologies—like artificial intelligence and carbon capture—as climate solutions. According to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), at least 480 lobbyists representing carbon capture interests attended the conference—more than the combined official delegations from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and the EU. Over 200 of them had special access to closed-door negotiations by joining national delegations.

This matters because tech companies are widely seen as responsible actors. Yet their resistance to effective climate policy, reliance on unproven solutions, and history of avoiding taxes—even while benefiting from publicly funded research—raise serious doubts about their real commitment. In fact, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have all worked with oil companies to use AI to help locate new fossil fuel reserves.

3. Do Companies Deliver on Their Sustainability Promises?

A 2024 report from the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor examined the climate plans of 51 major global companies. It found that most of their net-zero targets were vague, incomplete, and not aligned with the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2030.

The report also found that many of these companies used misleading tactics. Some omitted key categories of emissions, relied on outdated or inconsistent data, or failed to explain clearly what their climate goals actually meant. The result: companies can appear to be making progress while avoiding real accountability.

Rather than making real cuts to their carbon emissions, many companies instead rely on “carbon offsets”—a way to compensate for emissions by funding projects that reduce greenhouse gases elsewhere. These companies often support organizations like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which has awarded favorable ratings even when a company’s progress relies partly on carbon offsets rather than actual emission reductions.

The idea behind carbon offsets is that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane have the same impact on the climate no matter where they're released. So, by supporting initiatives that remove or reduce emissions—such as reforestation or renewable energy projects, companies can claim to "offset" their own pollution.

These offsets are traded on what's known as the voluntary carbon market, which is not regulated. In this market, companies buy or sell carbon credits to meet their internal climate goals. Although there are verification programs intended to ensure the legitimacy of offset projects, their accuracy has come under serious scrutiny.

A major investigation by The Guardian, the German newspaper Die Zeit, and the nonprofit SourceMaterial examined forest carbon offsets approved by Verra, the world’s leading certifier. The investigation found that a staggering 94% of Verra’s rainforest offset credits had little to no meaningful impact on reducing emissions—despite being used by companies to claim climate progress.

The Bottom Line:

While many corporations claim to be part of the climate solution, their actions often tell a different story. Real progress will require holding them accountable—not just for what they promise, but for what they actually do. The public clearly wants more from both governments and corporations and believes correctly that lasting solutions will require both sectors to work together and take genuine, transparent action.