Corporate climate spending is now directing trillions of dollars towards the global transition to net zero, yet a fundamental question remains: does it translate into meaningful climate action? Research suggests that differences in accounting methods alone can cause a company’s reported emissions to vary by as much as twofold, allowing similar businesses to appear either as climate leaders or laggards. A new Nature Sustainability Perspective argues that industry-specific net-zero blueprints are needed to create a consistent scientific basis for measuring and comparing corporate climate performance.
More than 2,000 companies, representing US$36.6 trillion in annual revenue, have pledged to achieve net zero, while businesses collectively hold an estimated 18–21 GtCO₂e of annual emissions reduction potential. Despite this momentum, the latest Net Zero Stocktake found that only 7% of corporate net-zero commitments demonstrate high integrity. The challenge has shifted from encouraging companies to make pledges to ensuring those commitments are supported by credible, science-based methodologies.
Researchers from ESMT Berlin, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Bauhaus Earth, and the University of Sussex propose developing industry-specific net-zero blueprints that establish a common scientific foundation for corporate climate action. Rather than focusing solely on disclosure requirements, these blueprints would standardise emissions accounting, industry-specific target setting, progress measurement, and the governance of unavoidable residual emissions. They would complement existing frameworks such as the GHG Protocol, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).
Lead author Ramana Gudipudi of ESMT Berlin explains that current Scope 3 guidance encourages companies to reduce emissions where possible and offset what remains, but provides little scientific basis for determining what residual emissions are unavoidable. This uncertainty increases reliance on carbon credits and carbon removal technologies, both of which face significant limitations. Industry-specific blueprints would instead translate planetary science into practical business guidance, enabling companies, investors, and regulators to benchmark climate ambition using consistent scientific criteria.
The proposal comes as political and economic pressures reshape climate policy. The United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement in early 2026, while the European Union’s Omnibus package reduced the scope of the CSRD. Without stronger scientific guidance, the authors warn that investment decisions could become increasingly fragmented, weakening confidence in corporate climate commitments and slowing progress towards global climate goals.
Industry-specific blueprints would also bridge the gap between global climate pathways and company-level decision-making. By linking sector-specific emissions pathways to shared industry value chains, companies could better understand where meaningful emissions reductions are achievable, which emissions are likely to remain, and how progress compares across competitors. For example, a food and beverage blueprint could assess emissions from agriculture, packaging, transport, and refrigeration to identify realistic decarbonisation opportunities while distinguishing unavoidable emissions such as livestock methane.
The benefits would extend across sectors facing very different decarbonisation challenges. Construction companies must reduce emissions embedded in materials such as cement and steel, AI infrastructure must address rapidly growing electricity demand, and financial institutions require robust methods for assessing climate risks across lending portfolios. According to the researchers, industry-specific blueprints would help organisations quantify both the cost of achieving net zero and the financial risks of inaction, enabling more informed investment decisions and encouraging credible climate leadership.
The authors believe these blueprints should become a living scientific resource that evolves alongside advances in climate science, technology, and industry practices, much like the IPCC periodically updates assessments of climate science. With revisions underway for the GHG Protocol, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard, ISO 14060, the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, and the growing adoption of ISSB disclosure standards worldwide, they argue the timing is ideal to establish a shared scientific foundation for corporate net-zero commitments. They call on researchers, businesses, policymakers, standard-setters, and funding organisations to collaborate in developing this next generation of corporate climate guidance.
More information: Ramana Gudipudi et al, From corporate net-zero pledges to credible climate action, Nature Sustainability. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-026-01908-6
Journal information: Nature Sustainability Provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis