A peer-reviewed study published in February 2026 in npj Climate Action found that 96 percent of companies with net-zero pledges show at least one measurable indicator of greenwashing. The research by Brown, Hsu, and Manya is the largest empirical assessment of corporate climate pledge integrity ever conducted, covering more than 4,000 companies across global markets.

The findings arrive at a moment when corporate climate commitments have reached record levels. Net-zero pledges now cover 92 percent of global GDP and 88 percent of worldwide emissions, according to the Science Based Targets initiative. But the gap between what companies promise and what they actually do is widening, and this study provides the most comprehensive data yet on how large that gap truly is.

The research drew on data from three non-profit organizations: CDP, the Net Zero Tracker, and InfluenceMap. Together, these databases gave researchers access to company disclosures, implementation plans, emissions performance records, and corporate lobbying activity across seven distinct dimensions.

What the Study Actually Measured

The most common failure, found in 70 percent of companies assessed, was the exclusion of Scope 3 emissions. Scope 3 covers indirect emissions across a company's supply chain and product use, categories that typically account for the largest share of a corporation's total carbon footprint. Excluding them effectively means a pledge covers only a fraction of what the company is responsible for. 

Other major indicators flagged in the study:

• Questionable reliance on carbon offsets rather than direct emission reductions, found in 40 percent of companies
• Missing interim targets between now and 2050, found in 21 percent
• Lack of measurable progress toward stated targets, found in 20 percent
• Misaligned lobbying: companies publicly supporting climate action while lobbying against climate policy
• Poor implementation planning with no credible roadmap for how the pledge will be achieved
• Inadequate emissions disclosure, making independent verification impossible

Only 4 percent of the 3,574 scored companies received zero flags. That means 96 percent have at least one verifiable indicator of greenwashing risk, and many have several.

The Lobbying Problem Is Harder to See and More Damaging

Of all the greenwashing indicators identified, misaligned lobbying is arguably the most consequential and the least visible. A company can simultaneously publish a net-zero roadmap and fund industry associations that lobby against the policies needed to make net-zero achievable at a societal level.

InfluenceMap found that 58 percent of large corporations have net-zero targets that conflict directly with their own lobbying behavior. Companies identified as being at significant risk include major energy, aviation, and mining firms that have made high-profile climate commitments while working against binding climate legislation through trade associations.

The study's authors note that lobbying-related greenwashing risks are less prevalent among European firms. Researchers attribute this in part to stronger regulatory environments in the EU, where the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive now requires large companies to disclose detailed climate transition plans that can be independently scrutinized.

Why Scope 3 Exclusion Matters More Than Most Pledges Acknowledge

For most industries, Scope 3 emissions represent between 70 and 90 percent of a company's full carbon footprint. For an oil and gas company, it includes emissions released when consumers burn the fuel it produces. When companies exclude Scope 3, the actual emissions reduction commitment can shrink dramatically. Research found that net-zero pledges, on aggregate, amount to a commitment to reduce covered emissions by just 36 percent. The remaining reductions are deferred to carbon removal technologies that do not yet exist at scale, delegated to offset markets of questionable integrity, or simply excluded from the accounting entirely.

The Regulatory and Investor Response Is Accelerating

The study arrives as regulators are moving from voluntary guidelines toward binding enforcement on corporate climate claims. The European Union's Green Claims Directive, finalized in 2025, prohibits environmental claims not substantiated by science-based evidence. Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all issued fines or enforcement actions against companies found to have made misleading sustainability claims.

For investors, the implications are material. If a net-zero pledge is primarily a public relations instrument rather than a genuine emissions reduction strategy, the financial risks of the climate transition are not being managed. Climate-related financial disclosures are now mandatory in a growing number of jurisdictions, and the gap between pledges and performance is becoming a legal liability.

The study also has implications for the voluntary carbon market. When 40 percent of net-zero pledging companies rely heavily on offsets and offset quality is inconsistent, the entire accounting structure underpinning corporate climate commitments becomes unreliable.

What Distinguishes Credible Pledges from Hollow Ones

Three conditions research consistently identifies as necessary for a credible net-zero pledge:

• Coverage: The target must include Scope 3 emissions. A pledge that excludes the majority of a company's footprint is structurally misleading.
• Verification: Emissions and progress must be independently verified annually, not self-reported.
• Capital allocation: Investment decisions must align with the climate target, not contradict it.

Most companies failed on at least one condition. Even among companies covering 56 percent of corporate emissions in their pledges, only 32 percent could provide any data linking investment decisions to their climate goals.

Sectoral and Regional Patterns in Greenwashing Risk

Energy and materials companies showed the highest concentration of greenwashing risk indicators, particularly on lobbying misalignment and Scope 3 exclusion. Consumer-facing companies in retail and food production showed high rates of offset reliance and missing interim targets. Technology companies, despite often leading on Scope 1 and 2 reductions, frequently excluded Scope 3 from their pledges.

Regionally, EU-headquartered firms showed the lowest rates of lobbying-related risk. North American and Asian firms showed higher rates across most indicators. The researchers conclude that regulatory pressure, not voluntary initiative alone, is the most reliable driver of pledge credibility.