Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025 finds that none of the 20 assessed companies demonstrate a climate strategy of 'reasonable' or 'high' integrity. The report highlights that 2030 emission reduction targets are increasingly 'unfit for purpose' due to structural obstacles, including incomplete emissions disclosures and sector-specific accounting malpractices. In the tech sector, soaring energy demand from AI and a reliance on outdated market-based accounting for electricity undermine target credibility. The automotive sector shows inadequate progress in phasing out internal combustion engines, while the fashion sector lacks commitments to reduce overproduction. The agrifood sector is criticised for relying on undefined land-based carbon removals to obscure a lack of structural emission reductions. The report argues for the adoption of transition-specific alignment targets to complement general GHG targets.

• None of the 20 companies assessed in the 2025 monitor demonstrate a climate strategy of 'reasonable' or 'high' integrity; only a few, including H&M Group, Stellantis, and Apple, are rated as having 'moderate' integrity.
• General 2030 emission reduction targets are increasingly insufficient to guide sectoral transitions, particularly in sectors with large scope 3 emissions where target-setting and validation are complex.
• Structural obstacles undermining corporate climate strategies include incomplete emissions disclosures, sector-specific accounting malpractices, and a lack of transparency regarding progress on key sectoral transitions.
• In the tech sector, the rapid expansion of AI and soaring energy demand threaten the feasibility of existing GHG targets, as location-based scope 2 emissions for the five major tech companies increased rapidly from 2019 to 2023.
• Tech companies rely heavily on outdated market-based accounting for electricity, which allows them to claim reductions even when actual location-based emissions do not decrease.
• The agrifood sector frequently uses undefined amounts of non-durable land-based carbon dioxide removals (CDR) to meet targets, which the report argues obscures a lack of action on methane emissions and structural reductions.
• Most assessed agrifood companies lack strong commitments to transition toward plant-based proteins, neglecting a primary measure for cutting methane emissions.
• In the fashion sector, while some companies have improved GHG targets, they lack commitments to reduce overproduction and move away from the fast fashion business model.
• Fashion companies often replace coal boilers with fossil gas or biomass, which the report describes as 'false solutions' that risk locking in carbon-intensive technologies.
• Automotive manufacturers show inadequate progress in phasing out internal combustion engines (ICE), with most commitments remaining vague and misaligned with 1.5°C pathways.
• Most automotive companies lack concrete emission reduction commitments to substantiate their long-term carbon neutrality or net-zero pledges.
• The report recommends that companies complement GHG targets with 'transition-specific alignment targets'—metrics that directly reflect progress on critical sectoral milestones.
• The European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is showing early signs of improving transparency and data availability for EU-headquartered companies.

APA

Hans, F., Smit, S., Day, T., Mooldijk, S., Fraser, E., Straub, S., Salsabila, N. P., & Bammel, L. (2025). Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CCRM2025_main-report_CMW_NewClimate-1.pdf

Chicago

Hans, Frederic, Sybrig Smit, Thomas Day, Silke Mooldijk, Eve Fraser, Saskia Straub, Nabila Putri Salsabila, and Louise Bammel. Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025. Carbon Market Watch, 2025. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CCRM2025_main-report_CMW_NewClimate-1.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hans |first1=Frederic |last2=Smit |first2=Sybrig |last3=Day |first3=Thomas |last4=Mooldijk |first4=Silke |last5=Fraser |first5=Eve |last6=Straub |first6=Saskia |last7=Salsabila |first7=Nabila Putri |last8=Bammel |first8=Louise |title=Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025 |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=July 2025 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CCRM2025_main-report_CMW_NewClimate-1.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hans2025corporate, author = {Hans, Frederic and Smit, Sybrig and Day, Thomas and Mooldijk, Silke and Fraser, Eve and Straub, Saskia and Salsabila, Nabila Putri and Bammel, Louise}, title = {{Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2025}, month = jul, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CCRM2025_main-report_CMW_NewClimate-1.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }