Net zero has become an entrenched feature of the corporate world, with a majority of the Global Forbes 2000 companies publicly committing to emissions targets. These corporations represent an impressive $36.6 trillion in revenue, accounting for 70% of the total revenue within this index. This mass corporate participation is not limited to Western economies but increasingly finds momentum across Asia, with countries such as China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand marking noticeable rises in net zero target adoption. This geographical diversification signals a broadening of climate mitigation efforts beyond traditional powerhouses, introducing new dynamics into global climate governance.

The Stocktake delineates the drivers of this corporate momentum: clearer regulatory standards, progressive national climate policies, and companies’ realization that sustainable strategies safeguard long-term investment returns. Importantly, over two thirds of the companies with net zero pledges have substantiated their ambitions with credible plans, moving past symbolic commitments toward actionable strategies. This transition signals an industry-wide awakening to the imperative of genuine emissions reductions, though challenges in transparency and accountability persist.

John Lang, Lead of the Net Zero Tracker, poignantly highlights the devastating climate events of 2025—ranging from catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles to severe flooding in Pakistan—as stark reminders of the stakes involved. Lang dismisses the notion of a ‘net zero recession’ as exaggerated, emphasizing that resistance to decarbonization predominantly originates from fossil fuel sectors and their financiers. Meanwhile, companies committed to net zero are increasingly moving beyond superficial pledges, focusing on tangible emission reductions as part of a necessary recalibration of global climate action.

The corporate response is mirrored by subnational governments, particularly in the United States, where despite the federal government’s withdrawal from a nationwide net zero target, states and local jurisdictions have maintained robust commitments. Nineteen U.S. states currently adhere to net zero targets, which not only cushions the domestic impact of federal policy rollback but also boosts the global share of GDP covered by net zero commitments to 83%. This decentralized approach exemplifies the critical role subnational actors play in sustaining climate momentum amid national policy vacillations.

Furthermore, U.S.-based companies have notably increased their net zero commitments by 9% over the past year, encompassing major corporations such as eBay, Merck & Co, and Goodyear. Together, these companies account for $12 trillion in global revenue, representing an overwhelming 64% of the corporate revenue assessed within the United States and the largest share globally. Notably, slightly over half of America’s largest companies now endorse net zero targets, underscoring a burgeoning corporate consensus on the strategic importance of climate responsibility.

Despite this overall positive trend, the NZT’s analysis of commitment quality reveals a sobering reality: only a small fraction of net zero targets fully meet the ‘Starting Line’ criteria established by the Race to Zero campaign. This rigorous benchmark demands comprehensive scope coverage, concrete plans, and transparent annual progress reporting. Currently, a mere 7% of corporate targets and similarly low percentages among cities and regions meet these integrity standards. The slow improvement in target robustness evidences a persistent gap between pledges and effective climate governance.

This integrity deficit is further highlighted by the revelation that nearly half of the assessed subnational governments and companies have yet to establish any emissions reduction targets. Of particular concern is the fact that 424 companies continue to operate entirely without climate goals, potentially jeopardizing their economic viability and environmental responsibilities. This lag in ambition amidst mounting climate risks raises pressing questions about accountability and the future resilience of industries resistant to transformation.

A crucial focus of the 2025 Stocktake is the increasing reliance on nature-based solutions, such as reforestation and peatland restoration, within corporate strategies. Approximately one-third of companies with net zero commitments indicate plans to utilize such natural carbon removals. However, only 4% explicitly set separate, transparent targets for removals, a practice critical for ensuring credibility and preventing overdependence on limited natural resources. The integration of nature into corporate climate strategies is complex, offering vital biodiversity co-benefits but also carrying risks if used as an alternative to deep emission cuts.

In particular, among the world’s thirty largest food and agriculture firms, there is a notable shift in strategic focus. These companies have retained their climate targets in 2025 but are evolving their approach by moving away from short-term goals toward longer-term pledges aligned with the Science Based Targets initiative’s FLAG (Forest, Land and Agriculture) guidance. While increasing reliance on land-based carbon removals aligns with an ecosystem-centric view, it must not detract from decisive decarbonization of fossil fuel emissions to meet climate imperatives effectively.

Experts contributing to the Stocktake report affirm that climate policy is increasingly intertwined with economic competitiveness in global markets. Professor Thomas Hale of Oxford University characterizes net zero as less a partisan issue than a strategic race for investment, innovation, and jobs. Meanwhile, analysts from NewClimate Institute underscore the urgency for companies to transition from mere pledges to robust implementation—time is short to capitalize on the remaining decade critical for limiting global warming to safe thresholds.

The Net Zero Tracker remains the world’s most comprehensive database cataloguing net zero commitments across nations, regions, cities, and corporations, covering over 4,000 entities worldwide. This systematic analysis not only highlights prevailing trends but also identifies the maturing nature of the net zero movement. Collectively, it presents a nuanced picture: meaningful progress is being made, particularly within the corporate sector and subnational governance, yet considerable work remains to translate commitments into tangible emission reductions.

In essence, the 2025 Stocktake report delivers both a message of hope and a stark warning. Despite broadening adherence to net zero across diverse sectors and geographies, the precarious quality of many targets and the absence of commitments in sizeable segments present significant barriers. The accelerating impacts of climate change demand intensified urgency, transparency, and accountability to transform pledges into measurable climate outcomes, ensuring a livable planet for future generations.

Subject of Research: Global net zero commitments and their effectiveness in mitigating climate change
Article Title: The Global Race to Net Zero: Progress, Pitfalls, and the Path Ahead
News Publication Date: 2025
Web References: Net Zero Tracker (NZT) reports and databases
References: UN Expert Group recommendations, Race to Zero campaign criteria, Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) FLAG guidance
Keywords: Climate change mitigation, net zero targets, corporate sustainability, subnational climate action, nature-based solutions, climate policy

At its core, temperature neutrality represents a paradigm shift away from the established net zero greenhouse gas emissions target. Instead of aggressively reducing methane—a potent greenhouse gas primarily emitted through agricultural activities—this approach aims to stabilise the warming contribution of a country at its current level. Such a strategy drastically lowers the ambition required, allowing countries like Ireland to maintain disproportionately high levels of methane emissions while claiming compliance with international climate commitments.

The research consortium, led by the University of Galway and in partnership with the University of Melbourne, University College Cork, and Climate Resource, conducted an extensive data-driven analysis to reveal the pitfalls of temperature neutrality. Their findings show that this approach would lock in historical emission inequalities, granting countries with already high methane outputs the right to persist in these emissions while denying the same opportunity to lower-emitting, often poorer, nations seeking developmental progress through expanding their agricultural sectors.

One particularly alarming implication is that nations dependent on livestock-based agriculture for food security—typically in low-income and food-insecure regions—would face significant limits on their ability to increase emissions even as they strive to improve nutrition and food availability for vulnerable populations. Meanwhile, methane-exporting countries continue to supply affluent, food-secure nations, reinforcing entrenched inequities in the global food system.

The study further warns that the temperature neutrality framework underestimates the necessary scale of emission offsetting within livestock exporting countries. By effectively “grandfathering” historic methane emissions shares, these countries delay developing markets and innovations focused on addressing the climate and biodiversity crises associated with agricultural methane. This delay ultimately jeopardises international efforts to meet the goals encapsulated in the Paris Agreement, especially the crucial target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Dr. Colm Duffy, the lead scientist on the project and an expert in agri-sustainability at the University of Galway, articulates the global risk: “If every country adopted a temperature neutrality target, we would seriously undermine the Paris Agreement’s commitment to keeping warming below 1.5°C, or even 2°C. Beyond its climatic consequences, this approach entrenches inequality by preserving the status quo for wealthy countries while imposing unfair burdens on poorer, food-insecure nations.”

The research team’s climate modelling scenarios considered multiple policy pathways, measuring their impact on global mean temperatures. Results consistently indicated that temperature neutrality ranked among the worst strategies in terms of exacerbating global warming trends. For instance, under this policy scenario, Ireland’s per capita methane emissions would remain approximately six times above the global average by 2050, highlighting the stark disproportionality embedded within this framework.

Dr. Róisín Moriarty, a research fellow at University College Cork’s Sustainability Institute, further underlined the implications for global ambition: “Adopting a ‘no additional warming’ approach signals a retreat from genuine commitments to the Paris Agreement. With little of the global carbon budget remaining to maintain the 1.5°C threshold, all nations must pursue the deepest and swiftest emissions reductions possible to preserve this critical temperature goal.”

Methane’s role in climate change is particularly significant due to its high global warming potential and relatively short atmospheric lifetime of around a decade. Professor Hannah Daly, a sustainable energy expert at UCC, points out: “Methane contributes to nearly 40% of the warming observed thus far. Cutting its emissions presents one of the most immediate strategies to limit climate change. For countries with disproportionately high methane contributions like Ireland, settling for temperature neutrality is insufficient and risks creating dangerous global precedents.”

The study also highlights the socio-economic dimensions of temperature neutrality. David Styles, associate professor in agri-sustainability at the University of Galway, warns: “Ireland’s agricultural sector holds immense potential to build a climate-neutral and biodiversity-rich future. Achieving this will require transformative change and robust climate targets. Temperature neutrality falls short, hampering the just transition necessary both domestically and internationally.”

The policy’s international ramifications extend beyond Ireland. New Zealand has also championed elements of temperature neutrality in its climate strategy, provoking significant debate and fomenting open letters from scientists and climate advocates opposed to these diluted targets. As Dr. Duffy notes, the underlying logic of granting emission rights based on historical shares risks perpetuating inequality and weakening global cooperative efforts to fight climate change.

This study—and its critical examination of emerging climate policies—emphasizes the urgency of adopting nuanced, equitable, and scientifically rigorous frameworks. Only through stringent methane reduction and clear, ambitious net zero goals for all countries can the intertwined challenges of climate mitigation, global food security, and sustainable development be adequately addressed.

The research was funded by the Department of Climate Energy and the Environment and is part of the broader FORESIGHT and CAPACITY climate modelling initiatives spearheaded by the University of Galway and its collaborators. The full study offers detailed methodology, results, and policy recommendations to guide future climate target-setting aligned with global equity and scientific realities.

Contact for further media information is available via the University of Galway press office at pressoffice@universityofgalway.ie.

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: National temperature neutrality, agricultural methane and climate policy: reinforcing inequality in the global food system

News Publication Date: 12-Aug-2025

Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adf12d

Image Credits: Dr Colm Duffy: University of Galway

Keywords: temperature neutrality, methane emissions, climate policy, agricultural emissions, global warming, methane reduction, equity, Paris Agreement, food security, sustainable agriculture