Do we need a ‘target amnesty’ for corporate climate pledges?

New Year is the season of unrealistic commitments, but should 2026 start with a more honest discussion about interim net-zero goals?

When Air New Zealand announced it couldn’t meet its interim decarbonisation targets in 2024, it made headlines around the world.

“Air NZ becomes first big carrier to drop climate goal,” wrote the BBC at the time.

“Air New Zealand is first major airline to scrap 2030 emissions target,” echoed The Guardian.

The past 18 months have been punctuated with similar stories of companies “rowing back”, “abandoning”, “ditching” and “watering-down” their climate ambitions.

And there will be plenty more to come.

Last week, we wrote about what companies’ latest sustainability reports told us about their progress towards net zero.

It’s a mixed picture, but few are expressing confidence about meeting their pledges.

Many are failing completely to decouple their emissions from their commercial growth – especially in the tech sector, where artificial intelligence is driving up energy consumption – meaning emissions aren’t simply falling too slowly, they’re continuing to rise.

Is the business case clear yet?

Crucially, the messaging is also mixed on whether becoming green is actually good for business.

The European Central Bank claimed recently that polluting companies got worse borrowing terms from their lenders, and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development argued that “sustainability performance is gaining recognition in financial markets”.

The research doesn’t seem to be reflected in firms’ experience, though.

A few days ago, we reported that UK engineering company Ricardo had walked away from its climate target after deciding there was no “economic or technically-viable way forwards”.

It’s one of three responses companies are having to the reality they might miss their goals.

Ditch, update or keep quiet

Banking giant JP Morgan (which has made notably less progress than Ricardo so far) also dropped its quantitative net-zero targets recently.

Other firms like Air New Zealand, Intrepid Travel, Morrisons and Neste, have redesigned their net-zero goals – pushing deadlines back, lowering emissions targets and revising baselines to make them more achievable.

But most are still in the third camp: they’re keeping their heads down and hoping no one notices.

Sustainability updates have vanished from their investor calls, the net-zero sections of websites have (allegedly) been deleted, and traction has slowed for accountability projects like the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

Is a target amnesty the answer?

There is currently little upside to being honest about progress – just embarrassing headlines and accusations of having never been serious about net-zero in the first place.

Perhaps the answer, then, is a 2026 targets amnesty: a window in which companies can hand in their unachievable climate targets, and swap them for something more actionable.

Investors are already on the receiving end of such concessions.

At the end of 2025, for example, the Net Zero Asset Managers Alliance decided its members wouldn’t be kicked out for lowering their climate ambitions.

In turn, some investors have loosened their expectations of portfolio companies.

UK pension fund PPF acknowledged the trend for firms quitting SBTi in its most recent sustainability report, but said it wasn’t a deal breaker.

“The aim is to understand the rationale to remove a target and encourage companies to revisit the benefits of a science-based approach,” it explained.

But just like the target revisions themselves, these are all quiet, fragmented decisions that can sometimes lack convincing justifications.

Over the next few news alerts, Real Economy Progress will be exploring the implications of companies surrendering their interim climate goals, and what could credibly (and effectively) replace them.

Because unless the political, economic and technological landscape changes drastically, there’s no way many firms will be able to fulfil their promises.

And if we want to avoid a period of continued pretence and ‘quiet quitting’, we need to enable a widespread, public and honest discussion about what comes next.