Nearly Two-Thirds of Largest Listed Companies Have Net-Zero Targets
Nearly two-thirds of the world's largest publicly listed companies have net-zero targets, according to the Net Zero Stocktake 2026, published on November 6. However, the assessment finds that the expansion of corporate commitments has largely stalled, while the quality of those commitments remains uneven.
The findings distinguish between the continued presence of climate targets and evidence that companies are equipped to deliver them. For investors, customers, and suppliers, a headline commitment provides only a starting point for assessing a company's transition strategy.
The assessment by Net Zero Tracker covers 1,957 publicly listed companies, of which 1,246 have net-zero targets. Together, companies with these commitments represent nearly $40 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to 72% of the corporate revenue tracked.
The project is a collaboration between NewClimate Institute, Oxford Net Zero, the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, and Data-Driven EnviroLab. Its wider assessment includes national governments, states and regions, and large cities.
Across all 4,062 entities assessed, 47% have net-zero or similar targets, unchanged from 2025. Some 92% retained the same or a similar target status. That stability, however, does not capture changes to the ambition or emissions coverage of individual commitments.
The corporate findings also differ by geography. The share of tracked US companies with net-zero targets edged down from 52% to 51%, while China's share increased from 23% to 28%. Separately, 384 tracked publicly listed companies have no emissions mitigation target at all.
More Plans but Persistent Integrity Gaps
Among companies with net-zero targets, 78% now publish implementation plans, up from 69% in 2025. Some 89% also have interim targets, compared with 86% previously.
Nevertheless, only 11% meet all seven minimum integrity criteria assessed by the researchers, an improvement from 7% in 2025. The report identifies incomplete emissions coverage, unclear use of carbon credits, and weak reporting as continuing problems.
These are assessments of target design and accountability. They should not be read as proof that companies passing the criteria have already achieved the emissions reductions required, or that publishing a plan guarantees successful implementation.
For a business evaluating a customer or investment, the practical question is therefore what sits behind the commitment: which activities it covers, what must change before the next milestone, and how progress will be demonstrated.
Corporate Commitments Can Weaken Without Disappearing
A separate analysis of the 50 largest Forbes Global 2000 companies found more businesses weakening or dropping emissions reduction targets than strengthening them.
Changes included narrowing emissions coverage, weakening interim milestones, and reframing commitments as aspirations. Financial institutions and oil and gas companies accounted for much of the backtracking identified.
This makes historical comparison important. Reviewing only the latest sustainability report can miss whether a company has removed a previous milestone or reduced the activities covered by its target.
Investors and procurement teams can address this by retaining earlier disclosures and recording changes to target years, baselines, boundaries, and conditions. A revised commitment should be evaluated alongside the company's explanation, rather than treated automatically as equivalent to its predecessor.
Why Value-Chain Coverage Matters
The GHG Protocol separates corporate emissions into three scopes. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. Scope 2 covers emissions associated with purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling. Scope 3 covers other indirect emissions across the value chain.
Its Scope 3 framework contains 15 categories, including purchased goods and services, transport, use of sold products, and investments.
These distinctions matter when comparing targets. An operational commitment may address factories and purchased power while leaving emissions associated with materials or product use outside its boundary.
For manufacturers and retailers, evaluating coverage therefore requires looking beyond the target date. Suppliers may need to provide material quantities, production information, and emissions data. Buyers should explain which information they need, how it will be used, and where estimates remain necessary.
Connecting Climate Plans With Business Decisions
The United Nations expert group's Integrity Matters recommendations call for actionable transition plans that align governance, investment, research and development, and other business activities with climate commitments. They also recommend annual progress reporting and plan updates every five years.
For companies, this provides a practical basis for reviewing implementation. A plan should identify responsible teams, investment requirements, delivery dates, and dependencies such as electricity availability or supplier participation.
For example, a proposed switch to electric process heat needs an equipment replacement schedule, an assessment of power requirements, and an investment decision. A supplier-related target needs procurement involvement and a way to track changes in purchased materials.
The stocktake shows that corporate net-zero commitments remain widespread. The next test is whether the decisions, resources, and reported results behind those commitments support delivery.
Sources:
Cut through the green tape
We don't push agendas. At Net Zero Compare, we cut through the hype and fear to deliver the straightforward facts you need for making informed decisions on green products and services. Whether motivated by compliance, customer demands, or a real passion for the environment, you’re welcome here. We provide reliable information. Why you seek it is not our concern.