Action before communication
Perhaps the most critical principle for companies facing missed goals is that action should precede communication. And missed targets can and should serve as a catalyst for doubling down.
Writing for Fast Company about missed corporate targets, Matt Paver emphasizes this point: companies that miss targets while simultaneously increasing their climate investments and expanding their sustainability teams face less stakeholder criticism than those that simply revise targets downward without demonstrating enhanced commitment.
This might mean implementing an internal carbon price that funds climate action even when external targets prove challenging to meet. It could involve doubling down on research and development for breakthrough technologies or making strategic acquisitions that enhance decarbonization capabilities.
Meanwhile, the Gold Standard — a leading organization for certifying high-quality carbon offset projects — has made the following recommendations for companies missing Scope 3 targets: rather than simply revising targets, companies should first demonstrate enhanced supplier engagement, increased investment in supply chain decarbonization, and expanded collaboration with industry peers to address systemic challenges. In response to a huge rise in emissions due to AI-related data centers, for example, Google — in addition to continued efforts to lower its own emissions — committed to investing heavily in nascent carbon removal technologies, and recently signed the world’s first corporate agreement to purchase energy from small modular nuclear reactors, thus helping to scale up what many believe are much needed technologies that could eventually have industry-wide significance.
Strategic stakeholder engagement
Effective communication around missed goals requires proactive engagement with the full spectrum of stakeholders — not just investors, but executive leadership, employees, employee interest groups, environmental organizations, activist investors, and supply chain partners. And crucially, this engagement should begin before public announcements, not after.
Amazon’s experience illustrates the risks of stakeholder communications that are perceived as inadequate. When journalists first revealed that Amazon was abandoning its Shipment Zero goal in May 2023, even Amazon’s own employee climate group, Employees for Climate Justice, was taken by surprise. In a statement, the group claims that it learned about the Shipment Zero abandonment through media reports rather than internal communication. Their response was predictably critical:
“How are we supposed to conclude anything other than that senior leadership has yet again decided to deprioritize getting Amazon’s business [to] zero emissions?”
In response to the reporting, Amazon denied that it was in danger of missing the goal and stated that it was still committed to rolling out 100,000 electric delivery vehicles by 2030 — a key pillar of its original target. It also issued a very short public statement arguing that it was now more focused on its broader Climate Pledge, and that it “no longer made sense to have a separate and more narrow Shipment Zero goal that applied to only one part of [their] business.”
It’s important to note that, as outside parties, it’s hard to know exactly what outreach was done — internally or externally — to communicate this change. It’s also worth emphasizing that, since abandoning its Shipment Zero goal, Amazon continues to make significant and very public investments in sustainability. It has, for example, made many of its proprietary decarbonization resources free for anyone to use through its public Sustainability Exchange. As the Supercool podcast discussed recently in a rare interview with Chris Roe, Amazon’s Director of Worldwide Environment, Carbon, and Chris Atkins, the Director of Worldwide Operations, Sustainability, the company has also continued to make progress specifically on shipping.
They’ve achieved a 33% reduction in per-shipment emissions intensity since 2019. All of which suggests there is some credibility to Amazon’s claim that the work continues, even if the specific goal has been deleted.
Nevertheless, the question remains: Given the clear and very significant commitments that Amazon is making to continue decarbonization, could the communication around this specific goal have been handled more transparently
Adam Colette, Program Director for the forest protection nonprofit Dogwood Alliance, argues that many ESG professionals would benefit from rethinking their relationship with campaign groups, even oppositional ones. It’s helpful for activists to hear from companies about what needs to change on the policy level, for example. And once channels of communication are open, there’s also potential for even closer collaboration. While Dogwood Alliance has run campaigns against high profile corporations, the organization has also partnered with businesses — sometimes the very same ones that were originally campaign targets.
“Years ago, Dogwood was going after Staples for what we saw as inadequate sustainability commitments,” says Colette. “Yet the team at Staples was willing to engage with us and opened up a dialogue. I think both sides were surprised by how much we could ultimately help Staples to step up its ambition and achieve its goals. If I had one wish, it would be that corporate ESG professionals and activists learned to see each other as peers, not just adversaries.”
Those tasked with setting corporate climate goals are in an unenviable spot. Given the undeniable threat posed by climate change, they are being asked to balance very real, known and aggressive emissions cuts that the science says are necessary to stay (or go back below) 1.5°C. And yet they also have to find a way to pursue those goals without jeopardizing the long-term commercial health and competitiveness of their employer. If goals become too easily achievable, they lose their transformative power and risk falling short of what we know needs to happen. Yet we must also avoid the trap of “aspirational” goals that companies never seriously intend to meet.
Companies should also consider diversifying their goal portfolio. Rather than betting everything on a single, highly visible target, they might establish a combination of stretch goals, intermediate milestones, and foundational commitments that collectively drive progress while providing flexibility when circumstances change.
Moving forward: a framework for goal revision
For companies facing the prospect of missing or revising climate goals, a strategic framework can help navigate the communications challenge.
Assessment Phase: Before any external communication, conduct a thorough analysis of why goals are being missed. Is it due to internal execution challenges, external market conditions, technological limitations, or regulatory barriers? The answer will shape the appropriate response.
Action Enhancement: Identify concrete actions that demonstrate enhanced commitment, even if specific targets need revision. This might include increased investment, new technologies, expanded partnerships, or policy advocacy.
Stakeholder Preparation: Engage key stakeholder groups proactively, seeking their input on revised approaches before making public announcements. This consultation process often generates valuable insights while building support for new directions.
Transparent Communication: When communicating changes, lead with the “why” rather than the “what.” Explain the systemic challenges, market conditions, or technological barriers that necessitated revision, and demonstrate how the company is working to address these broader issues.
Future-Focused Messaging: Position goal revisions as part of an evolution toward more impactful action, not a retreat from climate commitment. Show how lessons learned from missed targets are informing more effective strategies.
An ongoing conversation
The complexities of corporate climate goal management resist simple prescriptions, and I would be lying if I said we had this all figured out. I would also caution that, for any of the cases discussed above, there is sometimes a gap between public perception and what actually happened. But that’s all the more reason why anyone in the corporate sustainability space needs to be extremely intentional about how they communicate shifts in their strategy or goals.
Rather than offer a one-size-fits-all solution, at thinkPARALLAX, we recognize that navigating missed or revised climate goals requires nuanced judgment and stakeholder-specific approaches. And we’re eager to hear from our community:
For corporate sustainability leaders: What internal processes have helped you navigate goal revisions while maintaining stakeholder trust?
For consultants and advisors: What frameworks or methodologies have proven most effective in helping clients communicate about missed targets?
For activists and NGO representatives: What do you want to see from companies when they revise their climate commitments? How can businesses maintain your support even when original goals prove unattainable?
For investors: How do you evaluate companies that miss climate targets versus those that consistently meet less ambitious goals?
If you’ve got thoughts on this topic, or are facing similar challenges, I would love for you to reach out at sami@thinkparallax.com, or DM me on LinkedIn.
Article by Sami Glover, Director, Communications Strategy at thinkParallax, a sustainability strategy and communications agency. Sami has a 16+ year career as a communications strategist, branding expert, and climate writer. He’s worked with clients like Blue Diamond Growers, Verathon, Western Digital, and Snap, focusing on sustainability reporting, sales, staff training, and human-centered communications. Before joining tPX, he led sustainability communications for clients including Burt’s Bees, Self Help Credit Union, and Jada Pinkett Smith. He’s written thousands of articles on topics including climate politics and electric transportation, with bylines in Treehugger and Mother Jones. In 2020, he published his first book, “We’re All Climate Hypocrites Now,” advocating for a systems-based approach to individual climate action. At home, he enjoys composting, foraging mushrooms, and sharing his questionable music with his family. Fluent in English, Finnish, German, and Danish, Sami is a proud word nerd and co-coined the term “greenhushing.” Originally from England, he now lives in Durham, NC.