Half -hearted efforts of companies in terms of climate protection

None of 55 global corporations achieved a high or even appropriate integrity in relation to their climate strategies. This is the result of the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) 2025. The report analyzes the climate strategies of 55 global companies and evaluates the transparency and integrity of its climate goals. He also identifies examples of good practice for imitation and highlights areas in which improvements are required.

This year, publisher Newclimate Institutes also evaluated the progress of companies in important changes that necessary for profound emission reductions in four sectors: food and agriculture, technology, fashion and automotive production.

“Awareness of what makes credible entrepreneurial action in climate protection is growing,” commented Frederic Hans, Senior Climate Policy Advisor at the Newclimate Institute. “Nevertheless, even the most ambitious companies often miss the necessary speed and the extent and thus cannot align their business models on the 1.5 degree goal of the Paris Agreement.”

H&M, Inditex, Lululemon undertake, however, concrete plans are missing

Of the five analyzed global clothing companies – Adidas, H&M, Inditex, Lululemon and Shein – the first three achieved a moderate integrity assessment; Lululemon received a very low rating. This was mainly due to the lack of plans for the electrification of manufacturing processes. Further defects in their climate obligations also contributed to this.

Due to early progress in robust strategies and testing approaches with high integrity in terms of transparency, H&M and Inditex performed quite well. However, the overall rating remained with moderate integrity. She placed one main goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2040. Adidas has set up net zero emissions as the main goal by 2050 and achieved moderate transparency.

Lululemon shares Adidas’ main objective and transparent assessment. The poor integrity assessment of the company due to weak goals, however, pushed it into the category with low integrity.

“H&M, Inditex and Lululemon have undertaken to obtain renewable electricity within their supply chains,” said the report. “However, these obligations are not underpinned by concrete plans for the electrification of manufacturing processes. H&M is the only company that reveals detailed data on energy consumption. Although it is leading in transparency and circular economy, its efforts in critical areas such as electrification are not yet sufficient.”

Important transitional areas are not sufficiently taken into account

With the aim of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, as well as poor transparency and very low integrity assessment, Shein landed in the category with very poor integrity. The reason for this is minimal obligations and lack of measures for critical transitions.

“Important transitional areas – including the electrification of the production and the procurement of renewable energies – are not sufficiently taken into account,” is the judgment in relation to the five valued clothing companies. “The trust in false solutions such as biomass and fossil gas continues to undermine credibility. None of the companies examined achieved an evaluation with appropriate or high integrity. This underlines the urgent need for more robust strategies that are oriented towards the entire fashion sector.”

Wrong solutions can delay progress

All four companies, with the exception of Shein that does not disclose any energy information and continue to rely on coal, plan to switch to biomass or fossil natural gas as a coal replacement. However, these alternatives only lead to limited emission reductions. They risk solidifying carbon -intensive systems. Biomass also raises significant ecological and social concerns, such as the loss of biological diversity and food uncertainty.

“Many fashion companies advertise organic energy as a sustainable alternative to coal, but that is simply not true,” explains Silke Mooldijk, responsible for climate policy and entrepreneurial climate responsibility at the Newclimate Institute. “Bioenergy is not an emission -free energy source. It can have a number of negative effects on local communities and ecosystems.”

This coincides with the results of the report ‘Clean Energy Close Up 2024’ of the environmental organization. Various environmentalists: Before that, large brands previously criticized the transition to biomass.

When comparing the four rated sectors, nobody stands out as a pioneer. The most clear is a variety of question marks that indicate no progress or insufficient data on a broad front.

Recommendations

The report underlines the need for normative guidelines for important changes. Companies should therefore supplement greenhouse gas emission goals with clear goals for important transitions. You should give priority to electrification and renewable energies.

“A departure from the highly volume Fast fashion is also essential to achieve the long -term decarbonization goals,” is another important recommendation. This cannot be emphasized enough because linear models are not suitable for a transition to circular economy. Therefore, the report calls on standard -replacement such as ISO, GHG Protocol and SBTI as well as regulatory authorities to “provide clearer guidelines for measurable transition targets, including limit values for the use of biomass, and to reduce measures to reduce overproduction”.

You should also ask companies to change goals. In this way, you can control your strategies in more detail with these important transitions and evaluate the integrity of the corporate obligations.