A Year of Interim Targets and Dealing with Uncertainty 

Table of Contents

• Systemic Infrastructure Challenges
• Over-reliance on Carbon Offsets
• Tightening Economic Conditions
• The Shadow of US Policy
• Greenwashing and Greenhushing
• Goal Setting for 2025
• The Road Ahead

Share this article

• Share via Linkedin
• Share via Facebook
• Share via X
• Share via Email

New year, new targets?

It’s customary to set new goals in January, but this year the activity may not be as forward-looking and ambitious as usual. Indeed, setting new targets in 2025 could involve an element of backtracking on previous goals, which may lead to slower progress toward sustainable development.

So, what gives?

This year marks a pivotal halfway point for companies aiming to meet sustainability targets set for the UN’s ‘Decade of Action.’ While these goals were intended to drive meaningful progress by 2030, many organisations are realising their ambitions were too lofty—and with interim deadlines now imminent, some have discovered they are not on the correct trajectory to meet these goals.

A mix of overambitious targets, systemic challenges, tightening economics and political uncertainty has left many businesses reassessing their targets— with some delaying timelines and others scaling back commitments altogether.

As a consequence many will need to set new targets for the year/s ahead. But what’s the best way to do this from both a strategic and communications perspective?

In this article, we’ll explore the trends, reasons and political landscape into why some businesses are missing their targets, along with the rise of “greenhushing” and greenwashing. 

We’ll also share advice on what to do next if your company has missed its own targets… 

Why Are Corporates Missing Targets?

While ambition is essential to driving change, a range of systemic issues and poor planning have hindered progress. These trends illustrate some of the obstacles companies have faced…

Trend 1: Systemic Infrastructure Challenges 

Many sustainability goals rely on external systems that remain underdeveloped, such as recycling infrastructure.

Companies including Unilever, PepsiCo, and Colgate-Palmolive have already acknowledged they’ll miss their 2025 packaging sustainability targets. 

Unilever, which pledged to halve plastic consumption by 2025, revised its goal to a one-third reduction by 2026, citing inadequate recycling systems. Analysts have warned this could exacerbate virgin plastic production, increasing the company’s environmental footprint by an estimated 100,000 tonnes annually.

This position from Unilever is shared by other global FMCG brands and highlights broader systemic challenges in scaling sustainable packaging solutions, serving to illustrate how insufficient infrastructure and inefficient recycling systems are common barriers to progress –  particularly for global supply chains.

Trend 2: Over-Reliance on Carbon Offsets

Some companies factored carbon offsets and unproven technologies too heavily into their plans. 

Fossil fuel companies, along with businesses such as Nestlé, Disney and Gucci represent some of the biggest corporate investors in global carbon offset schemes. But recent analysis suggests that many of the world’s top fifty offset projects held one or more fundamental failings undermining their promised emissions cut. 

Apple’s carbon neutrality claims – heavily dependent on offsets – have faced scrutiny for lack of tangible impact. Meanwhile, FIFA has also been criticised for similar reliance on offsetting practices. 

These examples underscore the struggle to achieve genuine decarbonisation without overestimating the role of offsets.

Trend 3: Tightening Economic Conditions

A challenging global economic landscape has forced many boards of directors and senior leadership teams to prioritise short-term financial stability over long-term sustainability goals. 

Rising interest rates, higher energy costs, and inflation have stretched budgets, and seen lower capital expenditure on sustainable technologies or infrastructure. 

Smaller businesses, in particular, have struggled to balance sustainability with survival, while larger companies have delayed initiatives in favour of cost-cutting measures.

Trend 4: The Shadow of US Policy

In addition, one recent major factor influencing corporate hesitancy is the looming uncertainty surrounding Donald Trump’s incoming administration and its environmental policy priorities. 

If his government deprioritises climate commitments—by following his stated “drill, baby, drill”  approach to fossil fuel expansion, withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement again, or sidelining ESG-focused investment protocols—the ripple effects could be felt globally.

Businesses may be likely to adopt a “wait-and-see” approach, holding back on ambitious sustainability initiatives until there’s more clarity on policy direction. This could lead to widespread stalling or even the abandonment of existing targets, particularly for organisations heavily reliant on US markets or leadership to drive progress.

Trend 5: Greenwashing and Greenhushing

Transparency is critical for building trust in sustainability efforts, but fear of regulatory backlash and reputational damage has pushed some companies to adopt “greenhushing.” 

This strategy involves downplaying or withholding public communication about sustainability initiatives to avoid scrutiny or accusations of greenwashing.

While greenhushing may seem like a safer option, it has significant downsides. It obscures meaningful progress, erodes stakeholder trust, and hinders collective learning. When companies avoid sharing their achievements or setbacks, they also prevent others from drawing inspiration or improving their own practices out of competitive spirit. This silence can stifle industry-wide progress.

At the same time, the risk of being called out for greenwashing has grown. The EU’s Green Claims Directive, introduced last year, imposes fines of up to 4% of global annual revenue on businesses found to mislead consumers. Broad claims such as “sustainable” or “responsible” are now banned unless backed by comprehensive proof encompassing environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

The solution? Candid transparency. Sharing setbacks alongside actionable plans for improvement fosters goodwill and demonstrates resilience. By acknowledging challenges openly, businesses not only build credibility but also contribute to broader conversations about systemic solutions.

This shift towards accountability is essential for creating a fairer market for genuinely sustainable products. And while the instinct to greenhush may be strong, companies must weigh this against the greater good of collaboration, progress, and stakeholder trust.

Goal Setting for 2025 and Beyond

Ambitious goals may have faltered, but how a business handles missed targets can make all the difference.

Organising goals so they are focused on key impact areas, and on what can practically be achieved across a more defined set of issues rather than a long bucket list of targets are just some examples of how 2025’s goal-setting should be approached.

Greggs exemplifies this approach by committing to short-term goals within its broader 2025 framework. 

Key achievements include sourcing 97% of electricity from renewable sources, incorporating eco-shop features in a fifth of its stores, and increasing the number of school breakfast clubs it supports. 

By sticking to a five-year plan and publishing detailed annual updates to stakeholders, Greggs has managed to maintain momentum and accountability to showcase steady progress.

The Road Ahead

Naked ambition can be a great driver for success, but after the initial flurry of excitement and bold sustainability claims, corporations must now prioritise transparency and accountability.

As 2025 marks the halfway point to many sustainability goals, businesses need to embrace a more mature approach now that they have a deeper understanding about what’s involved with achieving targets. An approach that focuses on measurable progress and honest communication rather than unattainable perfection or misleading claims.

However, the broader geopolitical climate cannot be ignored. The spectre of Trump’s potential policy rollbacks highlights the fragility of progress and underscores the importance of collective action and resilience. Businesses must take the lead in driving sustainability forward, even in the face of governmental backtracking.

While the path to sustainability is set with challenges, approaching hurdles with openness, adaptability, and courage will be essential for long-term success.