The past decade has marked unprecedented momentum toward the net-zero transition as governments, investors and companies converged toward setting ambitious science-aligned decarbonization commitments.

However, the past two years have introduced economic uncertainty, geopolitical instability, fragmented policy signals, supply chain constraints and evolving standards, complicating the practical realities of decarbonization.

Now, many organizations are reassessing their targets and confronting a core challenge: how to honour their commitments as the market recalibrates to a more volatile, uncertain environment.

We liken this moment to sailing in shifting winds. Organizations must navigate current headwinds while positioning for the inevitable realignment of policy, technology and markets toward accelerated transition.

This article outlines the forces that drove net-zero momentum, examines current barriers to progress and presents a practical framework for validating the credibility of decarbonization targets.

Tailwinds: Net-zero momentum

In the first half of the 2020s, global momentum toward net-zero accelerated rapidly. Scientific warnings highlighted the narrowing window to limit warming to 1.5 C, while climate risks rose to the top of global risk agendas. Physical impacts became increasingly visible - in 2024, natural disasters caused approximately US$320 billion in economic losses. Governments, investors and companies responded decisively:

• Government: By 2024, more than 140 countries – representing roughly 85 to 90 per cent of global emissions – had adopted or pledged net-zero targets, supported by measures such as carbon pricing, disclosure requirements and investment packages.
• Investors: Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero brought together banks, insurers, asset managers and owners to accelerate capital mobilization toward the transition, with membership growing from 160 to 700 between 2021 and 2024.
• Corporations: Science-aligned targets increased significantly, with Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) validations more than tripling between 2023 and 2025. 

Headwinds: Decarbonization difficulties

Recent conditions have made decarbonization materially harder to achieve and caused organizations to reassess previous commitments.

• Inconsistent policy signals: Regulatory environments remain volatile. In Canada, uncertainty around carbon pricing, disclosure requirements and greenwashing regulation has complicated long-term decision-making. While global momentum continues, inconsistency creates ambiguity.
• Systemic constraints: Structural barriers are becoming more visible. Challenges like expertise and material shortages, technology costs and grid capacity limitations are constraining progress.
• Credibility gaps: Organizations approached target-setting with varying levels of rigour. While some developed informed and well-studied decarbonization pathways, others set targets quickly in response to external pressure, without fully defining execution plans. For those who failed to mobilize, this drove misalignment between ambition and action, resulting in credibility challenges.
• Capital and priority shifts: Economic pressures are reshaping decision-making. Higher interest rates, inflation and constrained access to capital are weakening the business case for many decarbonization investments, forcing organizations to balance near-term financial pressures with long-term transition goals.
• Evolving standards: Voluntary frameworks such as SBTi are becoming more stringent, raising expectations for alignment with climate science. However, these standards do not necessarily align neatly with organization-specific operational realities or market conditions.

Revisiting targets with integrity

Despite these headwinds, the underlying drivers of ambitious decarbonization endure. The climate crisis persists regardless of shifts in political sentiment or market conditions, while policy, capital and stakeholder expectations continue to reinforce the case for action.

So as organizations struggle to define viable science-aligned pathways and many approach five-year milestones for reviewing and updating SBTi targets, they are confronted with tough questions:

1. How can ambition be maintained in a more constrained environment?
2. If a target is not realistically achievable, does retaining it undermine credibility?

While the answer to these questions will depend on entity-specific context, we recommend using Quinn+Partners’ RESILIENT Framework – a practical way to test the credibility of existing or revised targets so they can withstand scrutiny in this evolving environment.

• R – Reflects the business: Does the target reflect current business realities such as drivers, portfolio, operations, geography and capital constraints, or is it anchored in outdated assumptions?
• E – Evidence-based: Is there a quantified, costed pathway underpinning the target? Can you explain why you are on- or off-track, and what needs to change?
• S – Science-aligned (where possible): How closely does the target align with science-based standards? Do you have near-term targets and a net-zero objective?
• I – Indicate divergence (and a path back): If you are diverging from science-aligned pathways, have you clearly disclosed where and why and defined a credible path back to alignment?
• L – Leading indicators: Do you have measurable indicators that show progress within your control? For example, capital deployed and supplier engagement?
• I – Influence: Do you have objectives to use your influence to address systemic barriers across supply chains, industry groups, and policy? For example, engagement, collaboration and advocacy.
• E – Executive and board governance: Is decarbonization actively governed at the executive and board level, with clear accountability for execution and results?
• N – Nimble transition planning: Do you have a transition plan? Does it contain elements prescribed in reputable standards (e.g. Transition Pathway Taskforce) and account for changing assumptions, scenarios and dependencies? Do you reassess your pathways and target achievability periodically to reflect the current environment?
• T – Transparent reporting: Are you transparently communicating progress and methodologies? Are you candidly acknowledging challenges more than maintaining unrealistic certainty in an uncertain environment?

The imperative of progress

The organizations that will lead are not those with fewer challenges, but those that can adapt while maintaining strategic direction and credibility.

Reassessing commitments established under different assumptions is both necessary and responsible. However, recalibrating doesn’t mean retreating — it’s not a valid reason to avoid accountability or point to external factors for inaction.

Even in headwinds, organizations must continue to demonstrate meaningful progress through disciplined planning, stakeholder engagement, supply chain collaboration and policy advocacy. Those that do so will be best positioned to navigate today’s uncertainty and accelerate when conditions improve.