Corporate Climate Goals Under Scrutiny: Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and Unilever Scale Back Sustainability Commitments

Coca-Cola, the world’s largest non-alcoholic beverage producer, has walked back its commitments to phasing out single-use packaging, weakened its waste reduction targets, delayed its emission reduction timelines, and rescinded its long-standing supply chain sustainability goals. The only area where the company seems to have maintained its course is water resource management.

In doing so, Coca-Cola joins a growing list of global food and beverage giants that have quietly revised their ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) targets.

The ESG Retraction Trend: From Coca-Cola to Unilever and Nestlé

Coca-Cola is far from alone in rethinking its sustainability commitments.

• Unilever, a company long associated with sustainability leadership, faced severe criticism in April 2024 when it abandoned three ESG targets and scaled back four others while introducing five new, more lenient goals. The UK-based non-profit Planet Tracker accused Unilever of "goal manipulation" and warned that corporations are engaging in "greenwashing" by changing sustainability targets before achieving them and rebranding future goals as even more ambitious.

• Nestlé, previously known for its transparency in tracking sustainability progress, was also caught in a backtracking scandal. In 2023, Bloomberg revealed that Nestlé reworded one of its packaging commitments, which reportedly led to an additional 280,000 metric tons of non-recyclable plastic waste annually.

• Mighty Earth, an international advocacy group focused on climate change and deforestation, called Nestlé’s revised carbon reduction target (a 50% emissions cut by 2030) unrealistic, pointing out that its dairy and livestock supply chain would only reduce emissions by 5%, not the 23% Nestlé had claimed.

Mighty Earth’s UK director, Gemma Hoskins, argues that these corporate shifts reflect a failure to act rather than an adjustment to unrealistic targets:
"If companies were truly committed to climate action—allocating real funding and leadership support—they would have made significant progress. Instead, they are now lowering targets to cover up inaction."

Why Are Climate Goals Being Softened?

Coca-Cola’s decision to scale back its emission reduction targets has alarmed environmental activists and surprised some of its own employees.

The company’s previous goal was to cut total greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3) by 25% by 2030, based on a 2015 baseline. That required reducing emissions from 69.9 million metric tons of CO₂e (2015 levels) to 52.4 million metric tons by 2030. By 2022, Coca-Cola had only achieved a quarter of the necessary reduction, with emissions at 64.9 million metric tons CO₂e.

Now, Coca-Cola’s revised target is to align emissions with the 1.5°C global warming pathway by 2035, using 2019 as a baseline. Moreover, acquired brands like Costa and Innocent will be excluded from this goal, with the company merely stating that it “expects to integrate them over time.”

This shift aligns with a broader trend in corporate sustainability, as businesses face growing pressure to balance climate commitments with economic realities.

Corporate Climate Commitments: A Race Against Time?

The clock is ticking. Global climate scientists estimate that by 2030, emissions must drop by at least 45% (relative to 2010 levels) to keep global warming below 1.5°C. The food industry alone accounts for nearly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the most crucial sectors for decarbonization.

Yet, many corporate ESG targets—once set with far-off deadlines (2040, 2045, or 2050)—are now facing imminent accountability milestones, and companies are backpedaling under pressure.

• FLAG Targets & New Climate Standards:
  The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has introduced new Forests, Land, and Agriculture (FLAG) emissions targets, requiring food companies to set additional reduction goals by mid-2025.
  • According to FAIRR, a global investor network managing $70 trillion in assets, only 7% of protein-producing companies have established FLAG targets.
  • Companies like Danone, Fonterra, Mowi (a seafood giant), and Scandi Standard (a leading poultry producer) claim they are still developing their strategies.

While some industry observers defend the revisions, arguing that they reflect an evolving understanding of science and feasibility, critics say the real issue is corporate reluctance to invest in emissions reductions.

The Growing Risk of "Greenwashing" Allegations

ESG backtracking is becoming a reputational minefield.

• João Brites, Director of Innovation at HowGood, warns that companies must be extremely careful when revising targets:
  "Greenwashing allegations arise when targets are set without detailed reduction strategies. If companies alter or abandon their commitments, regulators, competitors, and consumers may perceive it as market manipulation."

• A study by NYU’s Stern School of Business found that corporate climate targets often disappear without consequences.

  • 31% of corporate emissions targets (320 out of 1,041) were erased without explanation.
  • 9% (88 targets) missed their deadlines with no follow-up.
  • Media coverage of climate targets boosted company reputations, but when goals were dropped, there was minimal accountability.

Essentially, many corporations set bold climate targets in 2020, earned positive media attention, and then quietly abandoned those commitments by 2025.

Plastic Packaging: A Looming ESG Crisis

Beyond emissions, plastic waste reduction is another failing ESG goal.

• Coca-Cola, ranked the world’s top plastic polluter, continues to face minimal consumer backlash.
• Nestlé, PepsiCo, Danone, and Mars have all pledged to reduce plastic waste, yet an Ellen MacArthur Foundation report shows that the 2025 plastic reduction targets are unlikely to be met.
• Sustainability leaders worry that if major corporations exit voluntary plastic reduction commitments, it could undermine global progress.

Jill Wilson, Professor of Sustainable Marketing at IE Business School, notes that brands like Coca-Cola have little immediate incentive to change:
"Being the world’s leading plastic polluter doesn’t seem to be harming Coca-Cola’s sales, but that won’t last forever."

What Happens Next?

As more corporations pause or revise sustainability targets, many will point to macroeconomic instability, inflation, geopolitical conflicts, and regulatory uncertainties as justification. However, critics argue that this is merely an excuse for insufficient corporate action.

• Nestlé’s sustainability spokesperson, Jodie Russell, highlights a major issue:
  "It’s difficult to drive change when it remains voluntary. Often, the companies making real efforts get criticized while those doing nothing escape scrutiny."

With more companies expected to revise their ESG goals in 2025, the debate over realism vs. greenwashing will intensify. Investors, regulators, and consumers will ultimately decide whether these shifts are justified adjustments or a failure of corporate responsibility.