Corporations contributing to climate change
Executive summary
Corporations account for a large and disproportionate share of greenhouse‑gas emissions: a report cited by NRDC attributes 71% of industrial emissions since modern recognition of human‑caused climate change to 100 energy companies [1]. Corporations also play mixed roles — many set science‑based targets and invest in clean tech while others weaken or misreport commitments and lobby politically to delay regulation [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Who the big corporate emitters are — concentrated power, concentrated responsibility
Energy firms dominate historic industrial emissions: a study referenced by NRDC finds 100 energy companies responsible for roughly 71% of industrial emissions since the scientific consensus emerged [1]. Wealthy fossil‑fuel corporations and major industrial groups are repeatedly singled out by NGOs like Oxfam for “recklessly extracting” fossil fuels and driving the climate crisis [7]. Academic reviews likewise show that corporations remain central agents in the expansion of fossil energy and greenhouse‑gas emissions [6].
2. Corporate claims vs. independent assessment — progress, puffery, and backsliding
Many global companies have public net‑zero and renewable goals, and organizations such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) are working to validate corporate targets [3] [2]. Yet independent analyses find systematic problems: a New Climate Institute‑style critique reported widespread exaggeration or misreporting by leading firms, and a 2025 Bloomberg investigation documented numerous companies weakening or abandoning climate pledges [5] [4]. The result is a landscape of real investments alongside inconsistent integrity and shrinking ambition in some quarters [2] [4].
3. The accounting problem — Scopes, baselines and what companies choose to count
Corporate emissions reporting often omits the biggest sources under “Scope 3” accounting. NRDC highlights that some corporate targets cover only Scope 1 and 2 emissions — sometimes a tiny slice of total corporate footprints — so a headline “50% reduction” can translate into negligible absolute reductions when upstream and product‑use emissions are excluded [1]. This technical choice drives debates over whether corporate commitments actually reduce atmospheric emissions or merely reframe them.
4. Private governance and market drivers — why companies act even when governments wobble
Corporations don’t operate only as polluters; many make strategic investments in renewables and climate tech because of markets, risk management and shareholder pressure. RMI and other analyses document rapid growth in corporate climate commitments and increasing regulatory disclosure rules in places like the UK and EU that push firms toward transparency [2]. Surveys of CFOs and industry reports also show companies planning sustainability investments despite federal policy rollbacks in some countries [8] [2].
5. Political activity — lobbying, influence campaigns and manufactured doubt
Historical and contemporary reporting shows that some fossil‑fuel firms invested in delaying climate policy and shaping public debate. Manchester University’s overview cites Exxon’s long record of internal knowledge and external resistance to regulation, and op‑eds and NGO pieces warn of billions spent to manufacture political divides [9] [10]. These political strategies matter because corporate influence can slow regulatory action even as companies tout voluntary measures.
6. What accountability looks like — standards, disclosure and civil pressure
Accountability is emerging through multiple channels: independent validators like SBTi, mandatory disclosures under UK and EU regimes, NGO watchdogs and media investigations that expose backsliding [3] [2] [5] [4]. Public opinion also matters — polls show majorities expect companies to act and support mandated reporting [11]. Yet the effectiveness of these mechanisms depends on rigorous standards (including Scope 3 coverage) and enforcement, areas where reporting indicates uneven progress [2] [1].
7. Competing narratives — profit motive, reputational risk, and genuine transition
There are two concurrent realities in the sources: one where corporations invest heavily in clean tech and renewables because it’s profitable or reduces risk [12] [8], and another where firms weaken commitments, misreport progress, or lobby to prevent regulation [4] [5] [9]. NGOs frame corporate action as insufficient and morally culpable [7] [1], while industry proponents and some analysts emphasize market forces and disclosure as the path forward [3] [2].
8. Bottom line and limitations of available reporting
Available reporting shows corporations are both primary drivers of emissions and essential actors for mitigation — responsible for concentrated historical emissions yet simultaneously mobilizing capital into renewables and climate tech [1] [12] [6]. Sources do not provide a single definitive tally of current corporate contribution to total global emissions or a complete inventory of which firms are improving versus backsliding in real time; those granular, up‑to‑date figures are not found in the current materials provided here (not found in current reporting).