According to executive insights and disclosure data from US public companies, 84 percent of S&P 500 companies disclosed a corporate climate target in 2025. However, matching those ambitions with operational reality remains a distinct challenge. The data reveals that 58 percent of S&P 500 firms with direct Scope 1 targets and 62 percent with value-chain Scope 3 targets have reported flat or rising emissions since 2021.
Current State of Corporate Climate Goals and the S&P 500 Gap
Corporate climate-target disclosure is well established among large US public companies, with 84 percent of S&P 500 firms disclosing goals in 2025, according to disclosure data. By contrast, only 34 percent of the broader Russell 3000 disclosed a target, a share that has remained largely flat since 2022. This divergence underscores how climate goal-setting correlates directly with company size, reporting capacity, investor scrutiny, and sustainability-program maturity.
A closer look at recent S&P 500 disclosures shows that having a climate target can mean very different things. Some organizations set broad aspirations, while others specify exact emissions parameters, reduction levels, baselines, and deadlines. Meanwhile, internal confidence lags behind public commitments. In recent polling by The Conference Board of corporate sustainability executives, only 24 percent said they were confident across most scopes and pathways. Most respondents reported that some targets are on track while others remain uncertain.
Pro Tip: Confidence in climate targets is highest where companies maintain direct control over data and execution, such as energy efficiency and operational emissions. Plan for lower confidence margins when progress depends heavily on external suppliers or customer behavior.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Understanding Scopes 1, 2, and 3
Corporate greenhouse gas inventories are broken down into three distinct operational tiers to standardize reporting across industries:
- Scope 1: Direct emissions from assets owned or controlled by the company, such as fuel combustion in fleet vehicles or on-site manufacturing facilities.
- Scope 2: Indirect emissions generated from purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling. Companies report these as location-based, reflecting local power grid averages, and market-based, reflecting specific energy contracts like renewable energy certificates.
- Scope 3: All other indirect emissions spanning the upstream and downstream value chain, which frequently constitute the majority of a firm’s total carbon footprint.
Progress and Setbacks on Scope 1 Operational Emissions
Russell 3000 companies made notable progress on operational emissions early in the decade, with median reported Scope 1 emissions dropping 41 percent from 2021 to 2025, despite a slight uptick in the final year of the data window. S&P 500 firms demonstrated a flatter trend, with median Scope 1 emissions falling from a 2022 peak before returning to essentially unchanged levels compared to 2021.
Prominent S&P 500 companies reporting significant Scope 1 reductions between 2021 and 2025 include 3M, which cut emissions by 58 percent, AT&T down 48 percent, and McKesson down 39 percent, according to corporate disclosures. These reductions stem from operational shifts, energy and process-efficiency projects, and fleet reductions. Conversely, utilities experienced rising emissions in 2025 as power demand increased across residential, commercial, and industrial customers, including energy-intensive data centers.
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity as the Clearest Bright Spot
US public companies achieved their clearest reported emissions progress in purchased electricity since 2021. Median S&P 500 location-based Scope 2 emissions fell approximately 39 percent from 2021 to 2025, while market-based emissions dropped roughly 59 percent. This divergence highlights the heavy reliance on renewable electricity procurement, green tariffs, and power purchase agreements.
However, proposed updates to the GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 guidance threaten to complicate these reductions. Future rules may require stricter evidence that purchased clean electricity matches consumption by time and location. Several S&P 500 firms, including NVIDIA and T-Mobile, reported zero market-based Scope 2 emissions in 2025 despite maintaining substantial location-based footprints.
Did You Know? Market-based Scope 2 emissions for S&P 500 companies dropped by about 59 percent between 2021 and 2025, outpacing physical grid decarbonization and showing the immense reliance on corporate renewable energy certificates and direct procurement contracts.
The Scope 3 Credibility Gap in Value Chain Reporting
Scope 3 remains the largest credibility gap in corporate sustainability. While 82 percent of S&P 500 companies disclose Scope 3 emissions, only 33 percent maintain an explicit Scope 3 reduction target. Measuring these indirect value-chain emissions is exceptionally difficult because companies rely heavily on supplier data, logistics metrics, and customer product-use estimates that they do not directly control.
Data quality varies significantly across counterparties, forcing firms to utilize proxies, industry averages, and emission factors. Minor changes in calculation methodologies can drastically alter a company’s reported trajectory; for instance, adjustments to transport and distribution emission factors recently altered eBay’s Scope 3 path. Furthermore, 55 percent of polled executives cite capital allocation, cost, or return on investment as primary reasons their organizations may adjust or delay targets.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions?
Scope 1 covers direct emissions from company-owned operations. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, and heating. Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions across the upstream and downstream value chain, such as supply chain manufacturing and product end-of-use.
Why are Scope 3 emissions considered a credibility gap?
Scope 3 emissions represent the largest share of corporate footprints for many firms, yet they are the hardest to measure accurately. Because companies lack direct control over suppliers and customer behavior, data often relies on estimates and proxies rather than primary measurements.
What drove the reduction in Scope 2 emissions between 2021 and 2025?
Scope 2 reductions were driven by cleaner local power grids combined with active corporate procurement strategies, including renewable energy certificates, power purchase agreements, and green tariffs.
Why did utility emissions rise in recent reporting periods?
Utilities reported rising emissions as power demand surged across residential, commercial, and industrial customers, including expanding data centers, which forced utilities to run fossil fuel assets more frequently to maintain load.
Stay Informed on Corporate Climate Strategies
Navigating evolving emissions disclosures and regulatory frameworks requires ongoing insight into corporate governance and financial markets. Subscribe to our newsletter to receive weekly analysis on sustainability data, executive trends, and regulatory shifts affecting public companies.
Worth a look