Why 63% of Companies Are Behind on Sustainability Goals and What That Means

Brought to you by IBEC Intelligence

A few years ago, sustainability felt like the type of momentum you could almost touch.  Boardrooms were full of ambition making lofty proclamations about their commitment to sustainability.  CEOs stood on global stages committing to net-zero targets.  Entire sustainability teams were convened and built, roadmaps were drawn, and dashboards were designed.  It felt like the private sector had finally aligned itself with the urgency of climate and social responsibility.  And yet, here we are today.

According to McKinsey & Company research, roughly 63% of companies are now behind on their sustainability commitments, with many quietly pushing timelines, scaling back initiatives, or deprioritizing programs altogether.

That statistic from McKinsey, on its own, tells a story, but not the whole one, as there is more to it.  To understand what’s really happening, you have to look beyond the numbers and into the decisions companies are making every day.

The Story Behind the Slippage – Take Nike, a venerable shoe brand.  For years, Nike positioned itself as a leader in corporate sustainability.  Nike invested in innovative materials, published detailed impact reports, and set ambitious targets to reduce its environmental footprint.  It was, in many ways, the model others tried to follow.  But the reality of life and business operations intervened.

According to ProPublica, despite its commitments, Nike’s emissions have grown slightly since 2015, rather than declining toward its targets.  At the same time, the company reduced its sustainability workforce by roughly 30%, and in some cases delayed or scaled back public reporting on its progress in the area of sustainability.

If a company with Nike’s resources, brand equity, and early-mover advantage is struggling to stay on track, it raises a more uncomfortable question as to what does that mean for everyone else.  And Nike is not alone.  Across industries, similar patterns are emerging.

According to The Guardian, BP, once vocal about leading the energy transition, recently pivoted back toward increasing oil and gas production, reducing its planned low-carbon investments significantly.

According to The Boston Globe, several large corporations, including JPMorgan, Constellation Brands, and Akamai, have delayed or reconsidered publishing sustainability reports amid shifting economic and political pressures.

Vogue reports that in the fashion industry, many brands continue to miss decarbonization targets as emissions rise alongside production volumes.

Even at a systemic level, the data present a sobering picture.  According to Sustainability Magazine, one analysis found that 84% of listed companies are not aligned with net-zero pathways, despite their widespread public commitments to do so.  The gap between what companies say and what they can actually deliver is widening.

Why So Many Companies Are Falling Behind – When you talk to executives about sustainability, the reasons start to sound familiar.

First, there’s the complexity.  Most emissions don’t sit neatly within a company’s direct control.  ProPublica shared that for global brands like Nike, up to 99% of emissions can come from suppliers and logistics networks, not owned operations.  That means progress depends on entire ecosystems consisting of suppliers in developing markets, as well as infrastructure that may not yet exist, and data sets that are often incomplete or inconsistent.

Second, there’s the economic reality. Sustainability investments compete with quarterly performance results.  When markets tighten, priorities shift.  It’s not uncommon for companies to quietly redirect capital from long-term climate initiatives back toward immediate revenue or cost pressures.  We saw this clearly in the energy sector, where rising costs and shareholder expectations have pushed companies to re-emphasize traditional business models, even after years of climate commitments.

Third, there’s the problem of measurement.  Over the past decade, ESG reporting exploded.  McKinsey found that large companies now track around 100 ESG-related KPIs on average, a 30% increase in just a few years.  But more data hasn’t necessarily translated into more clarity.  Instead, many organizations find themselves overwhelmed by tracking metrics without a clear line of sight to impact.

And, finally, there’s something more fundamental at play.  It’s the unfortunate reality that many sustainability strategies were built as add-ons rather than integrated business models.  When sustainability lives in a separate department, it is far more vulnerable when pressure mounts.

The Cost of Falling Behind – It would be easy to treat this as a reputational issue, as something that affects brand perception or investor relations.  But the implications go far deeper.  Regulators are tightening requirements.  In many markets, sustainability disclosure is moving from voluntary to mandatory.  Companies that cannot demonstrate credible progress are increasingly exposed to compliance risks.

Investors are also evolving.  While ESG enthusiasm has fluctuated, the underlying focus on resilience, supply chain integrity, and long-term risk is not going away.  And consumers, especially younger ones, particularly Gen Z, are paying attention in a way that was not true even a decade ago.  Claims are scrutinized in depth.  Greenwashing is called out in real time.

Perhaps most importantly, there is the operational risk.  Sustainability challenges, including climate disruption, resource scarcity, supply chain instability, are not abstract.  They are already affecting production, logistics, and cost structures.  Falling behind on sustainability is not just missing a target.  Increasingly, it means falling behind on competitiveness.

The Companies That Are Moving Forward – It’s important to say that not everyone is falling behind.  Some organizations are making meaningful progress not because they set better targets, but because they approached sustainability differently.  For example, take Puma, a competitor to Nike.  According to ProPublica, Puma has reported significant emissions reductions while growing revenue, demonstrating that sustainability and performance can coexist when embedded into core strategy.

According to Reuters, other companies, such as Danone and Google, have begun shifting toward more operational, near-term targets rather than distant promises, focusing on what can actually be measured, managed, and delivered.

The difference is not intent.  It is execution that makes all the difference.

What This Means Going Forward – The era of ambitious sustainability pledges is giving way to something more demanding, which is accountability.

The companies that will succeed in the next decade are not the ones with the boldest headlines.  They are the ones that can translate sustainability into systems, into procurement decisions, operational processes, supplier engagement, and measurable outcomes.

That is where standards, certifications, frameworks, and structured approaches become critical.  Because sustainability, at its core, is not a communications exercise.  It is a management practice requiring consistent execution and discipline.

The McKinsey statistic that 63% of companies are falling behind on sustainability goals sounds like a failure.  In reality, it may be indicating something else.  It may be a highlighting a transition point.  You see, for years, sustainability was aspirational.  Now it is becoming operational.  That shift is uncomfortable, messy, and uneven, but it is a necessary one.

And for the organizations willing to move beyond ambition and into execution, it is also an opportunity.  Not just to play catch up, but to stand up and lead the way.

Speak with IBEC experts to get started on the path of achieving certifications, which will help with your sustainability journey as well.

Talk to Us Now