2016 vs 2026: Lessons From a Decade of Corporate Climate Action

Why It Matters

Understanding the decade‑long evolution helps investors and executives gauge realistic climate risk, compliance costs, and the strategic value of sustained ESG initiatives. It signals where capital and innovation should focus to achieve credible net‑zero outcomes.

Key Takeaways

• Scope 3 data remains fragmented, limiting supplier leverage.
• Net‑zero targets now realistic, but sector progress varies.
• Coalition fatigue leads to focused, technical partnerships.
• Disclosure requirements cause compliance fatigue, divert resources.
• AI and automation promise efficient reporting, still underutilized.

Pulse Analysis

The past ten years have transformed corporate sustainability from a peripheral concern into a core business imperative. Early 2016 initiatives, such as Walmart’s Project Gigaton and Nestlé’s sourcing standards, highlighted the hidden carbon in value chains, but today companies confront a fragmented Scope 3 data landscape that hampers effective supplier engagement. This shift forces firms to invest in granular emissions accounting while balancing the strategic need to mitigate climate‑related financial risk.

Net‑zero rhetoric has matured from aspirational slogans to measurable targets, yet sectoral disparities persist. While technology‑intensive industries accelerate decarbonisation, others lag behind, exposing investors to uneven transition risk. Simultaneously, the rise and fall of high‑profile coalitions underscore the fragility of collective climate action under shifting political winds. Executives now favour targeted, technically‑driven collaborations that deliver tangible emissions reductions rather than broad, symbolic pledges.

The reporting boom has created a double‑edged sword: enhanced transparency but mounting compliance fatigue. Companies allocate increasing portions of sustainability budgets to meet overlapping ESG frameworks, diverting resources from actual emissions cuts. However, advances in artificial intelligence and automation promise to streamline data collection, standardise disclosures, and lower costs. Leveraging these tools will be pivotal for firms aiming to convert compliance into actionable climate performance and maintain credibility in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment.

2016 vs 2026: Lessons from a Decade of Corporate Climate Action

Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance

Meghan Sheehan is a Partner and Ella Woolhouse is a Senior Associate at Kekst CNC. This post is based on their Kekst memorandum.

A decade ago, the landscape of corporate sustainability was almost unrecognisable. AI was still more Spielberg than strategy, and “net zero” had yet to enter the corporate lexicon. Two years after the Paris Agreement, businesses were beginning to translate pledges into early strategies, not yet racing towards a lower‑carbon future.

Ten years on, that landscape has been tested, reshaped, and in some cases, hardened into realism. In hindsight, 2016 looks less like a moment of achievement and more like a genuine tipping point – the start of something far more complex than many expected.

Five 2016 flashbacks – and their 2026 reality checks

1. Supply chains take centre stage

By 2016, supply chains were rapidly climbing the corporate agenda. Walmart launched Project Gigaton, aiming to eliminate one billion tonnes of emissions from its value chain, while Nestlé rolled out its Responsible Sourcing Standard globally. These moves signalled early recognition that most corporate climate impact sits beyond direct operations – what we would later formalise as Scope 3.

2026 reality check: Scope 3 is now unavoidable, but still deeply contested. Data remains patchy, supplier leverage is limited and slow. The ambition is still there – but it’s now tempered by a clearer sense of what companies can and cannot control.

2. Net zero: from nowhere to everywhere

It’s easy to forget that “net zero” barely featured in 2016. The SBTi was in its infancy, and Race to Zero was still years away. Yet the seeds were there. Shell’s early references to a “net carbon footprint” hinted at the direction of travel.

2026 reality check: For many sectors, the idea of “racing” to zero has proved unrealistic. Still, despite growing scepticism, progress continues – just at different speeds, and with far more realism baked in.

3. Coalitions building, not crumbling

Collective action gathered pace in 2016. We Mean Business helped align corporate voices around climate ambition, while PRI’s rapidly growing membership embedded ESG into mainstream finance.

2026 reality check: The past decade has revealed both the power and fragility of coalitions. Some high‑profile alliances have unravelled under political and legal pressure. What’s emerging instead is a quieter phase of collaboration: fewer grand pledges, more technically focused partnerships, and a sharper understanding of where collective action genuinely adds value.

4. Sustainability as a leadership platform

In 2016, sustainability offered a visible stage for leadership. Political figures, city mayors, and business leaders positioned themselves openly as climate advocates. Initiatives like Richard Branson and Marc Benioff’s Born B movement and the rapid expansion of the Global Covenant of Mayors reflected that momentum.

2026 reality check: Backlash and shifting political winds have made some leaders more cautious in how – or whether – they frame commitment, as reflected in Nestlé’s more measured stance on external narrative. The “climate of fear” is evident in how The Economist’s editor‑in‑chief questioned JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, highlighting the pressure that tempers leaders who once spoke more boldly in the sustainability arena. Conversely, Mark Carney’s tone and message in his Tragedy of the Horizon speech continue to resonate today.

5. Frameworks: from helpful to heavy

In 2016, frameworks were seen as useful guides. The newly adopted SDGs were embraced as a strategic lens, and climate and nature disclosure remained relatively light‑touch.

2026 reality check: Disclosure fatigue is real. Companies now navigate a dense web of reporting requirements, with a growing share of sustainability budgets absorbed by compliance rather than action. The next challenge is efficiency: automation and AI promise faster, more cost‑effective reporting – though that potential is not yet fully realised.

Conclusion: what the decade has taught us

1. The story is far from over. The biggest impacts may still lie ahead. COVID reshaped priorities in ways we’re only beginning to understand. AI could yet become a climate hero or climate risk. And the long arc of climate impacts means outcomes will unfold well beyond the next reporting cycle, election, or even decade.

2. Business relevance is non‑negotiable. The strategies that endured were grounded in risk, resilience, and growth – not moral positioning alone.

3. Consistency compounds. The most credible initiatives weren’t always the loudest. They were built through years of steady execution, incremental progress, and resilience through shifting headwinds.

4. The tortoise wins, not the hare. Net zero spread at extraordinary speed and galvanised action across sectors. But lasting impact requires collective progress. As the saying goes: if you want to move fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.

Which leaves us here: more wary, perhaps, but not without agency. The story isn’t finished. The will to act remains renewable – and the next chapter is still ours to shape.