Net-zero emissions targets: Genuine goals or Fortune 500 greenwashing?

Oct 13, 2023

2 min

Kalim Shah


Moving towards “net-zero” emissions has become a popular “target” for multinational corporations that have committed to improving their sustainability. But is it a new tagline from marketing departments or something firms are actually committed to?


About half of the U.S.-based Fortune 500 firms have declared their intent to reach net zero – the point at which the emissions from an entity equals the amount of greenhouse gasses being taken out of the atmosphere – as early as by 2030.


The University of Delaware’s Kalim Shah, an expert on energy and climate policy, has some thoughts on these targets, their feasibility and why these companies are pursuing these goals.


  • We should question why the language has changed in less than a decade from lowering emissions or low carbon options to “net-zero” when targets to meet lower emissions have not really been fulfilled in the first place. Part of the explanation could be to get ahead of would-be legislated pressure, that is, to dissuade legislative efforts which would imply compliance requirements, whereas now, these pledges are completely voluntary.
  • Net zero is more technologically feasible in some sectors/ processes and not in others. In other words, there is likely not a cost effective, technological fix for net zero in the aluminum smelting or iron or concrete making industries in the immediate future.
  • Lack of industry standards for measuring net zero – or perhaps more correctly, several competing methods of calculating net zero – can give some cover, for now, to firms attempting to “greenwash.” In effect, one firm's net zero may not be comparable to another's net zero.
  • A company’s “emissions scope” must be examined closed. Are firms referring to direct emissions related to on-site fuel combustion or fleet vehicles; Indirect emissions related to emission generation of purchased energy, such as heat and electricity; and/or Other indirect emissions related to both emissions from upstream and downstream business activities when setting targets?
  • We have to "read the fine print" as well, as terms that sound as ambitious but have slightly different strategies, such as “carbon neutral” and “carbon negative” targets can also complicate how we hold firms accountable.
  • Where net zero is less possible, emissions could be “offset” through various schemes like carbon credits of forest offsets. A carbon offset is a reduction or removal of emissions of greenhouse gases made in order to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. En vogue since the 2000s, largely because it presented a way for indebted developed countries to capture market value by preserving endangered forests when multinationals ‘"offset" operations emissions by paying said developing countries, this mechanism has become highly questionable of late for its unverifiability.


To arrange an interview, click on Dr. Shah's profile and press the contact button found there.

Connect with:
Kalim Shah

Kalim Shah

Associate Professor, Energy and Environmental Policy

Expert in public policy, governance and institutional analysis for sustainable development in small peripheral economies and jurisdictions.

Public PolicyEnvironment, Social, Governance (ESG)Institutional TransformationSmall Island Developing StatesEnergy Security and Transition

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

1 min

The hidden consequences of school suspensions: Insights from 'Suspended Education'

School suspensions have long been a traditional disciplinary strategy used by educational institutions to address behavioral issues. Often perceived as a straightforward solution to handle disruptive conduct, suspensions remove the student from the school environment, theoretically allowing learning to proceed unhindered. University of Delaware sociology professor Aaron Kupchik explores school suspensions in his new book ‘Suspended Education: School Punishment and the Legacy of Racial Injustice.' He looks at how this practice is intrinsically tied to racial inequality and can have negative long-term impacts on students. He notes that beneath this seemingly effective measure, a multitude of unintended consequences lurk, some of which profoundly affect both the individual student and the broader community. And often, there is more harm than good done by this measure, particularly for students of color.  Kupchik has appeared in a number of outlets including Time magazine and Delaware Public Media. He can be reached by clicking on his profile.

2 min

New survey shows lack of public trust in Musk, DOGE

New data from the Center for Political Communication (CPC) at the University of Delaware shows many Americans have little trust in either Elon Musk or the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a nationally-representative sample of 1,600 adult Americans surveyed by YouGov between February 27 and March 5, 2025, CPC researchers asked how much trust respondents had in various people and institutions, including Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency, and President Trump. Among the key findings: • 25% of Americans report having “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in Elon Musk 26% report having “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). • 33% report having “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in President Donald Trump. • About half of Republicans report “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in either (compared to 70% of Republicans who report “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in President Trump). • Among independent voters, only 11% report “a lot” or “a great deal” of trust in Musk and 13% in DOGE. “As constituents in Republican districts learn about and voice concerns about DOGE’s cuts to Veteran’s Affairs, The National Institutes of Health, National Parks, and the Federal Aviation Administration, it will be interesting to see how public trust in Musk and DOGE may be affected,” said Dr. Dannagal Young, Director of the Center for Political Communication and one of the authors of the survey. “Understanding public sentiment about these unique government entities is essential to help ensure that elected officials are responsive to voter concerns." Visit the CPC's website for full results of the survey. To connect with Young for an interview, visit her profile and click the contact button.

1 min

March Madness: Experts comment on picking underdogs, prop bets and economic benefits

Why do people pick underdogs when filling out their brackets for the NCAA men's and women's basketball tournaments? How do people consume March Madness? How does the tournament benefit host cities and teams economically? University of Delaware experts have the answers. The following UD faculty members can provide their expertise for journalists working on stories about the tournaments. • Jackie Silverman, assistant professor of marketing: Why people might have chosen underdogs still hanging around in their brackets, • John Allgood, instructor of sport management: How people consume March Madness (streaming vs. cable TV) and how major collegiate sports events can help brand individual schools. Contact UD media relations to reach him. • Tim DeSchriver, associate professor of sport management: Sports gambling (including prop bets) and advertising targets. • Matthew Robinson, professor of sport management: Economic benefits of the host city. • Matt McGranaghan, assistant professor of marketing: Consumer attention span during commercial breaks. To reach these experts directly and set up interviews, visit the expert profiles below and click on the contact button.

View all posts