This blog was originally published on Illuminem, and has been co-authored with Rhian-Mari Thomas. She is the CEO...
The global transition to renewable energy systems will be mineral intensive and, under the current linear economy conditions,...
Corporate net-zero commitments have become the dominant framework for private-sector climate action, yet the proliferation of targets, methodologies, and disclosure has not translated into commensurate absolute emissions reductions. Beneath the familiar debates about ambition and implementation lies a more foundational problem: a structural misalignment between how corporate climate action is measured and how decarbonization actually happens.
Our opening article, Redefining Corporate Climate Action for Systems Transformation, set out the core of that misalignment. Net zero is an atmospheric concept, achieved by decarbonizing energy, industry, buildings, transport, and land use. Entity-level neutrality is not a component of that concept; it is a different object altogether, and on its own terms a fictitious one. Entities cannot decarbonize if their systems do not, and systems decarbonize through coordination and structural change rather than the sum of entity-level commitments. This misalignment has led to a persistent shortfall in real decarbonization, and to frustrated debates about ambition, feasibility, and accountability, all playing out on the wrong field.
Seen this way, the more useful unit of analysis is the system itself. It clarifies what any given firm can most usefully do, since a firm’s options are shaped by the system it operates in, and it gives external engagement a concrete purpose: addressing the financial, regulatory, technological, and coordination barriers that make a given system hard to decarbonize.
Our article made the case that the system itself, not the entity, should be the unit of analysis, and offered a practical alternative for defining corporate climate action by its contribution to real-world systems transformation alongside public institutions, financiers, and others. But our article only scratched the surface: there is far more to unpack, especially because the argument challenges foundational concepts that are deeply entrenched in how corporate climate action is framed and measured. Unpacking it, both in terms of why a different approach is needed and what that approach looks like, will take deeper exploration than a single article allows. So we are launching a series of short pieces, each examining a different facet of the question, including:
This is a work in progress, and we expect our thinking to evolve through it. We invite practitioners and researchers working on system-shaping approaches to engage with us as the series develops.
