Corporate investment in environmental sustainability is set to reach new highs, yet public trust in these initiatives is collapsing under the weight of widespread skepticism. A new report from the Capgemini Research Institute reveals a stark disconnect: while a vast majority of companies are increasing their climate action budgets, consumer perception of “greenwashing,” or deceptive environmental marketing, has nearly doubled in the last year, climbing from 33% in 2023 to 62% in 2025. This growing credibility gap threatens to undermine legitimate efforts and stall meaningful progress toward a net-zero future.
This crisis of confidence is unfolding as businesses grapple with a complex array of pressures, from geopolitical tensions to budgetary constraints, which have slowed momentum despite firm commitments. Compounding the challenge is the dual role of artificial intelligence. While many organizations employ AI as a tool to advance their sustainability goals, the immense energy and resource consumption of AI technologies, particularly generative AI, is prompting board-level concern and contributing to the very environmental problems it is being asked to solve. As a result, the path to credible climate action is now fraught with a new layer of technological and ethical complexity, forcing leaders to balance innovation with accountability.
A Widening Credibility Gap
The core of the issue lies in the chasm between corporate pledges and verifiable action. According to the Capgemini report, which surveyed over 2,000 senior executives and more than 6,500 consumers, approximately two-thirds of executives feel mounting pressure to demonstrate credible, science-based progress toward their climate targets. However, the findings suggest many companies are failing to meet this standard. A mere 21% of organizations have established comprehensive transition plans that include interim targets and dedicated capital allocation strategies to support their long-term goals.
This lack of detailed planning feeds directly into public skepticism. Greenwashing, defined as making unsubstantiated or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of a product, service, or company operation, has become a primary driver of public distrust. Tactics can range from using vague, undefined terms like “eco-friendly” to highlighting a single positive attribute while ignoring significant negative impacts elsewhere in the value chain. The United Nations notes that a common form of greenwashing is claiming to be on track for net-zero emissions without a credible plan in place, a finding reflected in the Capgemini data. With 82% of organizations aiming for net-zero by 2041 or later, the absence of concrete, near-term roadmaps in most companies leaves their long-range promises appearing hollow to a more discerning public.
Investment Rises as Progress Stalls
Despite the crisis of trust, financial commitment to sustainability is strengthening. The report indicates that 82% of organizations plan to increase their investment in environmental initiatives within the next 12 to 18 months, a significant jump from 64% in 2024. Furthermore, sustainability is increasingly viewed as a core business imperative, with 66% of surveyed organizations treating it as an essential criterion in investment decisions. Nearly 60% of executives now recognize a strong business case for sustainability, and only 22% believe these initiatives cost more than the benefits they deliver.
Yet this influx of capital is not translating into accelerated progress. In a striking reversal of momentum, the proportion of organizations classified by Capgemini as “sustainability front-runners” has plummeted from 7% in 2024 to just 1% in 2025. Executives point to several major barriers impeding their progress. Geopolitical tensions were cited by 65% of leaders as a factor slowing down initiatives, alongside persistent budget constraints, operational silos that prevent enterprise-wide integration, and a lack of sufficient data and measurement systems to track performance effectively. This reveals a landscape where, despite strong intentions and available funds, structural and external headwinds are proving formidable.
The Double-Edged Sword of AI
Artificial intelligence is frequently positioned as a key enabler of corporate sustainability, yet it has become a significant environmental concern in its own right. The Capgemini report shows that while 64% of organizations use AI to support their sustainability agenda, its application is becoming more nuanced and cautious. Notably, the use of generative AI for sustainability purposes has fallen from 65% in 2024 to 52% in 2025, and its environmental impact is now a subject of board-level discussions in more than half of companies.
The reason for this hesitation is the technology’s immense resource footprint. Training and running the large models behind generative AI requires vast data centers, which are massive consumers of electricity and water. Global electricity demand from data centers is expected to more than double by 2030, with much of that increase driven by AI. An analysis from Goldman Sachs Research projected that about 60% of this new demand will be met by burning fossil fuels, significantly increasing global carbon emissions. This reality places companies in a difficult position, where a tool used to optimize environmental performance contributes heavily to the problem. Emerging technologies like agentic AI, which can manage and execute complex end-to-end processes, offer future promise, but their adoption remains in early stages, with only 29% of executives currently using or planning to use them for sustainability.
Defining a Credible, Science-Based Standard
The pressure on corporations to deliver “credible, science-based” progress highlights the need for a standardized definition of what constitutes a legitimate climate target. This is the role of organizations like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a global partnership that develops standards and validates corporate emissions reduction targets to ensure they are in line with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The SBTi provides a framework for companies to set near-term and long-term goals across all emission scopes, including those from their own operations and their extended value chain.
By committing to a validated science-based target, companies can lend authority to their climate pledges and offer a clear defense against accusations of greenwashing. It moves a company’s goals from the realm of public relations to that of rigorous, externally verified accounting. The fact that only 21% of firms in the Capgemini study have a comprehensive plan with such interim targets suggests that the majority of corporate climate strategies have not yet reached this level of maturity, leaving them vulnerable to criticism and consumer distrust.
Redefining the Corporate Sustainability Mandate
To break the current impasse, experts argue that sustainability must be fundamentally reframed within the corporate structure. According to insights from Capgemini executives, climate action can no longer be treated as a secondary or compliance-driven initiative but must be integrated into the core of business strategy, framed in terms of growth, profit, and risk management. This requires a new level of cross-functional collaboration that many organizations currently lack.
The role of the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) is evolving to become what Sol Salinas, a Capgemini executive, describes as a “convening role.” In this model, the CSO must rely heavily on and actively engage with colleagues across the enterprise, including in procurement, supply chain, IT, HR, and marketing. This integrated approach ensures that sustainability is not siloed but becomes an embedded principle guiding decisions in every part of the organization. Cyril Garcia, Head of Sustainability at Capgemini, notes that sustainability is “becoming central to business strategy, resilience and long-term value,” a shift that demands bold action rather than waiting for perfect data or ideal conditions. Ultimately, rebuilding credibility requires moving beyond ambitious declarations to a fully operationalized and transparently executed climate strategy.