Over the past decade, companies have produced an extraordinary wave of climate targets, human rights policies, and social impact commitments. Many are still setting those goals for the first time, but for the broader universe, the conversation is shifting from whether goals exist to whether they are being met. Recent research underscores the challenge: the Net Zero Tracker’s 2025 Stocktake found that while 63% of the world’s largest 2,000 companies now have net-zero targets, only 7% meet minimum “starting line” integrity criteria.
This gap between commitment and action—often called the say-do gap—matters to investors. Unimplemented targets undermine the transition-risk assumptions built into portfolio models. Commitments contradicted by a company’s lobbying, capital allocation, or supply chain invite regulatory backlash and reputational harm. And in impact-focused strategies, the credibility of the entire thesis depends on evidence of delivery.
There is no single formula for testing whether a corporate commitment is becoming real, on-the-ground practice, but there are some practical tools that investors can draw on.
Looking for a credible transition plan. A net-zero or biodiversity target is only credible if a company can show the internal systems that will deliver it—interim milestones, capital expenditure plans, executive accountability, and disclosure aligned with frameworks such as the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). We look for transition plans that include emissions targets, governance frameworks, and policy engagements, and that quantify the investments required. Whether a company is actually delivering on those targets is now measurable, and increasingly public. TransitionArc, launched in 2024, covers over 1,000 companies (expanding to 1,500 in 2026) and consolidates leading independent assessments—from the Transition Pathway Initiative, Carbon Tracker, InfluenceMap, the Science Based Targets initiative, Global Canopy, the World Benchmarking Alliance, FAIRR, and others—into a single company profile. Investors can now see whether a company’s stated plan is matched by its emissions trajectory and capital spending. Where those elements are missing, the target is a statement of intent, not a plan.
Testing policy alignment. Even a well-designed plan can be undermined if a company’s indirect advocacy pulls in a different direction. Direct advocacy should match the positions taken by the trade associations a company funds, and this alignment is measurable. InfluenceMap’s 2025 analysis of the 200 largest European companies found that 23% now align their lobbying with EU climate goals—up from just 3% in 2019—but only 12% of the trade associations representing them do the same. Meaningful transparency here means disclosing the trade associations a company funds, regularly reviewing alignment between those associations’ positions and the company’s own, and responding clearly when misalignment persists.
Elevating on-the-ground knowledge. Disclosures and transition plans tell one side of the story; the people closest to a company’s operations often see whether human rights, labor, and community commitments hold up in practice. Affected communities, workers, and the organizations that represent them can understand a company’s operating footprint more clearly than any external analyst. In our engagement work, we turn to worker-driven movements, labor organizers, human rights defenders, and environmental groups to hear from those most exposed to corporate activity. Where credible concerns emerge—about worker safety, Indigenous community consent, or environmental harm—we use our leverage as investors to raise those voices with management and boards. Where appropriate, that includes assigning our shareholder proxy to a community advocate so they can attend an AGM and speak directly with the executives and directors who set corporate strategy.
Tracing bond proceeds to outcomes. The credibility of a labeled bond—green, social, or sustainability—rests on two questions: are capital deployments aligned with the stated use of proceeds, and are they having the intended impact? The ICMA Harmonised Framework for Impact Reporting, updated in June 2026, sets a clear market expectation: annual reporting on use of proceeds and expected impact for the target population or environment. We look for issuers who move beyond activity metrics—dollars deployed, projects funded—to outcome metrics that connect financing to the people or ecosystems it was meant to serve.
No verification tool produces a perfect result, and no reasonable investor should expect one to. What these lenses offer is a way to test whether commitments are being advanced, and to identify the issuers willing to name the gaps between promise and delivery—and to show a plan for closing them. Policy adoption is a first step; the real work happens in implementation.