A 2040 net-zero target is ambitious. Companies that have been working toward it seriously for the past several years — not just declaring it, but actually investing in measurement, reduction, and transformation — have learned things that aren't in any framework document. This is a summary of what distinguishes them.
They started with the number, not the narrative
Companies that have made genuine progress almost universally began by building a credible baseline inventory before committing to any public target. They knew their full Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3 emissions before they announced anything.
This is the opposite of the common pattern, which is to make a pledge first and figure out the data later. The pledge-first approach leads to targets that can't be verified, baselines that get quietly revised, and emissions trajectories that diverge from the stated ambition. Companies that started with the number have targets that can be tracked year by year against a fixed baseline. That accountability is precisely what makes the commitment credible.
Scope 3 was non-negotiable from year one
Most corporate decarbonization programs treat Scope 3 as a problem to deal with later. The companies making the most progress treated it as the core problem from the start — because for most of them, it represented 70-85% of total emissions.
Early Scope 3 work typically focused on purchased goods and services (Category 1), which drives the supplier engagement program, and use of sold products (Category 11), which drives product design and customer transition planning. Neither is quick. Neither is cheap. But the companies that started this work in 2018 or 2019 are in a materially better position than those starting now.
The lesson: every year you delay Scope 3 engagement is a year where your supply chain and product portfolio continue developing along carbon-intensive lines. Reversing that later costs more than guiding it now.
Capital allocation changed
The clearest dividing line between companies making real progress and those performing it is whether carbon considerations have entered capital allocation decisions. This means more than adding a sustainability checkbox to project approvals. It means applying an internal carbon price to every capital project that affects emissions, treating carbon exposure as a financial risk in cost of capital calculations, and being willing to reject high-return projects because of carbon costs that aren't fully priced by markets yet.
Companies that made this shift report that the quality of investment decisions improved alongside the emissions trajectory. When you're forced to think through the carbon economics of a capital project, you often discover operational and energy efficiency improvements that would have been missed under a pure financial lens.
Supplier engagement programs take longer than expected
Every early adopter we've spoken to says the same thing about supplier engagement: start earlier than you think you need to, expect the first two years to produce mostly data collection and almost no verified reduction, and design your program around the suppliers that matter rather than trying to survey all of them at once.
Tier-1 supplier programs work. Cascading requirements down through tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers in a five-year window is extremely difficult for most organizations. The ones making progress have focused on their 20-30 highest-emission suppliers and gone deep rather than trying to cover hundreds superficially.
Renewable energy strategy was settled early
For most companies, Scope 2 is the most tractable piece of the net-zero puzzle. Renewable electricity is available in most European markets, power purchase agreements have become standard financial instruments, and the cost has fallen dramatically. Companies moving toward 2040 net zero targets have typically sorted their electricity procurement strategy by year 3-4, putting it largely behind them and focusing attention on the harder Scope 1 and 3 problems.
On-site generation, long-term PPAs, and green tariffs each have different risk profiles and economics. The right mix depends on your load profile and geography. The key decision is committing to a timeline rather than waiting for perfect market conditions that never arrive.
Transparency about difficulty built credibility
The early adopters that are most trusted by investors and regulators are the ones that have been honest about where they fell short. A company that has published annual progress reports for seven years, including two years where emissions went up due to acquisitions, is more credible than one publishing its first sustainability report showing a smooth downward trend.
Disclosure of setbacks, honest assessment of Scope 3 data gaps, and transparent methodology documentation signal that the program is real. The companies that hide difficulties are the ones whose targets get scrutinized most harshly.
Net zero by 2040 is a genuine stretch goal. The companies closest to achieving it are the ones that treated it as an operational challenge from day one — not a communications exercise.