The planet is warming at a record pace. So why are many companies retreating from their climate targets?

In what is becoming something of a trend, a number of companies are abandoning their carbon emissions targets — in a year scientists have determined is likely to end up being the hottest on record.

Earlier this month, Volvo announced it was dropping its goal of having a fully electric lineup of vehicles by 2030. 

In the summer, Air New Zealand said it was abandoning a pledge to reduce its emissions by about 29 per cent by 2030.

And in March, Shell announced it was easing its target of reducing the total "net carbon intensity" of all the energy products it sells by 20 per cent.

"I don't think [the trend] is really new, but given the state of the world, it's more apparent," said Charles Cho, a professor of sustainability accounting and the Erivan K. Haub Chair in business and sustainability at the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto.

The message from a lot of these companies is that meeting their climate targets has become too costly, a theme emphasized by some American banks last month at NYC Climate Week, an annual gathering for organizations to discuss global warming. 

After more than 190 countries signed the Paris Accord in 2015 — codifying an international push to keep global temperatures well below 2 C warming from pre-industrial levels — many companies made bold climate pledges.

A lot of them promised deep emissions cuts. Many said they'd reach net zero — that is, modifying their operations so their net emissions were zero — by 2030.

But Cho says a lot of them didn't really specify how they would get there. And now, a decade later, in the absence of any meaningful enforcement for countries and companies alike, many companies are realizing those goals are unattainable.

"I think there was a rush to make those targets visible on their [corporate] reports, but … I think they spoke too fast," said Cho.

The stated reasons for these retrenchments vary. For example, Air New Zealand has blamed its decision on poor access to efficient planes and sustainable aviation fuel. 

Volvo has cited stagnant demand for electric vehicles and inadequate charging networks, while Shell emphasized continuing demand for oil and gas and uncertainty about the speed of the global energy transition. 

Andrea Amaize, director of risk and sustainability consulting at professional services firm Forvis Mazars Canada, said the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying inflationary pressures also forced organizations to reconsider their climate ambitions.

"Obviously with the pandemic and inflation, there has been financial strain," said Amaize, noting that companies that might have planned to invest in more electric vehicles or building retrofits, for example, found those measures had become more expensive.