This year’s COP30 opened under a shadow of doubt. With key nations China, and India sending minimal representation and the US administration not attending at all, there’s a growing sense that the summit is struggling not only with relevance, but with international buy-in.

Little progress seems to have been made since last year – or indeed the year before. Negotiators are still wrestling with the same critical questions facing businesses and consumers: What actually drives meaningful climate action? Where are the biggest gaps between ambition and reality? And which new technologies or policy tools could help close them?

At a moment when global cooperation is essential to meeting 2026 climate milestones, the absence of key players has raised questions about whether the world’s biggest emitters are prepared to engage meaningfully with the process, or whether multilateral climate action is beginning to fragment just when it is needed most.

While governments endlessly debate timelines and thresholds, business schools and research institutions are perhaps amongst the most meaningful actors in paving the path to progress, releasing wave upon wave of climate-focused studies that challenge some of the dominant assumptions underpinning current climate policy.

From the psychology of consumer behaviour to the limits of offsetting and the emerging role of AI, these findings offer a clearer picture of what it will really take to make progress ahead of 2026.

Here are seven new studies that offer much needed clarity.

1. Companies use inaccurate carbon-reporting tools to keep their climate narrative positive – emlyon business school

One of the most striking recent studies comes from emlyon business school, which finds that firms often prefer to use in-house carbon reporting tools, even when they know those tools are less accurate. The reason is simple: home-grown systems allow companies to maintain a more favourable narrative around their emissions and overall climate performance.

The study exposes a critical credibility gap at the heart of corporate sustainability reporting. As COP negotiators push for greater transparency and more robust verification frameworks by 2026, this research highlights the challenge policymakers face: without standardisation and external auditing, businesses may continue to prioritise optics over accuracy, hindering any real effort to meet emissions targets.

While the emlyon study shows that many firms lean on in-house ESG tools to maintain a favourable narrative, it also hints at a constructive path forward. Rather than relying on vague internal systems, companies can adopt third-party verification, standardised reporting frameworks, and real-time emissions tracking to build genuine credibility.

For organisations that sincerely believe they are making a positive impact through carbon offsetting, the study underscores the need to go further investing in high-integrity offsets, prioritising direct emissions reductions, supporting climate-resilient supply chains, and engaging with external auditors. These steps not only strengthen transparency but also shift firms from climate-messaging to meaningful climate action.

2. Offsetting fossil-fuel emissions with trees is mathematically impossible – ESSEC Business School

Carbon offsetting has been positioned as a central component of many corporate net-zero plans, but research from ESSEC Business School presents an uncomfortable truth: offsetting fossil-fuel emissions with trees alone would require trillions of dollars and an unfeasible amount of land.

In addition, the researchers noted that many as yet “un-forested” areas simply aren’t suitable for tree planting because trees need specific conditions – the right soil, nutrients and water to thrive , and not all land can support that.

The study argues that relying on offsets as a primary climate strategy is unrealistic, particularly for emission-heavy industries, and even risks making the climate challenge worse.

So that is the answer? As COP discussions increasingly focus on integrity in carbon markets and the phase-down of cheap offsets, ESSEC’s work underscores why genuine emissions reduction must replace symbolic gestures.

Urgent reductions in fossil fuel extraction, and a genuine change in behaviour and practice is the only means of generating real results.

3. Which retailers are actually moving the needle on climate? ESSEC & BDO launch the CSR Retail Index

Aside of energy production or manufacturing, retail is one of the world’s highest-impact sectors when it comes to climate change, from supply chains to packaging to transport logistics. To support the sector in overcoming this challenge, ESSEC Business School has partnered with audit, consulting and accounting firm BDO to create a CSR Retail Index, offering one of the clearest pictures yet of which retailers in Europe are genuinely contributing to climate action and which are lagging.

By ranking retailers on sustainability performance, supply-chain practices, emissions transparency and social responsibility, the index provides a rare, data-backed foundation for comparison.

As the industry faces rising scrutiny ahead of 2026 climate milestones, this research gives policymakers, investors, and consumers something they’ve long needed: clarity.

It also provides a source of inspiration. The ranking is supplemented by a selection of exemplary initiatives identified in the reports as being particularly impactful, which other retailers can seek to learn from. From waste reduction, sustainable sourcing and eco-friendly design to green loan financing, and even social considerations such as the inclusion of marginalized job seekers, these initiatives demonstrate ways retailers can commit to change beyond numerical indicators.

And there is plenty of reason to aim for change. The CSR Retail Index will be produced annually, documenting how retailers improve their efforts.

4. People eat less meat for health reasons, not environmental ones – Corvinus University of Budapest

Governments have been exploring dietary shifts as part of long-term climate strategy, but new research from Corvinus University of Budapest reveals that environmental messaging around meat consumption simply isn’t working.

The study finds that people who have reduced their meat intake overwhelmingly do so for health reasons, not to help the planet.

The implications are significant: climate communications campaigns that rely on environmental arguments alone may continue to miss the mark.

For policymakers hoping to achieve emissions reductions linked to food systems by 2026, this suggests a shift in strategy, from climate-centred messaging to health-centred incentives may be more effective.

This might include integrating sustainability and prosocial themes into school curricula, supporting community-based food initiatives, and promoting collective experiences such as shared cooking or local food events.

5. Energy choices are driven by cost, not climate concern – University of Vaasa

In a similar vein, researchers at the University of Vaasa in Finland show that consumers’ energy-use decisions are motivated primarily by financial incentives, not environmental ones.

In exploring the behaviour motivating energy usage in households, the study found that, whilst consumers are becoming more aware of their energy usage due to rising bills and the ability to better track energy use via smart meters, ultimately consumer decisions are driven by cost. People adopt greener energy sources when they are cheaper, not because they are greener.

This reinforces a pattern emerging across multiple studies: behavioural change is rarely driven by climate intention alone.

This finding puts the emphasis on energy providers to offer a greater provision of affordable green power. However, as global leaders debate mechanisms such as subsidies, carbon pricing, and affordability targets at COP, this research also strengthens the case for economic levers as the most effective tool for climate progress.

6. Climate misinformation is eroding public support for net-zero policies – City University of New York

Beyond behaviour and economics, another barrier to climate action is growing – misinformation. A recent paper from faculty at City University of New York’s Graduate School of Public Health, and New York City’s Pandemic Response Institute, warns that climate misinformation is steadily eroding public perceptions of climate risk and weakening support for net-zero policies.

The research, published in the Journal of Health Communication, finds that inaccurate narratives, particularly those framing climate policy as economically harmful or scientifically unsubstantiated have significantly altered public attitudes. This is especially relevant as countries prepare to roll out new climate commitments before 2026.

For governments, businesses, and educators, the message is clear: effective climate strategy is not just about science or economics, it’s about communication.

Without addressing misinformation, and doing so in a human way, even the strongest policy frameworks may struggle to gain public support.

7. AI is transforming how companies track real climate action – Nature Communications (2025)

A 2025 study published in Nature Communications demonstrates the growing role of AI in corporate climate strategy. The researchers used advanced AI models to analyse thousands of regulated accounting reports to identify which companies are genuinely scaling climate solutions and which are simply greenwashing.

The results show that AI-powered analysis can reliably detect patterns of real climate innovation, from clean-tech investment to emissions-reduction initiatives. This has profound implications for investors, regulators, and boards, especially as new COP-aligned reporting frameworks are introduced over the next year.

As businesses prepare for the tighter transparency expectations expected by 2026, AI could become a central tool for sorting substantive climate action from superficial claims.

What these studies collectively reveal

Across all seven findings, a consistent theme emerges: climate action succeeds not when people have good intentions, but when systems, incentives, and transparency align.

• Companies need stronger reporting standards to prevent greenwashing.
• Consumers respond to price and personal benefit, not environmental messaging.
• Offset-based strategies must give way to realistic emissions reduction.
• innovation, particularly AI, can bridge the gap between monitoring and meaningful action.
• Public support hinges on combating misinformation, not just publishing data.

As COP negotiators laid the groundwork for 2026 targets, these insights offer a clearer map of where climate efforts can accelerate and where they are likely to stall unless approaches change.

By Adam Kelly-Moore

Interested in this topic? You might also like this…