The Walt Disney Company delivered a strong performance in the second quarter of fiscal 2025, ending March 29. Total revenue rose to $23.6 billion, a 7% increase compared to $22.1 billion in the same quarter last year. This growth was driven by improved performance across multiple segments, especially entertainment and experiences.
Net Income had a significant turnaround, with a $3.3 billion improvement year-over-year. This signaled a strong financial recovery and operational efficiency across the board.
Moving on to the question, is the top entertainment provider’s sustainability game equally on point as its revenue? Let’s analyse and find out the answer.
Walt Disney’s Q2 2025 Segment Performance
Segment operating income climbed to $4.4 billion, up 15% from Q2 2024. Diluted earnings per share (EPS) reached $1.81, a sharp turnaround from the $0.01 loss reported last year. Adjusted EPS rose 20% to $1.45, surpassing analyst estimates of $1.20.
- Entertainment: Strong growth, driven by streaming and content sales. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) operating income rose sharply to $336 million from $47 million a year ago.
- Experiences (Parks, Resorts, Cruises): Revenue grew 6% to $8.9 billion, with operating income up 9% to $2.5 billion.
- Streaming: Disney+ added 1.4 million subscribers, reversing previous quarter losses, reaching 126 million total subscribers. Hulu SVOD grew by 1.3 million, totaling 54.7 million subscribers.
Strategic Developments
- Theme Parks: Disney announced its seventh theme park and resort, to be built in Abu Dhabi in partnership with Miral, marking a major international expansion.
- Streaming Partnerships: Collaboration with Whale TV to expand digital content offerings, supporting growth in Disney+, ESPN, and Hulu.
- ESPN: Continued investments, with a new direct-to-consumer offering planned for later in the year
Market Reaction
- Disney’s strong Q2 2025 results led to a 9–10% surge in its stock price, reflecting renewed investor confidence.
Robert A. Iger, Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company, noted,
“Our outstanding performance this quarter—with adjusted EPS(1) up 20% from the prior year driven by our Entertainment and Experiences businesses—underscores our continued success building for growth and executing across our strategic priorities. Following an excellent first half of the fiscal year, we have a lot more to look forward to, including our upcoming theatrical slate, the launch of ESPN’s new DTC offering, and an unprecedented number of expansion projects underway in our Experiences segment. Overall, we remain optimistic about the direction of the company and our outlook for the remainder of the fiscal year.”
Disney Targets Net-Zero Emissions by 2030
Since 2009, The Walt Disney Company has aimed to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its direct operations. Now, it is pushing further by aligning its climate targets with the Paris Agreement and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In 2023, the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) officially validated Disney’s updated emissions goals. These include new quantitative, time-bound targets for both direct (Scope 1 & 2) and value chain (Scope 3) emissions.
Where Disney’s Emissions Come From
- Scope 1 & 2: Direct emissions mostly arise from energy use in theme parks, resorts, corporate offices, and fuel used by Disney Cruise Line.
- Scope 3: Indirect emissions span across the supply chain—from consumer product manufacturing and food services to film and TV production.
2030 Climate Commitments
Disney’s climate action plan is built on strong, measurable goals:
- Cut absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 46.2% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels
- Reach net-zero direct emissions by 2030
- Use 100% zero-carbon electricity across global operations by 2030
- Invest in certified natural climate solutions
- Drive Scope 3 reductions by engaging suppliers, licensees, and partners
Disney’s 4-Step Strategy to Reduce Scope 1 & 2 Emissions
The figure displayed below shows that Disney’s total emissions (Scope 1 + Scope 2) in 2023 were 1.72 million metric tons CO₂e. This means emissions were significantly more than its 2022 data.
Thus, to meet its 2030 net-zero goal for direct operations, Disney is following a data-driven emissions reduction hierarchy:
- Designing low-emission infrastructure: Prioritize energy-efficient, sustainable design in new builds and renovations.
- Boosting efficiency: Improve energy and fuel efficiency across all facilities and fleets.
- Switching to low-carbon energy: Replace high-emission energy sources with renewables and cleaner fuels.
- Nature-based solutions: Invest in certified natural climate solutions to balance remaining emissions.
Cutting Scope 3 Emissions Across Its Value Chain
Disney is taking bold steps to reduce Scope 3 emissions. After reviewing over 100 strategies, the company picked the most impactful and cost-effective ones. These actions focus on the following:
-
Low-Carbon Products: Using low-emission materials and improving production methods to cut carbon emissions. Supporting suppliers in shifting to renewable energy and cleaner technologies.
-
Supplier & Licensee Action: Helping partners set science-based climate goals and collaborating across industries to drive broader emission cuts.
-
Sustainable Media Production: Adopting eco-friendly practices in TV and film projects while reducing emissions across studio operations.
-
Clean Tech & Collaboration: Investing in low-carbon innovations and working with suppliers and peers to scale impact across sectors.
By acting across its supply chain, Disney is working to meet its climate targets and lead sustainable change in the entertainment industry.
Push for 100% Zero-Carbon Electricity by 2030
Disney plans to power all its direct operations with 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2030. Most of its electricity use happens at its global theme parks and resorts and major campuses in cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Bristol.
Since each location has unique energy challenges, the company is using a smart, step-by-step plan to reach its clean energy goals.
Powering Up With Clean Energy
On-Site Solar Projects
It’s giving priority to sites where clean energy can be used directly, such as at its theme parks. For example, in 2023, Shanghai Disney Resort added 1.3 megawatts of solar panels, while Hong Kong Disneyland became the city’s largest solar site.
Green Power From Utilities
In places where on-site generation isn’t enough, Disney is teaming up with utility companies to buy clean energy directly. This includes using green power programs or working with regulators to develop fair renewable energy pricing for all customers.
Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)
Disney will also sign agreements with renewable energy projects to buy electricity, either directly or virtually. These deals help bring more clean energy to the grid and offer flexibility when on-site options aren’t available.
Energy Certificates
As a backup, the company plans to buy high-quality Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) to match any remaining electricity use with clean energy. This ensures every unit of power is carbon-free.
By combining these four strategies, Disney aims to ensure all its electricity comes from zero-carbon sources, directly or through verified offsets.
Disney Leads the Way in Low-Carbon Fuels
Disney is also exploring low-carbon fuels to reduce emissions, especially from its cruise ships and transportation fleets at parks.
- Focus on Cruise Ships: While Disney Cruise Line is smaller than others in the industry, the company is working hard to drive innovation. It’s investing in research and testing new low-carbon fuels that reduce environmental impact.
- Supporting Clean Fuel Development: Disney is backing new technologies and helping build the supply chain for cleaner fuels. It’s also partnering with suppliers and industry peers to speed up the shift to sustainable shipping.
Sets Ambitious Sustainability Standards
Disney targets zero waste to landfill at all owned parks, resorts, and cruise lines by 2030. It plans to eliminate single-use plastics on cruise ships by 2025 and reduce them elsewhere. The company will use sustainable seafood, recycled materials, and eco-friendly packaging for branded products.
Additionally, all new projects will aim for near net zero, use water efficiently, and divert 90% of construction waste in the US and Europe by 2030.
Disney’s Q2 2025 results show solid growth in revenue, profit, and streaming performance, driven by smart expansion moves and a strong outlook for the rest of the year. While its sustainability and emissions strategies are in place, rising emissions signal a need for stronger climate action and improved management.
The post Is Disney’s Net-Zero Game as Strong as Its Revenue Surge? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits