The Coca-Cola Company, which produces billions of bottles and cans each year, announced a new set of environmental goals for 2035, reflecting shifts in its approach to sustainability. These new targets revise earlier commitments across packaging, water stewardship, and carbon emissions. It marks a recalibration of the company’s long-term environmental strategy.
While some objectives remain steadfast, others have been scaled back or removed altogether. As such, Coca-Cola has come under fire from environmental groups for scaling back its carbon emissions and other sustainability commitments.
Here are the company’s new sustainability targets, as outlined in its updated environmental goals.
Climate Action: A New Approach to Carbon Emissions
The beverage giant has set a goal to reach net zero by 2050, while Coca-Cola in Europe has a more ambitious target of achieving it by 2040.
The company has revised its climate targets. Its previous goal was to cut absolute carbon emissions by 25% by 2030, based on a 2015 baseline. The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) classified this target as aligned with a 2°C global warming trajectory.
The updated 2035 goal, however, no longer includes an absolute emissions reduction target. Instead, Coca-Cola aims to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions in line with a 1.5°C trajectory, using 2019 as a baseline.
While this change aligns with more ambitious climate scenarios, it lacks specific percentage reductions previously outlined. This shift raises questions about Coca-Cola’s commitment to ambitious climate action, especially as the 2015 Paris Agreement calls for significant reductions to limit global warming.
As stated in the company’s 2023 environmental update, Coca-Cola has made progress in reducing its absolute carbon emissions based on original targets:
- 8% decline in absolute emissions against a 2015 baseline.
- Systemwide renewable electricity use up 24% in 2023, from 21% in 2022.
Below is the company’s greenhouse gas emissions for three years. Both Scopes 1 and 2 have decreased in 2023 compared to 2021. But Scope 3 emissions (value chain emissions) have increased.

Packaging Goals: A Shift in Focus
In 2023, Coca-Cola’s operations generated nearly 6 million tonnes of packaging. These include 137 billion plastic bottles and 74 billion aluminum and steel cans, according to company data. This is why the company must focus on this sustainability area.
Packaging has been a cornerstone of Coca-Cola’s sustainability efforts, particularly through its 2018 “World Without Waste” initiative. This program set ambitious goals:
- Ensuring all packaging is 100% recyclable by 2025,
- Using at least 50% recycled content by 2030, and
- Collecting a bottle or can for every one sold by 2030.
In 2022, Coca-Cola added a goal for 25% of its beverages to be sold in refillable containers globally.
In its latest update, Coca-Cola reported significant progress toward making all packaging recyclable, with 90% already meeting this standard. However, the company acknowledged falling short on other packaging goals.
- The recycled content target has been reduced from 50% by 2030 to a new range of 35%-40% by 2035. Similarly, its collection goal has been adjusted to 70%-75% by 2035, down from 100% by 2030.
The company also removed its goal for refillable packaging, explaining that it will focus on areas with existing infrastructure for reusable containers. Instead, Coca-Cola plans to prioritize increasing recycled content in primary packaging and improving collection rates.
Its revised efforts will center on two key pillars:
- “Design,” which involves creating packaging that is fully recyclable, and
- “Partner to Collect,” emphasizing advocacy for well-designed collection systems and investments in local recycling infrastructure.

RELATED: Apple’s iPhone 16 Slashes Carbon Footprint by 30%
The soda manufacturer also made significant changes in its water use and agricultural sourcing.
Water Stewardship: A Broadened Commitment
Water management remains a critical component of Coca-Cola’s sustainability framework. The company reaffirmed its commitment to replenish more than 100% of the water used in its finished products globally, a milestone it has consistently achieved since 2015.
- Additionally, Coca-Cola expanded its focus on water in high-risk locations. Previously, the goal was to return 100% of water used in 175 high-risk sites by 2030.
Now, the target encompasses all high-risk locations—more than 200 sites—by 2035. This broader commitment reflects the company’s growing emphasis on supporting local ecosystems and communities where water resources are under stress.
Agriculture and Sustainable Sourcing
- Coca-Cola has removed its goal to source 100% of its priority agricultural ingredients according to its Principles for Sustainable Agriculture.
Despite this, the company pledged to continue working with suppliers and third-party stakeholders to advance sustainable sourcing practices. Efforts will focus on reducing water use, lowering emissions, preventing deforestation, and conserving high-risk areas in its supply chain.
From Ambition to Adjustment: A Strategic Recalibration
Coca-Cola considered these adjustments a strategic recalibration based on decades of sustainability work, assessments of progress, and emerging challenges. In its press release, the company acknowledged the complexity of these issues and the need for more efficient resource allocation to deliver meaningful impact.
Bea Perez, Coca-Cola’s Executive Vice President and Global Chief Communications, Sustainability & Strategic Partnerships Officer, emphasized the importance of collaboration in addressing these challenges.
“We remain committed to building long-term business resilience and earning our social license to operate through our evolved voluntary environmental goals. These challenges are complex and require us to drive more effective and efficient resource allocation and work collaboratively with partners to deliver lasting positive impact.”
Yet, critics argue the adjustments undermine progress in combating pollution and climate change. Moreover, advocacy groups call on the company to uphold stronger environmental standards.
Revised Targets, Renewed Criticism: What’s Next for Coca-Cola?
Coca-Cola’s retreat comes at a time when global negotiations on reducing plastic pollution face significant hurdles. Talks for the world’s first legally binding UN treaty on plastics recently stalled, reflecting broader challenges in tackling the plastics crisis.
Environmental organizations have strongly criticized Coca-Cola’s revised carbon emissions, packaging, and water management goals. Oceana’s Matt Littlejohn labeled the new approach “short-sighted” and warned it could exacerbate the flood of single-use plastics entering waterways and oceans.
Further, Coca-Cola’s softened sustainability stance coincides with growing legal pressures on beverage companies for their plastic waste. In October 2024, Los Angeles County sued Coca-Cola and PepsiCo for misleading claims about the recyclability of their products, arguing that most plastics cannot be disposed of without harmful environmental effects.
The controversy arising from this environmental update underscores the tension between corporate sustainability promises and the practical challenges of implementing them. Coca-Cola’s revised goals reflect a more cautious approach, but the backlash highlights the growing demand for bold action in addressing global environmental and sustainability crises.
- FURTHER READING: McDonald’s Balances Sales Decline with Bold Sustainability Goals
The post The Bottled Truth: Coca-Cola’s New 2035 Environmental Goals Face Sustainability Backlash appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
Carbon Footprint
Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
![]()
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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

