We take a critical look at climate alliances, such as the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, First Movers Coalition and Climate Action 100+, that have emerged in recent years under government supervision. Essentially, they are joint agreements between competitors on the composition of investment portfolios. However well-intentioned, there is a risk that such initiatives can backfire by reducing participants' climate efforts. We compare incentives to invest in sustainability efforts and eliminating polluting product lines in competition and cooperation, and find that climate ambitions can be lower and against consumer welfare, if they are set jointly. Recent antitrust threats in the US may have been made for the wrong reasons but inadvertently furthered the intended cause of green transition.
In recent years, the number of firms announcing net-zero emission pledges has significantly increased. As these pledges constitute long-term forecasts of corporate environmental performance, stakeholders face the challenge of assessing their credibility and distinguishing between credible commitments and cheap talk. This paper investigates the use of environmental contract clauses as a channel to signal credible commitment to climate pledges. Analyzing material contracts between 2013 and 2023, we find a steady rise in environmental clauses, with a sharp increase in incentive clauses towards the end of the sample, which the firms also mention in their contract-related communication. Firms include environmental clauses both before and after publishing a climate pledge. The market reacts more positive to net-zero announcements when the claims are backed by contractual obligations.