^{The USA House is prepared ahead of the World Economic Forum on January 18, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland. The annual WEF meeting brings together leaders from government, business and civil society to discuss major global issues. This year’s edition is taking place from January 19 to 23.}

^{Elena Romanova | Getty Images News | Getty Images}

^‍

Corporate Leaders Draw a Line on Climate Commitments

Some of the world’s most influential executives used the World Economic Forum in Davos to send an unusually blunt message: backing away from climate action is short-sighted, bad for business, and dangerous for the global economy.

Their comments come at a time when political momentum behind net-zero targets appears to be fading in parts of Europe and the United States, and when many companies are quietly shifting focus from decarbonization to competitiveness, margins, and near-term shareholder returns.

In a series of interviews and panel discussions, CEOs made clear that they see the current “green backlash” as a temporary deviation rather than a permanent reversal.

Allianz CEO Oliver Bäte dismissed the idea that Europe’s climate ambitions are on borrowed time, calling the growing skepticism around net zero driven by short-term thinking. He argued that leaders who are focused only on quarterly results are missing the bigger picture.

For Bäte, the case for climate action is both personal and economic.

Anyone with children, he said, has a direct stake in the planet’s future. But beyond that, he stressed that energy transition strategies can be executed pragmatically without turning them into ideology.

Allianz, one of the world’s largest insurers with operations in more than 70 countries, has committed to reaching net zero by 2050. Internally, the company has already reduced its own energy consumption by over 40%, demonstrating, Bäte said, that meaningful progress is possible when targets are paired with disciplined execution.

Businesses Feel the Pressure as Political Support Softens

Despite these commitments, many executives acknowledge that the broader environment has become more challenging.

Across Europe, parts of the Green Deal are being reassessed. Some governments are slowing implementation timelines, while investors increasingly question whether aggressive climate targets could undermine competitiveness in energy-intensive industries.

At Davos this year, the tone of the event itself reflected that shift. Instead of focusing primarily on how to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions, many sessions centered on adaptation, resilience, and how economies can cope with the worsening effects of climate change, from heatwaves and floods to supply-chain disruptions.

This change in emphasis has raised concerns among sustainability advocates that mitigation is taking a back seat.

Executives say the pullback is being driven by a mix of high interest rates, weaker growth, geopolitical uncertainty, and voter fatigue with rising energy costs. In several countries, political leaders have begun to soften their rhetoric on climate in response to public pressure over inflation and living expenses.

Fortescue’s Forrest Calls for “Real Zero,” Not Net Zero

Few voices at Davos were as outspoken as Andrew Forrest, founder and executive chairman of Australian mining giant Fortescue, one of the world’s largest iron ore producers.

Forrest argued that even the term “net zero” has become part of the problem, pointing to heavy reliance on carbon credits and offsets. Instead, he called for what he describes as “real zero” by 2040, meaning an outright end to burning fossil fuels rather than balancing emissions on paper.

More than 140 countries, including the United States, India, and members of the European Union, have adopted net-zero targets, typically aimed at mid-century. Forrest believes that approach gives too much room for delay.

His message to companies and governments was direct: set a clear date to stop burning fossil fuels, and build business models around that reality.

Fortescue has committed to eliminating fossil fuel use across its Australian iron ore operations by the end of this decade, a move that would place it among the most aggressive decarbonizers in the global mining sector.

Forrest also framed the transition as a competitive opportunity, arguing that renewable energy is now structurally cheaper over time than oil and gas. While fossil fuel operating costs tend to rise, he said, renewable technologies are following steep cost-decline curves, particularly in solar, wind, and battery storage.

In his view, these trends are reshaping global energy economics.

China’s Strategy Highlights a Different Model

Several executives pointed to China as an example of long-term strategic planning.

While Beijing continues to use hydrocarbons, it has simultaneously invested heavily in renewables, electric vehicles, batteries, and grid infrastructure. Today, China dominates global solar manufacturing, leads in EV production, and controls large portions of the battery supply chain.

Bäte described China as a potential role model, not because of its political system, but because of its willingness to back multiple energy technologies at scale.

Forrest echoed that sentiment, saying China has effectively “backed every horse in the race,” giving it a structural advantage as the world transitions toward cleaner power.

This stands in contrast to the current U.S. political narrative, where renewables are increasingly framed by some leaders as ideological rather than economic choices.

Forrest pushed back on that framing, arguing that renewable energy improves competitiveness by lowering long-term power costs and reducing exposure to volatile commodity markets.

Trump Criticizes Europe as EU Defends Its Energy Path

U.S. President Donald Trump used his Davos appearance to attack Europe’s energy policies, claiming that wind power damages landscapes and delivers poor financial returns.

European officials swiftly rejected that characterization.

EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the bloc takes a fundamentally different view, emphasizing that climate change carries massive economic risks while also creating opportunities in sectors such as batteries, solar power, and nuclear energy.

Hoekstra acknowledged that political support for net zero has weakened in some areas, but stressed that physics, not politics, ultimately determines outcomes.

What matters, he said, is how much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere and how quickly global temperatures rise. The financial consequences of inaction, from infrastructure damage to productivity losses, could dwarf the costs of transition.

Industry Leaders Shift Focus to Practical Execution

Not all executives see the current moment as a crisis.

Joe Kaeser, chairman of Siemens Energy, said his priority is working directly with customers to map realistic pathways toward lower emissions. Rather than debating targets, he emphasized technology, innovation, and collaboration.

Kaeser argued that most sectors already have the tools needed to decarbonize over time, from advanced turbines to grid upgrades and industrial electrification. The challenge, he said, lies in deploying those solutions at scale and in ways that make economic sense.

For many companies, that means balancing climate goals with affordability, energy security, and shareholder expectations.

A Turning Point for Corporate Climate Strategy

The sharp language from CEOs in Davos reflects more than frustration. It signals a broader concern that wavering political support could slow investment just as clean energy technologies are becoming commercially competitive.

Global investment in energy transition technologies surpassed $1.7 trillion last year, driven by renewables, EVs, batteries, and grid infrastructure. Business leaders warn that reversing course now would risk surrendering future growth to regions willing to move faster.

Despite the backlash, most executives in Davos maintained that climate action remains inevitable. Their message was not that the transition should stop, but that it must be executed intelligently, with clear targets, realistic timelines, and a focus on cost competitiveness.

For them, the choice is no longer between climate and commerce. It is about building profitable businesses in a world that is already changing.

‍