The Coca-Cola Company’s newly announced 2035 environmental goals have raised more than a few eyebrows—and for good reason. After years of aspiring to ambitious packaging, recycling, and emissions targets, the world’s largest beverage company is now rolling back some of its commitments. Instead of reaching 50% recycled content in packaging by 2030, the company has extended the timeframe and lowered the bar to 35%-40% by 2035. Moreover, it has adjusted its collection ambition downward and even removed its previous refillable packaging goal altogether.
Coca-Cola explains these revisions as the result of “learnings” and “periodic assessments of progress and challenges.” In reality, these moves reflect the broader tensions that often arise when large, global companies attempt to reconcile sustainability ambitions with operational, economic, and infrastructural hurdles. On one hand, it’s commendable that Coca-Cola is acknowledging the difficulty of meeting its earlier targets. On the other, one can’t help wondering whether the company is succumbing to corporate inertia rather than pushing harder for systemic change.
The initial targets, launched under the “World Without Waste” initiative, were undeniably bold. A fully recyclable packaging portfolio by 2025 and 50% recycled content by 2030 seemed—at least at the time—to set a strong standard for the industry. While Coca-Cola reports that it’s on track for the 100% recyclable goal, the lack of progress on recycled content and collection rates suggests deeper systemic problems. Existing recycling infrastructure, consumer collection patterns, and the complexities of global supply chains have proved challenging, if not insurmountable, under the original timeline.
It’s also notable that Coca-Cola is scrapping its 25% refillable container goal. This backpedal raises questions about the brand’s willingness to invest in more circular delivery models. While the company states it will continue to invest where refillable infrastructure exists, its decision not to maintain a formal goal signals a less ambitious approach. Instead, Coca-Cola now seems to be doubling down on “Design” and “Partner to Collect” strategies—tactics that may be more modest and incremental than transformative.
Another significant shift is in the climate domain. Coca-Cola has replaced its absolute emissions reduction target with a more flexible goal aligned to a 1.5°C trajectory. While that sounds positive, the absence of a clear absolute reduction figure feels like the company giving itself more leeway in future assessments. The Science-Based Targets initiative had previously classified Coca-Cola’s old target as aligned with a 2°C scenario; it’s encouraging that Coca-Cola now aims for a 1.5°C alignment, but the lack of absolute targets and the reset baseline year raises the question: Is this really a tightening of ambition or a reshuffling of metrics?
Finally, the removal of a formal agriculture goal—once a key pillar of Coca-Cola’s sustainable sourcing vision—further clouds the picture. The company insists it will continue working with suppliers to promote sustainable farming practices, but without a tangible deadline or percentage-based objective, how will stakeholders gauge progress or hold Coca-Cola accountable?
In essence, this reset underscores the messy reality of corporate sustainability. Coca-Cola is neither the first nor the last company to recalibrate its goals when faced with operational challenges. Yet, these revised targets come at a time when the public expects more transparency, ambition, and follow-through, not less. The updated 2035 commitments may be more “realistic,” but they also risk sounding like a retreat from the bold leadership that industry leaders are increasingly being asked to show. Whether these adjustments ultimately prove constructive or disappointing will depend on Coca-Cola’s ability to demonstrate real-world impact rather than simply resetting the bar.
Leave a Reply