Climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing global challenges confronting governments, corporations, regulators, and society in the twenty-first century ([25]; [153]). Increasing scientific evidence regarding rising global temperatures, biodiversity loss, ecological degradation, and extreme weather events has intensified international calls for urgent climate action and carbon reduction strategies ([107]). In response, the global sustainability agenda has increasingly centered on climate change mitigation, decarbonization, and the transition toward net-zero emissions ([26]). The adoption of the Paris Agreement represented a major turning point in global climate governance by committing nations to limit global warming and pursue pathways toward carbon neutrality ([50]). Consequently, governments, multinational corporations, financial institutions, and international organizations have embraced net-zero targets as central mechanisms for addressing climate-related risks and demonstrating environmental responsibility ([180]; [36]).

Against this backdrop, corporate net-zero commitments have proliferated rapidly across industries including energy, manufacturing, finance, transportation, technology, and consumer goods. Large corporations increasingly publicize ambitious climate pledges, often promising to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier ([74]). These commitments are frequently embedded within broader Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies and sustainability agendas aimed at responding to growing societal demands for responsible corporate conduct ([53]). Investors, regulators, consumers, and civil society organizations now exert considerable pressure on firms to disclose climate-related risks, carbon footprints, and sustainability performance ([139]). As a result, sustainability reporting and climate disclosures have become integral components of modern corporate communication and governance structures ([77]; [20]).

The rise of sustainability accounting and ESG reporting has significantly transformed the nature and scope of corporate reporting practices ([59]). Traditional accounting systems, historically focused on financial performance and shareholder wealth maximization, are increasingly expected to incorporate environmental and social dimensions of organizational performance ([27]). Various international frameworks and standards, including those promoted by the Global Reporting Initiative, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and the International Sustainability Standards Board, have accelerated the institutionalization of climate-related disclosures within corporate reporting systems ([195]). These frameworks encourage organizations to report emissions data, climate risks, decarbonization strategies, and progress toward sustainability targets. Consequently, climate disclosures are increasingly portrayed as mechanisms for promoting transparency, accountability, and stakeholder trust ([72]).

Despite the growing prominence of net-zero reporting, substantial concerns remain regarding the credibility, transparency, and accountability of many corporate climate commitments. Critics argue that a significant proportion of net-zero pledges are vague, unsubstantiated, and heavily dependent on future technological assumptions or carbon offsetting mechanisms rather than genuine emissions reductions ([70]). In many instances, corporations continue environmentally destructive operations while simultaneously presenting themselves as sustainability leaders through carefully crafted climate narratives and symbolic disclosures ([189]). Such practices have intensified scholarly and public concerns regarding corporate greenwashing, whereby organizations selectively disclose environmental information or exaggerate sustainability achievements to create favorable public impressions without undertaking meaningful environmental transformation ([63]).

Corporate greenwashing has become increasingly sophisticated within the contemporary ESG and sustainability reporting environment ([82]; [109]). Sustainability reports, integrated reports, and climate disclosures often function not merely as accountability tools but also as instruments of legitimacy construction, reputation management, and stakeholder persuasion ([52]). Firms may strategically emphasize selective environmental achievements while omitting material information concerning emissions, pollution, or climate risks. The growing reliance on voluntary disclosures further exacerbates these concerns because firms retain substantial discretion over what information is disclosed, how it is measured, and how sustainability performance is framed ([132]). Consequently, questions arise regarding whether net-zero reporting genuinely advances ecological accountability or merely reproduces symbolic forms of corporate legitimacy under the guise of sustainability.

Accounting and reporting systems occupy a central position within these debates because they shape how environmental performance is measured, communicated, verified, and governed ([144]). Accounting is not a neutral or purely technical practice; rather, it is deeply implicated in broader social, political, and economic processes ([103]). Sustainability accounting and climate reporting influence organizational priorities, stakeholder perceptions, resource allocation decisions, and regulatory responses ([198]). From a critical accounting perspective, corporate reporting practices can serve ideological functions by legitimizing existing economic arrangements and reinforcing corporate power structures ([21]). The increasing integration of climate issues into accounting frameworks therefore necessitates critical examination of the extent to which sustainability reporting promotes substantive accountability or facilitates the continuation of environmentally harmful business practices through symbolic compliance ([111]).

The rapid growth of voluntary climate disclosures reflects increasing pressure from investors, governments, international institutions, activists, and consumers for greater environmental transparency ([39]). Institutional investors increasingly consider climate-related risks in investment decisions, while regulators in several jurisdictions are moving toward mandatory climate disclosure regimes ([120]). Simultaneously, corporations face mounting reputational pressures to demonstrate alignment with sustainability goals and stakeholder expectations. However, this environment also creates tensions between genuine accountability and corporate image management. Organizations may seek to balance societal expectations with profit-maximization objectives by strategically deploying sustainability narratives that enhance legitimacy without fundamentally altering underlying business models ([115]). Consequently, net-zero reporting exists within a contested space where transparency, accountability, symbolism, and impression management intersect.

These developments underscore the importance of adopting critical accounting perspectives in examining net-zero reporting and corporate greenwashing. Critical accounting scholarship challenges the assumption that reporting practices are objective representations of organizational reality and instead emphasizes the political, ideological, and power-laden dimensions of accounting systems ([49]). Applying a critical lens to net-zero reporting allows for deeper interrogation of how sustainability disclosures may obscure contradictions between corporate environmental rhetoric and actual ecological impacts ([38]; [105]). It also enables examination of the broader structural and institutional conditions that permit greenwashing practices to persist within neoliberal market systems.

Notwithstanding the increasing volume of sustainability disclosures and corporate climate commitments, significant gaps remain in understanding how accounting and reporting systems may enable or constrain greenwashing practices within net-zero agendas. Much contemporary corporate reporting continues to prioritize symbolic legitimacy and investor-oriented narratives over substantive ecological accountability ([94]; [46]). This raises important concerns regarding the effectiveness of existing sustainability reporting frameworks in addressing climate change and promoting genuine corporate responsibility.

Against this background, the aim of this paper is to critically examine how net-zero practices may facilitate corporate greenwashing from a critical accounting perspective. Specifically, the paper seeks to analyze how corporations utilize sustainability disclosures and climate reporting practices to construct legitimacy, manage stakeholder perceptions, and potentially obscure environmental contradictions. The paper also evaluates the role of accounting frameworks, ESG reporting systems, and sustainability governance mechanisms in either facilitating or constraining greenwashing practices.

Accordingly, the central research question guiding the paper is: Under what conditions do corporate net-zero disclosures strengthen substantive climate accountability, and under what conditions do they function primarily as symbolic devices that facilitate greenwashing?

This study contributes to the growing literature on sustainability accounting and critical accounting by providing a critical analysis of the political and ideological dimensions of net-zero reporting. Unlike conventional studies that treat climate disclosures primarily as technical or managerial tools, this paper interrogates the broader social, institutional, and power-related implications of sustainability reporting practices. In doing so, the study contributes to ongoing debates concerning corporate accountability, ecological governance, and the transformative potential of accounting in addressing contemporary environmental crises.

This paper adopts a theory-led conceptual review rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis. Consistent with guidance on rigorous literature reviews and conceptual articles ([169]; [108]), its purpose is to synthesize and critically interrogate established and emerging ideas across sustainability accounting, climate governance and corporate communication, and to use theory to explain when net-zero disclosure is more likely to support accountability or symbolic legitimacy.

Literature identification was purposive but structured. The review was updated through September 2026 and considered peer-reviewed studies in accounting, management, business ethics, sustainability and climate governance, with priority given to work published in journals indexed in major multidisciplinary databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. Supplementary searches used Google Scholar and publisher search interfaces, while authoritative institutional and regulatory materials were drawn from sources including the IPCC, UN/UNFCCC, IFRS Foundation/ISSB, GRI and relevant public regulators. Search combinations included “net-zero” AND disclosure/reporting/accountability/greenwashing; “climate disclosure” AND legitimacy/impression management/political economy; “carbon offset*” AND greenwashing/additionality/permanence; “Scope 3” AND disclosure/comparability; and the terms “sustainability assurance”, “ESG ratings”, and “mandatory climate disclosure”. Foundational sources published before the recent net-zero literature were retained where they were central to the theoretical framing.

Sources were included when they directly addressed corporate climate disclosure, net-zero commitments, emissions accounting, offsets, sustainability assurance, ESG ratings, greenwashing, or the political economy of environmental reporting. Sources were deprioritized when they were purely technical, unrelated to corporate reporting or accountability, duplicative, or offered unsupported commentary without a clear evidentiary or theoretical basis. Evidence extraction focused on five recurring dimensions: target design and interim milestones; emissions boundary and Scope 3 coverage; absolute versus intensity-based reductions; dependence on offsets and removals; and verification, assurance and enforcement. These dimensions were then compared across the theoretical lenses used in the paper.

Critical accounting and political economy perspectives were used to interrogate power, financialization and the institutional interests embedded in climate-reporting systems; legitimacy and impression-management perspectives were used to interpret symbolic disclosure and reputational strategies; and stakeholder theory was used to assess whose information needs and accountability claims are recognized or marginalized. The resulting synthesis is interpretive and theory-building rather than a statistical estimate of the prevalence of greenwashing. Accordingly, statements about corporate practices in the sections that follow should be read as patterns and arguments supported by the reviewed literature, not as population-level prevalence claims.

The evolution of net-zero reporting is closely intertwined with broader transformations in global sustainability governance, environmental accountability, and responsible investment practices ([65]). Over the past two decades, climate change has shifted from being viewed primarily as an environmental issue to becoming a central economic, political, and financial concern ([155]). This transformation has fundamentally altered corporate reporting landscapes, leading organizations to increasingly incorporate climate-related risks, carbon emissions, and sustainability commitments into mainstream reporting practices ([150]). The emergence of net-zero reporting reflects not only growing societal awareness of climate change but also changing expectations regarding the role of corporations in addressing environmental and social challenges ([37]).

One of the major drivers of the evolution of net-zero reporting has been the rapid emergence and expansion of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing ([197]). ESG investing refers to investment approaches that integrate environmental, social, and governance considerations into financial decision-making processes ([73]). Traditionally, corporate performance was evaluated primarily through financial indicators such as profitability, liquidity, and shareholder returns ([98]). However, increasing recognition of climate-related financial risks, reputational concerns, and sustainability challenges has encouraged investors to broaden evaluation criteria beyond purely financial metrics. Institutional investors, asset managers, pension funds, and financial institutions now increasingly consider corporate climate strategies, emissions performance, and sustainability disclosures as critical determinants of long-term value creation and investment risk ([119]).

The growth of ESG investing has significantly contributed to the institutionalization of net-zero reporting within corporate governance structures ([89]). Investors increasingly demand transparent climate disclosures, carbon reduction strategies, and measurable sustainability targets from corporations seeking access to capital markets ([18]). Major financial institutions and asset management firms have publicly emphasized the importance of climate-related accountability and sustainable business practices ([93]). Consequently, firms are under mounting pressure to demonstrate alignment with sustainability objectives through ESG reports, integrated reports, and net-zero commitments ([84]). The rise of ESG investment indices, sustainability rankings, and responsible investment frameworks has further reinforced the commercial significance of climate-related reporting ([186]).

Parallel to the growth of ESG investing has been the rise of climate governance at both national and international levels ([68]). Climate governance refers to the frameworks, institutions, policies, and regulatory mechanisms established to coordinate responses to climate change across governments, corporations, civil society, and international organizations ([44]). The increasing severity of climate crises and scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming have intensified demands for coordinated climate action and accountability. Governments and regulatory bodies across the world have progressively introduced policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy transitions, and strengthening environmental reporting requirements.

A pivotal milestone in the development of global climate governance was the adoption of the Paris Agreement during the twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP21) in 2015. The Paris Agreement established an international commitment to limit global temperature increases to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to restrict warming to 1.5°C ([181]). Importantly, the agreement accelerated global momentum toward net-zero emissions targets by encouraging countries and organizations to pursue long-term decarbonization pathways ([4]). In the aftermath of the Paris Agreement, numerous governments, multinational corporations, financial institutions, and cities announced net-zero commitments aligned with global climate goals ([96]). Consequently, the language of “net-zero”, “carbon neutrality”, and “climate transition” rapidly entered mainstream corporate reporting and sustainability discourse ([65]).

The influence of international climate agreements has also intensified pressure from institutional investors and financial stakeholders for enhanced climate accountability. Large institutional investors increasingly recognize climate change as a systemic financial risk capable of affecting asset valuations, operational continuity, and long-term economic stability ([136]). As a result, investors now demand greater transparency regarding corporate exposure to climate-related risks, emissions trajectories, and transition strategies. Shareholder activism surrounding environmental issues has also intensified, with investors increasingly engaging corporations on climate governance, emissions reduction targets, and sustainability reporting practices ([79]). This evolving investment environment has compelled corporations to incorporate climate disclosures and net-zero commitments into strategic communication and governance frameworks in order to maintain legitimacy and investor confidence.

The growing prominence of climate-related reporting has simultaneously contributed to the development of sustainability assurance practices. Sustainability assurance refers to the independent verification and evaluation of sustainability disclosures, ESG reports, and non-financial information provided by corporations ([141]). As sustainability reporting expanded, concerns emerged regarding the reliability, comparability, and credibility of corporate climate disclosures. Stakeholders increasingly questioned whether firms’ sustainability claims accurately reflected underlying environmental performance or merely represented symbolic public relations exercises. In response, assurance services developed as mechanisms intended to enhance trust, transparency, and accountability within sustainability reporting processes.

Professional accounting firms, including the major global assurance providers such as Deloitte, PwC, KPMG, and EY, have increasingly expanded their sustainability assurance services to address growing corporate and investor demand for verified ESG disclosures ([78]). Sustainability assurance now encompasses verification of emissions data, climate risk assessments, carbon accounting systems, and progress toward net-zero targets. Nevertheless, critical scholars argue that sustainability assurance remains characterized by methodological inconsistencies, weak regulatory oversight, and potential conflicts of interest arising from the commercial relationships between corporations and assurance providers ([35]). Consequently, questions remain regarding the extent to which sustainability assurance genuinely strengthens accountability or merely reinforces corporate legitimacy.

The evolution of net-zero reporting is also evident in the increasing adoption of net-zero language within corporate communication and reporting practices ([161]). Organizations across diverse sectors now routinely integrate climate-related terminology such as “net-zero emissions”, “carbon neutrality”, “decarbonization”, “climate resilience”, and “sustainable transition” into annual reports, sustainability reports, investor presentations, and corporate mission statements. This shift reflects both growing stakeholder expectations and the strategic value of sustainability narratives within competitive markets ([124]). Net-zero language has become an important mechanism through which corporations seek to position themselves as environmentally responsible and future-oriented organizations.

Simultaneously, the volume and sophistication of sustainability reports and integrated reports have expanded significantly over recent decades. Sustainability reporting has evolved from peripheral environmental disclosures into highly institutionalized reporting practices embedded within corporate governance systems. Many corporations now produce standalone sustainability reports or integrated reports combining financial and non-financial information to demonstrate long-term value creation and stakeholder accountability ([72]). Integrated reporting frameworks encourage firms to explain how environmental, social, governance, and financial factors interact to influence organizational performance and sustainability outcomes. This reporting evolution reflects broader shifts toward stakeholder-oriented governance and increasing recognition of environmental and social risks within corporate strategy.

The expansion of voluntary disclosure regimes has further accelerated the development of net-zero reporting ([118]). Various international frameworks and disclosure initiatives, including the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, the Global Reporting Initiative, the Carbon Disclosure Project, and the International Sustainability Standards Board, have established guidelines aimed at standardizing climate-related reporting and improving transparency. These frameworks encourage organizations to disclose emissions data, climate risks, governance structures, sustainability strategies, and progress toward net-zero targets. Although many disclosure initiatives remain voluntary, they exert significant normative and institutional pressures on corporations to conform to emerging expectations concerning climate accountability and sustainability governance ([8]).

However, the expansion of voluntary disclosure regimes has also generated important criticisms and tensions. Critics argue that voluntary reporting frameworks often grant corporations substantial discretion regarding what information is disclosed, how emissions are measured, and which sustainability indicators are prioritized ([132]). This flexibility may facilitate selective reporting, symbolic disclosures, and impression management practices that undermine substantive accountability. Moreover, the increasing commercialization of ESG reporting and sustainability rankings has contributed to concerns that climate disclosures may prioritize reputational management and investor appeasement over genuine ecological transformation ([52]).

The rapid expansion of corporate net-zero commitments and sustainability disclosures has intensified concerns regarding the use of climate reporting as a mechanism of corporate greenwashing ([81]). While organizations increasingly portray themselves as environmentally responsible actors committed to climate mitigation and sustainable development, critical scholarship questions whether many net-zero initiatives represent substantive ecological transformation or merely symbolic legitimacy strategies ([52]). Within contemporary capitalism, sustainability reporting frequently operates at the intersection of accountability, reputation management, and market positioning ([134]). Consequently, net-zero reporting has become a contested arena in which firms seek to reconcile increasing societal expectations for environmental responsibility with the imperatives of profit maximization, shareholder value creation, and continued economic growth. From a critical accounting perspective, corporate climate disclosures may therefore function less as mechanisms of genuine accountability and more as instruments for constructing favorable environmental narratives while preserving environmentally harmful business practices.

The growing institutionalization of net-zero reporting and sustainability disclosures has significant implications for accounting, accountability, and the broader political economy of climate governance. While contemporary corporate reporting increasingly incorporates climate-related information, critical accounting scholars argue that many sustainability initiatives remain embedded within neoliberal market logics that prioritize economic growth, capital accumulation, and shareholder value maximization over genuine ecological transformation ([90]; [28]). Consequently, climate accounting and net-zero reporting cannot be understood merely as neutral technical practices; rather, they are deeply political processes that shape how environmental problems are defined, measured, governed, and ultimately managed. From this perspective, contemporary sustainability reporting frameworks may simultaneously enhance visibility around climate issues while constraining the possibility of more radical ecological and socio-economic change.

The rapid expansion of corporate net-zero commitments and sustainability disclosures has generated increasing concerns regarding greenwashing, disclosure reliability, and the effectiveness of voluntary climate accountability mechanisms. In response, regulators, standard setters, international organizations, and policymakers across the world have begun developing new governance frameworks aimed at strengthening climate-related disclosures, enhancing sustainability assurance practices, and limiting misleading environmental claims ([77]). These emerging regulatory and governance responses reflect growing recognition that voluntary sustainability reporting alone may be insufficient to ensure meaningful corporate accountability for climate impacts ([6]). Consequently, the contemporary regulatory landscape increasingly emphasizes standardization, comparability, transparency, and enforceability within sustainability accounting and reporting systems.

One of the most significant developments in this regard is the growing movement toward mandatory climate-related disclosures. Historically, sustainability reporting largely operated within voluntary disclosure regimes, allowing corporations considerable discretion regarding what environmental information they disclosed and how such information was presented ([90]). However, mounting evidence of selective reporting, inconsistent methodologies, and symbolic sustainability narratives has intensified calls for mandatory disclosure requirements capable of improving accountability and reducing greenwashing practices.

Mandatory climate disclosure frameworks aim to ensure that corporations systematically report material climate-related risks, greenhouse gas emissions, transition plans, and sustainability performance indicators in standardized formats. Such requirements seek to enhance the comparability and reliability of climate information available to investors, regulators, and broader stakeholders. Increasingly, policymakers argue that climate risks constitute financially material issues that should be integrated into mainstream corporate reporting systems rather than treated as optional sustainability disclosures ([71]).

A major milestone in the institutionalization of mandatory sustainability reporting is the development of the International Sustainability Standards Board under the oversight of the IFRS Foundation. The ISSB was established to develop globally consistent sustainability disclosure standards designed to improve transparency and comparability in sustainability reporting. In 2023, the ISSB issued its first IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, including IFRS S1 on general sustainability-related disclosures and IFRS S2 on climate-related disclosures ([196]). These standards seek to integrate sustainability reporting into broader financial reporting systems by requiring organizations to disclose climate risks, governance arrangements, emissions data, and transition strategies relevant to enterprise value creation.

The emergence of IFRS Sustainability Standards represents an important shift toward formalizing sustainability reporting within global accounting governance structures. By embedding climate-related disclosures within standardized reporting frameworks, regulators and standard setters aim to reduce reporting inconsistencies and improve stakeholder confidence in sustainability information. Nevertheless, critical scholars caution that the IFRS framework remains heavily oriented toward investor-focused materiality and financial market concerns, potentially limiting broader forms of ecological and social accountability ([80]). Thus, while standardization may strengthen disclosure consistency, questions remain regarding whether such frameworks sufficiently address the deeper structural drivers of environmental degradation.

The European Commission has also emerged as a leading actor in sustainability reporting reform through the introduction of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) ([142]). The CSRD significantly expands corporate sustainability disclosure requirements across the European Union by mandating detailed reporting on environmental, social, and governance issues, including climate change, biodiversity, human rights, and sustainability risks ([143]). Unlike many previous voluntary reporting frameworks, the CSRD introduces legally enforceable disclosure obligations and requires sustainability information to be subject to independent assurance processes.

A particularly important innovation within the CSRD framework is its emphasis on “double materiality”. Under this approach, corporations are required not only to disclose how sustainability issues affect financial performance but also how organizational activities impact society and the environment ([69]). This broader conception of accountability reflects growing recognition that sustainability reporting should extend beyond narrow investor interests to encompass wider ecological and social consequences ([5]). The CSRD therefore represents a potentially significant departure from purely market-centered sustainability governance approaches.

In the United States, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has similarly advanced proposals aimed at strengthening climate-related disclosure requirements for publicly listed companies ([55]). The SEC’s climate disclosure proposals seek to require firms to disclose climate-related risks, governance structures, emissions data, and transition strategies within annual financial filings ([56]). The proposals also emphasize the disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, with Scope 3 disclosures required under certain materiality conditions. These reforms reflect growing regulatory recognition that climate-related information is increasingly relevant to investment decision-making and financial market stability.

However, the SEC proposals have also generated substantial political and corporate resistance. Critics argue that mandatory climate disclosures may impose significant compliance costs, create legal uncertainties, and expand corporate reporting burdens ([87]). Others contend that the proposals remain insufficiently ambitious because they continue to prioritize financial materiality over broader ecological accountability. The debates surrounding SEC climate disclosure reforms therefore illustrate the contested political terrain of sustainability governance and the tensions between market-oriented regulation and transformative environmental accountability.

Alongside disclosure reforms, growing attention has also been directed toward sustainability assurance standards and the credibility of climate-related reporting. As sustainability disclosures become increasingly institutionalized, stakeholders have demanded greater verification of emissions data, net-zero claims, and ESG performance metrics. In response, standard setters and professional accounting bodies have begun developing assurance frameworks aimed at improving the reliability and integrity of sustainability information ([141]).

The role of assurance providers, including major accounting firms such as Deloitte, PwC, KPMG, and EY, has expanded significantly within the sustainability reporting landscape ([17]). These firms increasingly offer climate assurance, ESG verification, and sustainability consulting services designed to strengthen stakeholder trust in corporate disclosures. Regulatory reforms such as the CSRD now require external assurance of sustainability reports, thereby elevating the role of assurance within corporate climate accountability systems.

Nevertheless, critical concerns remain regarding the effectiveness and independence of sustainability assurance practices. Sustainability assurance standards remain less mature and less standardized than conventional financial auditing frameworks, resulting in methodological inconsistencies and varying levels of assurance quality ([35]). Furthermore, potential conflicts of interest persist because many accounting firms simultaneously provide both assurance and consulting services to the same corporate clients. Consequently, critics question whether sustainability assurance genuinely enhances accountability or merely legitimizes corporate sustainability narratives.

In addition to disclosure and assurance reforms, governments and regulatory authorities are increasingly introducing anti-greenwashing regulations designed to combat misleading environmental claims and deceptive sustainability marketing practices. Greenwashing concerns have intensified as corporations increasingly use sustainability language, net-zero commitments, and ESG branding in advertising campaigns, investor communications, and public relations strategies ([63]). Regulators therefore seek to ensure that environmental claims are accurate, verifiable, and supported by credible evidence.

The European Union has taken significant steps in this area through initiatives targeting misleading environmental marketing and unsubstantiated sustainability claims. Proposed regulations such as the Green Claims Directive aim to require firms to substantiate environmental claims using scientifically verified methodologies and transparent evidence ([127]). These reforms seek to protect consumers and investors from deceptive sustainability narratives while strengthening confidence in environmental disclosures.

Similarly, financial regulators in several jurisdictions have increased scrutiny of ESG investment products and sustainability-labeled financial instruments. Regulatory authorities increasingly recognize that misleading ESG claims may distort investment decisions and undermine trust in sustainable finance markets ([168]). Consequently, anti-greenwashing enforcement has become an emerging priority within contemporary financial governance systems.

Another important governance response to corporate greenwashing involves the growing rise of climate litigation. Climate-related legal actions against corporations, governments, and financial institutions have increased substantially in recent years as stakeholders seek stronger accountability for environmental harms and misleading climate claims ([160]). Climate litigation now represents an important mechanism through which civil society organizations, investors, consumers, and affected communities challenge corporate climate practices and sustainability disclosures.

Climate litigation cases increasingly target alleged inconsistencies between corporate net-zero commitments and actual operational practices ([74]). Firms accused of misleading investors or consumers regarding climate performance may face legal challenges related to false advertising, securities fraud, or breaches of fiduciary duties ([193]). Litigation therefore introduces new forms of legal accountability capable of exposing discrepancies between sustainability rhetoric and substantive environmental performance.

Moreover, climate litigation reflects broader shifts toward recognizing climate change as a matter of legal responsibility and human rights accountability rather than merely voluntary corporate responsibility ([158]). Legal actions increasingly challenge corporations not only for emissions contributions but also for inadequate climate transition planning, failure to disclose climate risks, and greenwashing practices. Consequently, climate litigation has emerged as a potentially powerful mechanism for strengthening corporate accountability beyond traditional voluntary reporting systems ([183]).

The United Nations has also played a significant role in shaping global sustainability governance and promoting climate accountability initiatives ([31]). Through frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement, and various climate governance initiatives, the United Nations has encouraged governments and corporations to adopt more transparent and accountable sustainability practices ([182]). The UN has repeatedly emphasized the importance of credible net-zero commitments, warning against the risks of greenwashing and calling for stronger accountability mechanisms capable of ensuring substantive climate action ([185]).

Integrated reporting reforms further reflect attempts to strengthen connections between financial performance, sustainability governance, and long-term value creation ([175]). Integrated reporting frameworks encourage organizations to disclose how environmental, social, and governance factors interact with financial performance and organizational strategy ([72]). By integrating sustainability considerations into mainstream corporate reporting, integrated reporting seeks to move beyond fragmented disclosure systems and promote more holistic accountability approaches.

However, critical scholars caution that integrated reporting reforms may still remain constrained by dominant financial logics and shareholder-oriented governance structures. While integrated reporting broadens the scope of corporate disclosures, it often continues to prioritize enterprise value creation and investor materiality rather than ecological sustainability or social justice concerns ([80]). Consequently, integrated reporting may improve transparency without fundamentally transforming the economic assumptions underpinning corporate environmental practices.

The limitations and contradictions associated with contemporary net-zero reporting and sustainability disclosures underscore the urgent need to fundamentally rethink the role of accounting in society. Critical accounting scholars increasingly argue that existing accounting systems remain deeply embedded within shareholder capitalism and neoliberal economic structures that prioritize financial growth, capital accumulation, and market efficiency over ecological sustainability and social justice ([90]; [27]). Consequently, sustainability accounting reforms that merely extend conventional reporting frameworks without challenging underlying assumptions regarding value, accountability, and organizational purpose are unlikely to adequately address contemporary environmental crises. Reimagining accounting for ecological accountability therefore requires transformative approaches capable of moving beyond narrow financial logics toward more holistic, democratic, and justice-oriented models of accountability.

One of the central challenges confronting contemporary accounting lies in its historical alignment with shareholder capitalism. Conventional accounting systems were primarily developed to facilitate industrial expansion, investor decision-making, and shareholder wealth maximization ([199]). Corporate reporting frameworks therefore privilege financial profitability, market valuation, and economic growth as dominant indicators of organizational success ([2]). Within this model, environmental and social concerns are often considered secondary unless they materially affect financial performance or investor returns.

However, the accelerating climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and widening social inequalities increasingly expose the inadequacy of shareholder-centered governance models. Critical scholars argue that accounting cannot remain confined to serving the informational needs of investors and financial markets while ignoring broader ecological and societal consequences of corporate activity ([62]). A transformative sustainability agenda therefore requires moving beyond shareholder capitalism toward governance systems that recognize corporations as socially embedded institutions with responsibilities extending beyond capital providers to wider communities, ecosystems, and future generations ([66]).

This reorientation creates important space for the development of ecological accounting approaches. Ecological accounting seeks to integrate environmental limits, ecosystem interdependence, and sustainability principles into accounting systems and organizational decision-making processes ([184]). Unlike traditional accounting, which primarily measures economic transactions and financial outcomes, ecological accounting attempts to recognize the material realities of environmental degradation, resource depletion, carbon emissions, and ecosystem destruction.

Ecological accounting challenges the anthropocentric and growth-oriented assumptions underpinning conventional accounting models by emphasizing that economic systems are ultimately dependent upon ecological systems for survival and continuity. From this perspective, sustainability cannot be reduced merely to maintaining economic growth while minimizing environmental harm; rather, it requires recognizing planetary boundaries and ecological limits to production and consumption ([102]). Consequently, ecological accounting seeks to develop accounting practices capable of reflecting environmental interdependencies, long-term ecological consequences, and the intrinsic value of natural systems beyond their market price.

Such approaches also require broadening the conceptualization of organizational accountability. Traditional accounting systems largely operate within financial and legal accountability frameworks focused on shareholders, regulators, and creditors. However, ecological accountability demands recognition that corporate actions affect diverse stakeholders, including workers, local communities, indigenous populations, non-human species, and future generations ([28]). This broader conception of accountability therefore necessitates multi-stakeholder accountability models capable of incorporating diverse voices, interests, and forms of knowledge into sustainability governance processes.

Multi-stakeholder accountability models challenge hierarchical and market-centered governance structures by emphasizing participation, dialogue, and democratic engagement within sustainability reporting and decision-making processes. Rather than treating sustainability disclosures primarily as investor communication tools, these models encourage organizations to engage more substantively with affected communities, civil society organizations, environmental advocates, and marginalized groups disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation ([147]). Such engagement can help strengthen transparency, legitimacy, and responsiveness within sustainability governance systems while reducing opportunities for symbolic reporting and greenwashing.

Importantly, reimagining accounting for ecological accountability also requires integrating principles of social and environmental justice into sustainability reporting frameworks. Climate change and ecological degradation do not affect all populations equally; vulnerable communities, particularly in developing countries, often bear disproportionate environmental burdens despite contributing least to global emissions ([159]). Consequently, sustainability accounting must move beyond technocratic carbon measurement toward more critical analyses of inequality, power relations, and distributive justice.

From a critical perspective, environmental accountability cannot be separated from broader struggles concerning labor exploitation, resource extraction, colonial legacies, and global economic inequality. Net-zero reporting frameworks that focus narrowly on emissions reductions while ignoring social justice implications risk reproducing existing structural inequalities and legitimizing unsustainable development pathways ([178]). Therefore, genuinely transformative sustainability accounting must address not only environmental performance but also issues such as human rights, environmental racism, indigenous sovereignty, and equitable access to ecological resources.

The pursuit of genuine sustainability accountability further requires stronger ethical orientations within accounting education and professional practice. Historically, accounting education has often emphasized technical competence, regulatory compliance, and financial efficiency while giving limited attention to ethics, critical thinking, and social responsibility ([104]). However, the complexity of contemporary climate crises demands accounting professionals capable of critically evaluating the ethical implications of corporate reporting practices, sustainability claims, and environmental governance systems.

Critical sustainability education in accounting can therefore play a crucial role in reshaping the future direction of the discipline. Such educational approaches encourage students and practitioners to question taken-for-granted assumptions regarding profit maximization, economic growth, and market rationality while fostering greater awareness of the social, political, and ecological consequences of accounting practices ([156]). By incorporating critical theory, environmental ethics, sustainability governance, and ecological economics into accounting curricula, educational institutions can help cultivate professionals better equipped to address contemporary sustainability challenges.

Moreover, sustainability education should encourage reflexivity and ethical judgment rather than merely technical compliance with reporting standards ([16]). Accounting professionals increasingly operate within contexts characterized by ambiguity, competing stakeholder interests, and complex sustainability trade-offs. Consequently, developing capacities for critical reflection, ethical reasoning, and democratic engagement becomes essential for advancing meaningful ecological accountability ([163]).

Reimagining accounting also requires redefining societal understandings of value beyond narrow measures of profit and economic growth. Conventional accounting systems prioritize quantifiable financial indicators such as earnings, shareholder returns, and GDP growth while marginalizing social well-being, ecological integrity, and community resilience ([173]). However, climate crises increasingly reveal the limitations of growth-centered economic models that externalize environmental costs and prioritize short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability.

Broader measures of value are therefore necessary to support more sustainable and equitable forms of governance ([3]). Such measures may include indicators relating to ecological health, biodiversity preservation, social inclusion, public well-being, and intergenerational equity. Integrating these dimensions into accounting and reporting systems can help shift organizational priorities away from purely financial performance toward more holistic understandings of sustainable value creation.

Public-interest-focused sustainability reporting also represents an important dimension of transformative accounting reform ([133]). Rather than serving primarily as tools for investor decision-making and corporate reputation management, sustainability reports should function as mechanisms for democratic accountability and public transparency. This requires stronger regulatory oversight, more participatory governance structures, and greater emphasis on substantive environmental performance rather than symbolic disclosure practices.

Ultimately, reimagining accounting for ecological accountability involves recognizing that accounting is not a neutral technical exercise but a socially constructed practice that shapes organizational behavior, societal priorities, and environmental governance outcomes ([48]). Accounting systems influence what organizations measure, value, disclose, and prioritize. Consequently, transforming accounting practices is central to broader efforts aimed at addressing climate change, promoting social justice, and advancing sustainable futures ([179]).

This paper has critically examined the relationship between net-zero reporting and corporate greenwashing within contemporary sustainability accounting practices. In direct response to the central research question, the reviewed literature suggests that net-zero disclosure is more likely to strengthen substantive climate accountability when commitments contain credible interim targets, comprehensive material emissions boundaries including Scope 3, priority to absolute emissions reductions, restrained and transparent use of offsets, and meaningful external verification and enforcement. Where these conditions are absent, disclosure is more likely to operate as a symbolic legitimacy device, particularly when distant aspirations, selective metrics or offset dependence allow underlying carbon-intensive activities to remain largely unchanged.

The synthesis further indicates that net-zero reporting can facilitate greenwashing when sustainability disclosures are used strategically to manage stakeholder perceptions, maintain legitimacy and protect corporate image without commensurate changes in environmentally harmful business models. The literature reviewed in this paper associates symbolic climate commitments, selective emissions reporting, weak assurance and the commercialization of ESG disclosures with accountability deficits in climate governance. These patterns support the argument that sustainability reporting may function as impression management when disclosure quality is not matched by verifiable real-economy decarbonization.

The paper further highlights the importance of critical accounting perspectives for interpreting the political, social and ideological dimensions of sustainability reporting. Rather than demonstrating a universal empirical condition, critical accounting provides a lens for examining how accounting practices are intertwined with power relations, accumulation processes and governance systems. Political economy and stakeholder perspectives similarly direct attention to who defines materiality, whose interests are prioritized and which ecological consequences remain outside investor-centred reporting boundaries.

Moreover, the analysis illustrates that conventional accounting systems remain fundamentally limited in their ability to adequately capture ecological destruction, environmental interdependence, and long-term sustainability challenges. Traditional profit-centered reporting models frequently externalize environmental costs and privilege financial materiality over substantive ecological accountability. Consequently, sustainability reporting reforms that fail to challenge the underlying assumptions of shareholder capitalism and growth-oriented governance are unlikely to produce meaningful environmental transformation.

The reviewed literature also indicates that emerging regulatory and governance responses, including mandatory climate disclosures, sustainability assurance standards, anti-greenwashing rules and climate litigation, can strengthen corporate accountability. Their effectiveness, however, depends on the scope of mandatory reporting, the treatment of Scope 3 emissions and offsets, assurance quality, enforcement capacity and the extent to which accountability extends beyond investor-focused financial materiality. Improving sustainability reporting therefore requires not only stronger technical standards but also governance arrangements capable of constraining opportunistic reporting choices.

Ultimately, this paper argues for a fundamental reorientation of accounting toward ecological sustainability, democratic accountability, and social justice. Reimagining accounting for ecological accountability requires moving beyond narrow shareholder-centered models toward broader multi-stakeholder approaches that recognize the interconnectedness of economic activity, environmental systems, and societal well-being. It also requires stronger ethical commitments within accounting education and professional practice, greater public-interest orientation in sustainability reporting, and the development of broader measures of value that extend beyond profit maximization and financial growth.

The growing climate crisis demands stronger accountability mechanisms capable of addressing the gap between corporate climate promises and actual environmental performance. Greater transparency, enforceable reporting standards, and independent verification processes are essential for reducing greenwashing and enhancing the credibility of sustainability disclosures. More importantly, accounting systems themselves must evolve from instruments primarily serving capital accumulation toward frameworks capable of supporting ecological resilience, social equity, and long-term sustainability.

In this context, the future relevance of accounting depends on its capacity to contribute meaningfully to ecological transformation rather than merely legitimizing existing systems of unsustainable production and consumption. Accounting scholars, regulators, educators, practitioners, and policymakers therefore have a critical responsibility to advance reporting frameworks and governance structures that genuinely serve the public interest, promote environmental justice, and support the collective pursuit of sustainable and equitable futures.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments and insights of colleagues and reviewers that helped improve the development of this manuscript. The authors also appreciate the institutional and scholarly support that contributed to the completion of the study.

Conceptualization, Fredrick Asare-Appiah, Cornelius Adorm-Takyi, Emmanuel Asamoah Boye and Michaella Selasi Genego; methodology, Fredrick Asare-Appiah; formal analysis, Fredrick Asare-Appiah; investigation, Fredrick Asare-Appiah; resources, Fredrick Asare-Appiah, Cornelius Adorm-Takyi, Emmanuel Asamoah Boye and Michaella Selasi Genego; writing—original draft preparation, Fredrick Asare-Appiah; writing—review and editing, Fredrick Asare-Appiah, Cornelius Adorm-Takyi, Emmanuel Asamoah Boye and Michaella Selasi Genego; visualization, Fredrick Asare-Appiah; validation, Cornelius Adorm-Takyi, Emmanuel Asamoah Boye and Michaella Selasi Genego; supervision, Cornelius Adorm-Takyi and Emmanuel Asamoah Boye; project administration, Fredrick Asare-Appiah. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.