This is called greenwashing.
To the surprise of absolutely no one.
The report on the baddies:
https://influencemap.org/briefing/Global-Leaders-Report-23529
The report on the goodies:
https://influencemap.org/briefing/The-State-of-Net-Zero-Greenwash-24402
They’re against getting forced to do something in particular, while still voluntarily doing something else with a similar goal. Doesn’t even seem hypocritical really, they’re just not as environmentally friendly as you may have assumed.
Except they drop those ‘similar’ goals too. Amazon has essentially dropped its climate pledge and Shell has done the same. The one way they claim they are attaining those goals that they set are through carbon offsets which they do not really audit. Their goals are also fast enough off that their lack of progress on them can just be waived away since they still have years before there will be no way for them to meet the goals.
It’s very clear that their goals are really to keep the status quo as much as possible and fought any real change. Voluntary action does not work for things like this because they will still go for the cheapest option that keeps the highest profits. The dirtier option is currently the one that raises profits and these companies continually fight any legislation that actually taxes those negative externalities. So it’s not so much as ‘not as environmentally friendly as you think’ so much as they are only as environmentally friendly as required.