All Explainers
Explainer
CEA Series • Paper 3

Why Net-Zero, Safety, and Reform Pledges Fail

A binding architecture perspective on why institutional commitments routinely fail to produce outcomes.

SDGs:
13
16
17
9
Paper Overview Video

The 60-Second Version

Across climate policy, public safety, and corporate reform, institutions make increasingly precise commitments yet fail to deliver outcomes.

This isn't moral failure—it's architectural. These commitments lack the five primitives that make promises binding: persistence across turnover, constraint on future decisions, non-bypassable triggers, and automatic consequences.

This paper distinguishes signalling commitments(legitimacy without obligation) from binding commitments (structural constraint on future action).

Most pledges are signalling. They generate present legitimacy without constraining future behaviour. That's why they fail.

The Pattern: Same Failure, Different Domains

The architectural failure is identical across climate, safety, and reform:

Climate (Net-Zero)

Example: Corporate and national net-zero pledges

Architecture: Commitments made by current leaders have no binding force on future budgets, boards, or governments

→ Pledges reset with each leadership change

Safety

Example: Workplace, aviation, nuclear safety pledges

Architecture: Safety commitments get bypassed under operational pressure; enforcement requires someone to act

→ Safety erodes until a crisis forces attention

Corporate Reform

Example: Diversity, culture change, stakeholder capitalism

Architecture: Reform agendas lack structural constraints; good intentions don't survive business pressure

→ Reform initiatives fade within 2-3 years

Public Sector

Example: Government transformation programs

Architecture: New administration inherits no obligation to continue predecessor's commitments

→ Policies oscillate with electoral cycles

Signalling vs Binding Commitments

Signalling Commitment

Communicates intention without constraint:

  • Communicates intention without constraint
  • Enhances reputation in the present
  • Creates no obligation on future decisions
  • Compliance is voluntary
  • Consequences require external action

Binding Commitment

Structurally constrains future action:

  • Structurally constrains future action
  • May cost reputation in the present
  • Creates automatic obligations
  • Non-compliance triggers consequences
  • Enforcement is built into structure

Key insight: Both types look similar when announced. The difference only becomes apparent when the commitment conflicts with current interests. That's when signalling commitments evaporate and binding commitments constrain.

Part of the CEA Series

This paper applies CEA to specific domains: climate, safety, and reform. It shows why the same architectural failure produces pledge failures across domains.

Paper 1: Commitment Without Binding

The foundational framework for enforceable commitments

Paper 2: Performative Governance

Diagnosing non-binding commitments

Paper 4: From Learning to Execution

Completing the architecture of institutional action

Read the Paper

Explore the full analysis of pledge failure across climate, safety, and reform.

View Paper

Commitment Execution Program

Apply these frameworks in your institution through our pilot programs.

Learn More