I study how investors with heterogeneous preferences respond differently to disclosures using carbon net-zero pledges as a setting. While extant accounting literature examines the overall market responses to disclosures, recent theoretical work suggests that investors with heterogeneous preferences may respond differently to disclosures, and such varied responses would be muddled in overall market responses. I empirically identify three types of mutual funds with different preferences for firms’ environmental performances, and test how they respond differently to net-zero pledges. I find that green funds—which state that improving the environment is one of their main objectives—respond positively to net-zero pledges. Non-green funds—which do not claim to be pursuing environmental objectives and whose portfolios consist of firms with relatively low environmental scores—exhibit no significant response to net-zero pledges. Moreover, I find that green funds that “walk the talk” by investing in greener portfolios respond more positively to more credible net-zero pledges and pledges made by companies with superior environmental reputations. In contrast, green funds with portfolios containing firms with lower environmental performances respond less positively to more credible pledges and pledges made by companies with superior environmental reputations. Overall, despite an insignificant market return response to net-zero pledges, I find that the subset of investors with preferences for environmental performance responds positively to these pledges. My findings further suggest that while some green funds carefully examine the credibility of net-zero pledges and respond accordingly, others seem to be primarily focused on the “net-zero” label and simply reward companies for obtaining the label by making these pledges.