Asking for more!

Now, more than ever, the world is seeing a climate crisis in full effect, and we need to do a quick 180 before it is too late. Even though companies understand that their contribution to irreversible damage needs to be addressed immediately, they are still snapping back at criticism from the public. The problem that corporations are facing is being exposed in the news for their lack of progress towards the environmental sustainability claims they have made.

Nestle did not make a rigorous plan that had clear goals to achieve and correct their destruction. Their lack of transparency hints toward them greenwashing the public to keep us quiet while they continue to destroy our planet. Georgina Rannard in a BBC News article describes the situation in which Nestle feels under attack for their lack of substance of efforts to reduce climate change by picking on the reporters from the New Climate Institute’s Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM). “Nestle commented: ‘We welcome scrutiny of our actions and commitments on climate change. However, the CCRM report lacks understanding of our approach and contains significant inaccuracies.’” Nestle is clearly irritated with the news, but if the claims are inaccurate, Nestle would be less reluctant to release their successes to the world. This just means they likely have no goals or progress to share. Mark Schneiders includes Nestle’s ambitions for climate change in his article, “Nestlé CEO: We don’t have to sacrifice shareholders to fight climate change.”

“Nestlé operates in nearly every country in the world, and the decisions we make can drive change in the food industry. We do not take that responsibility lightly. We have never wavered in our support for the Paris Agreement—no matter how the political winds have shifted—and we have publicly detailed our commitment to halve our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.”

Perry Wheeler, in his Greenpeace article, emphasized, “The statement is full of ambiguous or nonexistent targets, relies on ambitions’ to do better, and puts the responsibility on consumers rather than the company to clean up its own plastic pollution,” while he discusses how Nestle fails to hit their very far-reaching targets.

Underwriters Laboratories Solutions identified the seven sins of greenwashing in an article that simply explains the tactics companies are using to get by. The seven sins are: hidden trade-offs where the company admits to doing something bad but offers something good for balance. The lack of proof in which a company offers unsupported claims of having achieved green goals. Vagueness, in which is so poorly defined that there is room for misunderstanding with consumers, allowing the company not to be held down to claims. Worshipping false labels, in which a product has words or images that give a nonexistent 3^rd party endorsement. Irrelevance, when a claim is made but it is unimportant to the environmental efforts. The lesser of the two evils, when a claim can be true but is used to distract consumers from worse catastrophic impact. Lastly, fibbing, where claims are outright false that claim to be certified. A fine list, to which I will add one I have seen more often than any other, the sin of making unrealistic predictions. A majority of the companies I have researched have committed this sin while developing sustainability claims they know are unattainable with the current position they are in; for example, Nestle.

 The article states that “based on the results of the original study and subsequent studies, the Seven Sins of Greenwashing were developed to help consumers identify products that made misleading environmental claims.” In the case above, Nestle takes part in the sin of no proof and vagueness, encouraging the public to conclude that they are making changes. The circumstance they were put in should have been forceful enough to share all the great work and progress taking place, but instead it just proved that their vagueness and lack of proof is massive greenwashing.

Since all this backlash from the public on companies such as Nestle, other companies are starting to feel the heat as well. Specifically, BlackRock investment company, the second largest fossil fuel contributor in the world, has been receiving pressure from the public to release their ambitions about investing with companies who are not making environmental changes. Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, responded, “BlackRock argues that its investments are consistent with a commitment to a responsible and orderly — rather than recklessly rushed — energy transition, as well as the realities of global energy needs after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” Fink’s response was clear, he is staying invested in fossil fuel companies until the world proves it can do without them. His pushing off of a response to the public and becoming defensive that his company and he are being “recklessly rushed,” proves that he stands against the green side and stands with planet extinction habits. BlackRock, and their billion-dollar investments, plan to continue supporting fossil fuel companies because crippling the industry would be disastrous. They will continue with funding, and these businesses’ destruction will continue to expand.

“On the issue of climate change, BlackRock has sought to strike a balance, continuing to invest in fossil fuel companies while nudging them to adopt energy transition plans. It has projected that by 2030 at least three quarters of its investments will be with issuers of securities that have scientific targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions on a net basis.”

Larry Fink is a prime contributor to companies advancing their planet polluting activities because he is the one who funds their entire operation. When making claims that still include expansion of mass destruction, public concern should be sparked since he is using terms such as “nudging” when he should be making an ULTIMATIUM. Without the millions and billions of dollars he provides to these companies, they would not survive, so the best action he can take is asserting his dominance in the situation. He should not be ENCOURAGING environmentally positive business practices; he should be mandating them in order for companies to even pursue or continue business contracts with him.

References

Halper, E. (2023, May 19). Is BlackRock’s Larry Fink blowing it for the climate? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/06/blackrock-esg-climate-woke/

UL Solutions. (2019). Sins of Greenwashing. UL. https://www.ul.com/insights/sins-greenwashing

Rannard, G. (2022, February 7). Climate change: Top companies exaggerating their progress – study. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60248830

Binnie, I. (2023, June 26). BlackRock’s Fink says he’s stopped using “weaponised” term ESG. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/blackrocks-fink-says-hes-stopped-using-weaponised-term-esg-2023-06-26/