Now, more than ever, the climate crisis the world is seeing is in full effect and needs 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 corporates are facing is being exposed in the news for their lack of work towards the environmental sustainability claims they have made. Companies are failing to meet their own targets but throwing shade towards the reporters for being “inaccurate” seems to be their cover up.

In a BBC News article, by Georgina Rannard, she claims that “Nestle commented: ‘We welcome scrutiny of our actions and commitments on climate change. However, the New Climate Institute’s Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) report lacks understanding of our approach and contains significant inaccuracies.’” Nestle is clearly irritated with the news, but if the claims are inaccurate, why would Nestle be reluctant to release their successes to the world? This just means they likely have no goals or progress to share.

Nestle did not make a rigorous plan that had clear goals they were trying to achieve to correct their destruction. Their lack of transparency hints toward them greenwashing the public to keep us quiet while they continue to destroy our planet. In a Greenpeace article by Perry Wheeler he 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 diminutive targets.

In an article published by Underwriters Laboratories Solutions, they designed the seven sins of greenwashing that perfectly explain the tactics companies are using to get by. The seven sins are: hidden trade-off, no proof, vagueness, worshipping false labels, irrelevance, the lesser of the two evils, and fibbing. 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, allowing the public to conclude that they are making no changes. The circumstance they were put in should have been an encouragement 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 from the public. 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 clearly a small, short-term answer to a much bigger question. 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 with companies and their planet extinction habits. Companies like BlackRock, that have billion-dollar investments with fossil fuel companies, should be more prepared to take swift actions than sit back and watch our world end.

“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 like this is another interview, 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 who would be better than him to assert his dominance? No one. 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.

CEO’s such as Larry Fink should not be shying away from their power when it is actually needed.

References

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/

‌