Greenwashing corporations exposed: Over 90% of companies, like Tesla, claim to plant trees, regrow coral or restore other ecosystems but DON’T publish reports on ANY results
Firms including Apple and BP report funding ‘ecosystem restoration’ initiatives – but fail to report acreage or success rates publicly. But Johnson & Johnson fared worse.
Greenwashing corporations exposed: Over 90% of companies, like Tesla, claim to plant trees, regrow coral or restore other ecosystems but DON’T publish reports on ANY results
- Firms including Ford, IBM and Costco report funding ‘ecosystem restoration’ initiatives – but fail to report results or money spent to shareholders or the public
- Others, including Nestlé and Microsoft, were more transparent on ‘green’ efforts
- READ MORE: Greta Thunberg pulls out of international book festival appearance in fossil fuel money row – as she accuses the event’s sponsor of ‘greenwashing’
Hundreds of large multinational corporations are ‘talking the talk’ on environmental stewardship, promising to help restore ecosystems pillaged in the pursuit of profit.
But only a select few — less than 10 percent — have come close to proving their firm actually ‘walks the walk’ by issuing detailed reports to shareholders and the public.
A new report has found that one third out of the 100 those corporate filings studied failed to disclose the size of their ‘ecosystem restoration’ projects and nearly 80 percent provided no hard financial data on their company’s conservation efforts.
Some ostensibly ecofriendly multinationals, including BP, Apple and Johnson & Johnson, were especially quiet on the details of their environmental contributions, when they had such eco-programs at all.
While a few companies, including Nestlé, Microsoft and General Electric, were much more forthcoming with details in their annual reports, researchers found those companies were outliers.
A full 90 percent of the companies, all selected from the 2021 Forbes Global 500 list, failed to issue a public report on even just one ecological outcome, whether to tout a success or admit a failure.
The lack of transparency opens many of these giant firms to accusations of ‘greenwashing’ — a public relations gambit undertaken by notorious corporate polluters in an effort to sanitize their image more than any part of nature.
A new report in Science focused on sustainability reports published by 100 companies from the 2021 Forbes Global 500 list. Some ostensibly ecofriendly firms, like BP, Apple and Johnson & Johnson, were quiet on the details, when they had such eco-programs at all
But a few companies, including Nestlé, Microsoft and General Electric, were much more forthcoming with details in their annual reports, researchers found
The statistics comes from a new report conducted by scientists collaborating across multiple universities in the US, UK and Europe, published Thursday in Science.
As noted by the report’s lead author, marine biologist Tim Lamont, each of the company’s environmental restoration projects, however the quality or the sincerity, were volunteer efforts that went beyond their legal obligations.
‘We found that corporate reporting is currently under-performing and needs improving, yes,’ Lamont told the DailyMail.com.
‘But we also found that two-thirds of the worlds biggest businesses are trying to restore ecosystems, which is encouraging.’
Even the most conscientious and transparent corporate actors, as identified by the team’s analysis, however, had room for improvement.
Nestlé and Microsoft, for example, both earned high marks for producing reports that included information on the ecological outcomes of their projects and updates on their efforts to monitor the success or failure of their eco-restoration work.
But neither disclosed any financial information, such as the total budget of their green projects or the line-by-line costs of their efforts to restore once pristine wilderness to its natural state.
‘No business reported perfectly across the board,’ Lamont, told the DailyMail.com.
Lamont, whose focus is coral reef ecology and restoration at Lancaster University, along with his colleagues at Cambridge, Northern Illinois University and elsewhere, focused on several key reporting principles while reviewing the corporate reports.
The key questions were: Did a company report the total acreage reforested by its effort to plant trees? Did the company specify what region of land or marine ecosystem the project would focus on?
‘No single business reported in adherence with all of the principles,’ Lamont noted, ‘but all principles were reported on by at least one business.’
Several big name companies, however, failed to tick off quite a few boxes.
Even very transparent eco-defenders, like Nestlé and Microsoft, failed to disclose any financial information, such as the total budget of their green projects or the line-by-line costs of efforts to restore once pristine wilderness to its natural state. Above damaged coral in Indonesia
Key questions too frequently went unanswered in the corporations’ reports: Was was the total acreage reforested by its effort to plant trees? Did the company specify what region of land or marine ecosystem the project would focus on? Above deforestation in Trinidad and Tobago
Costco Wholesale, Ford Motor, IBM and BP all neglected to report the geographic scope and financial budget of their purported ecosystem revitalization work, failing to report also any positive or negative results of any monitoring for results.
Even tech giant Apple, with its feel good public image, public climate goals and funding accelerators for environmental innovation, failed to report the acreage of its restoration or conduct any publicly reported ecosystem monitoring of its success.
Worse still, all 100 of the 2021 Forbes Global 500 company’s Lamont and his peers studies failed to report the local human and economic impacts of their programs on populations living and around the regions to be restored and made wild again.
Overall, heal healthcare firms proved to be especially disinterested in funding ecological programs.
None of the majors like Johnson & Johnson, Cigna, and CVS Health even had a program to restore despoiled ecosystems at all.
‘Energy and materials businesses may be most involved with restoration because they have obvious direct impacts on the environment that they are trying to account for,’ Lamont told the DailyMail.com, although he admitted he could only speculate.
‘The opposite may be true for healthcare businesses, but we can’t be sure. We only directly evaluated reporting in this paper, not motives or goals.’
Despite these criticisms, and the questions they beg about corporate ‘greenwashing’ and insincere PR, Lamont is encouraged by the fact that large companies are voluntarily funding efforts to revive forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems in the first place.
‘With some improvements to the way they report, big businesses could be a real force for good in this field, and make a big positive impact to the challenge of restoring the world’s degraded ecosystems,’ he said.
‘This potential promise is important, and gives us motivation to get this right.’
Share or comment on this article: Greenwashing corporations exposed: Over 90% of companies claim to plant trees, regrow coral or restore other ecosystems but DON’T publish reports on ANY results
-
Mar 2, 2021In short: Very green. But plug-in cars still have environmental effects. Here’s a guide to the main issues and how they might be addressed. The New York Times By Hiroko Tabuchi and Brad…
-
Hiroko Tabuchi
Hiroko Tabuchi is an investigative reporter on the climate desk of The New York Times. She has written about the oil industry’s covert campaign to rewrite American car emissions rules; how fashion …
-
-
-
Feb 23, 2022Tesla has been fined $275,000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for violating air pollution regulations at its assembly plant in Fremont, Calif. (Noah Berger / Associated Press) By…
-
Find out the truth about Tesla’s environmental impact. Tesla is known for its state-of-the-art electric vehicles, but how sustainable is the company really?… ×
-
23 March 2020 Getty Images By Roger Harrabin BBC environment analyst Fears that electric cars could actually increase carbon emissions are a damaging myth, new research shows. Media reports…
-
Images for tesla cars bad for the environment
-
May 13, 2021Responding in part to a tweet from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance calling bitcoin’s energy usage “insane,” Musk said that Tesla would no longer transact in bitcoin because of its…
-
No! – CleanTechnica Air Quality Is It True That A Tesla Creates More Pollution Than A Conventional Car? No! This question gets asked a lot: “Is it true that a Tesla creates more pollution…
-
Its electric vehicles are said to emit lesser CO2 emissions than gas-run vehicles. However, it is said that the manufacturing process of a Tesla is more energy-intensive as it needs rare earth elements to power its lithium-ion battery. We can say that Tesla is the future of sustainable transport and clean energy generation.
-
Tesla and the environmental impact of lithium-ion batteries Posted Nov 13, 2017 Exporting Entertainment: Can CJ E&M Rely on the Chinese Market? Tesla is one of the most important companies addressing climate change with their core products — their fleet of cars and their suite of clean energy technologies.
-
This amount of carbon is a drop in the ocean compared to global industrial emissions as a whole, but if the SpaceX’s plan for a rocket launch every two weeks comes to fruition, this amount of…
-
Nov 23, 2021“I think we can guess that rockets won’t be a huge impact on the environment, and they probably won’t stand out as a sole source of new problems,” Darin Toohey, professor at the University of…
-
From damaging the environment to contaminating the solar system, Space X’s successful launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket also poses risks.
-
Jul 15, 2022By Mark Piesing 15th July 2022 Rocket launches are an integral part of our 21st-Century world. But how do we stop their polluting exhausts accelerating climate change? T The Kazakh Steppe is a…
-
Rocket launches are a breathtaking culmination of human ingenuity as they propel us into the future, but there is a growing concern that not enough research has been done on their effect on the…
-
Apr 26, 2023It caused more environmental damage than expected. AILSA CHANG, HOST: The Federal Aviation Administration has grounded the SpaceX Starship program. SpaceX launched the largest rocket in the…
-
Sep 5, 2021In 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration issued its environmental impact statement, finding that SpaceX’s proposal for the region “would have no significant impact on the environment“.
-
February 8, 2018 The SpaceX Launch was unique in a lot of ways. It marked the first time a private company sent a rocket that heavy into space; it was the first time a sports car was launched into space; it was live-streamed like a football game, with rowdy fans and breathless play-by-play ann
