Companies around the world are becoming more and more committed to solving this problem. changing of the climateto reassure both consumers and investors by talking about zero carbon emissions and footprint neutral products.

However, multinational companies that position themselves as leaders in combating the climate crisis are pursuing “inappropriate and dubious” plans to deliver on their promises, according to a report released on Monday by the NewClimate Institute think tank in Berlin. .

In an analysis of 24 large companies, from the retail sector to automakers and airlines, the Corporate Responsibility for Climate Monitor found that their plans fell short of their zero-carbon commitments.

So how can a company’s green commitment lead to significant reductions in global warming emissions, and how will consumers be protected from so-called green laundering?

Companies on the right track?

While the above analysis included a limited number of multinational companies, it said that their climate strategies were “not in line” with their commitment to achieving the zero emission goal, while 15 out of 24 were rated as “negligible” or “very insignificant”. ” ” reliable.

In addition, the report focuses on companies’ plans through 2030, which are considered critical to keep warming “below” 2 degrees Celsius, aiming ideally for 1.5 degrees Celsius.WITH.

The current decade is critical to the fight against climate change, says lead author Thomas Day, but the short- and medium-term goals of the “self-proclaimed leaders” in the fight against climate change are “sadly falling short.”

According to the report, to keep warming at 1.5C, companies must cut emissions by at least 43% by 2023, but current plans result in an average reduction of 15%.

Maria Medilos, head of We Mean Business Alliance, a nonprofit organization that works with climate change companies, said many of them are committed to fundamental change.

“Companies are doing their best to realize [τους] and change it,” she stressed, calling for greater control over companies that do not take any action at all.

When is a liability considered secure?

According to the nonprofit’s latest report released last week, leading environmental research platform CDP highlighted that fewer than 1 in 200 climate change reporting companies are adopting proper climate change plans.

CDP evaluates the credibility of the plan based on 21 key metrics that show whether there are changes in the operating model of companies to align them with climate goals.

A report by the NewClimate Institute says the pledges often include “asterisks” that exempt the company from certain actions to address the climate crisis.

Another problem undermining the credibility of companies is the vagueness of their plans and the lack of targeted decarbonization measures, said Silke Moldijk, one of the authors of the report.

“For example, three retailers in the clothing sector claim to use more sustainable materials but do not explain what “more” or “sustainable” means,” she said.

What is the role of “compensation”?

Many companies’ zero-emission commitments include the “offset” method, i.e. investing in projects such as planting trees instead of cutting their own carbon emissions.

However, the report says these schemes are “highly questionable” as they are “unlikely to result in permanent emission reductions” like forestry projects, which are rare and do not guarantee longevity.

“If everyone followed suit, we would need two to four Earth planets,” Moldyk said.

Initiatives such as Science Based Targets (SBTi) “The Net-Zero Standard” require companies to decarburize 90-95% of their emissions before offsetting “residual” emissions that may not be able to be reduced.

However, in response to this, Moldyk said that hedging is now “hidden behind alternative terminology” such as “neutralization” or “integration”, which usually refers to hedging in a company’s value chain.

Are green labels a wash?

Analysis has shown that many companies use certificates to show they are making progress, but as Thomas Day points out, they are actually using them as badges to defend their poor performance or deal with criticism.

He argues that environmental certificates should be granted with stricter criteria and not be granted to companies that do not take sufficient measures.

“You have to be very careful not to create a greenwash platform,” Day said.

Maria Medilos, for her part, states that these certifications are not easy to come by and that the criteria for companies are strict.

However, researchers at the New Climate Institute said governments should do more to protect consumers from misleading advertising about companies’ climate progress.

EU measures

At the European level, the new bill makes Member States responsible for imposing “dissuasive” sanctions on companies that make unfounded claims about their products.

The purpose of this offer is to help consumers make better choices about the products they buy.

According to the Commission, about half of company claims about “green”, “green” or “environmentally friendly” products are “unproven”.

“Companies that make green claims also have to prove them,” he adds, referring, among other things, to the main agenda of the EU’s Green Deal adopted in 2019.

To ensure that companies’ claims can be proven, the EU Member States. they should “create a verification system” that is subject to independent verification.

These decisions come at a time when pressure on EU governments has increased. in terms of advertising rules based on environmental criteria.

Last August, France became the first country in Europe to ban fossil fuel advertising following the entry into force of a new climate law passed last year.

Finally, there are advertising campaigns across Europe, many protesting what they believe are misleading environmental claims from car manufacturers.

^{According to Reuters, Euractiv}