‘Greenhushing’ joins Greenwashing (waking companies in legal jeopardy?) – Watts Up With That?

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — November 28, 2022

“The fear of corporate companies about being called upon to make false and/or exaggerated claims about the environment and sustainability is growing as regulators tightly control and force companies to company must be responsible for green cleaning behavior.”

“…some companies are choosing not to talk about their green goals, say climate researchers…. Fear of litigation may also prevent some companies from talking about their climate goals.”

– Anastasia Molone, “Is Green Concealing the New Greenwashing?” (below)

Face it: Not many people believe in climate alarmism, even those at companies pressured by activist bullies. Sure, it’s the political right thing to do during the workday. But outside the clock, in everyone’s heart, the fear of the climate is a political issuenot one “existential threat to humanity,” as Joe Biden’s remote prompt says.

Businesses wake up, good signs, have created a problem for themselves. By merely following and pretending to buy into the alarmist’s story, they did not appease their enemies but only promised and raised expectations. Surname green eraser. And now that energy fact has happened (energy density rule, as in fossil fuels dependencies), companies are silently turning back or trying to find a middle way (Shell’s ‘reasonable average’ campaign).

Lawsuits against “greenwashing” are welcoming the most promising companies, such as Cover via ClientEarth. And the emails were discovered at several oil majors point out more. It’s a ruse that intellectually brave and honest companies can avoid by taking the ethics of fossil fuels’ links to human improvement seriously.

————————

This is now a recognized problem, with Statisticians facing a new problem when it comes to greenwashing: muzzled. Anastasia Moloney, in “Is Green Concealing the New Greenwashing?“(Text definition: October 26, 2022), writes:

Climate researchers say as COP27 approaches, some companies choose not to talk about their green goals. What are the risks?

• Some companies are keeping quiet about their climate commitments
• Trends reflect lawsuits, consumer anger over greenwashing
• Lack of information can hinder public scrutiny

Companies that advertise or exaggerate their eco-friendly information are often accused of “going green”, say climate researchers, but now a more subtle phenomenon – “greening” – is appearing.

As policymakers and activists turn their attention to the United Nations’ COP27 climate conference in November in Egypt, they say some companies are deliberately downplaying and reporting understate, or even keep silent, about carbon offsets and emissions targets.

Here’s a look at companies’ motives for keeping quiet and the possible implications:

Moloney then defines green concealment:

Coined by academics in 2008, the term refers to businesses and organizations choose to be silent about their climate strategies because they fear being called for a boycott, or being named and embarrassed if they fall short.

“(It) is rooted in greenwashing in that it is the fear of being accused of greenwashing by activists that has kept companies silent, despite actually engaging in Corporate Social Responsibility. (CSR),”, according to research published by the Journal of Tourism Research in 2020 looked at green cloaking in the tourism sector.

Fear of bad publicity and backlash from consumers saying a company and its brands aren’t as green as they say, means some companies are reluctant to disclose their climate commitments to avoid any such negative attention.

“Increased surveillance by the media, NGOs, the public sector,” said Renat Heuberger, chief executive officer and co-founder of South Pole, a Swiss-based climate consulting firm. them as well as market and consumer regulators may have made companies more cautious than ever in communicating their objectives.” and carbon offset developers, say Definition of essay.

She asks: is green concealment on the rise?

According to a report released this month by South Pole, a number of companies, including the technology, financial and engineering sectors, are reluctant to disclose and draw attention to important achievements or milestones. their importance on climate action.

It found that nearly a quarter of the 1,200 large private companies from the 12 countries it surveyed had set zero targets but decided not to make their progress public.

“Companies are hesitant to make public promises about what they can deliver,” the report said.

Such green masking is happening even as the majority of companies spend more money to meet their climate commitments. report speak. Nearly three-quarters of businesses surveyed are investing more, not less, to achieve their goals.

“This is a worrying trend, as less public communication makes targets harder to scrutinize and limits knowledge sharing,” the report said.

The stigma of being viewed by climate activists or consumers who are demanding greener products and businesses as their primary motivation, Heuberger said, but they can also fear failure.

“For example, a third (29%) of all companies we surveyed said that reaching their net zero goal was ‘tougher than expected’ in the past year.

Fear of litigation may also prevent some companies from talking about their climate goals.

One-fifth of the world’s 2,000 largest publicly-listed companies have now committed to a “zero” emissions goal over the next 20 to 30 years to help tackle climate change, according to the agency. UK-based Climate and Energy Intelligence Service (ECIU) and Oxford Net Zero.

But an increasing number of lawsuits filed by environmental groups accuse companies of being “clean”, “green” or “sustainable” as deceptive.

“The rise of climate litigation is becoming a matter of concern,” Heuberger said, adding that the survey found respondents from France were among those most likely to ability not to disclose their science-based goals.

France is one of the few countries with clear regulations on corporate climate claims, he added.

In contrast, Singapore-based companies are the most open about making their reduction targets public.

Moloney: ‘Will the greenwashing crackdown bring more silence?’

Corporate companies’ fear of being called upon to make false and or exaggerated claims about the environment and sustainability is growing as regulators clamp down on and force companies to responsible for green cleaning behavior.

Last week, the ASA Advertising Standards Authority, the UK’s advertising watchdog, said HSBC posters used by the bank ahead of last year’s COP26 climate summit were “misleading” after complaints from environmental groups.

The ASA told the bank to ensure that future advertisements do not “omit important information about its contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions”, AS ONE said in a judgment.

This week, UK financial watchdog also proposed new rules from 2024 for hedge funds and their managers to prevent consumers from being scammed by greenwashing.

And earlier this month, Competition Bureau of CanadaA federal law enforcement agency, said it had opened an investigation into the Royal Bank of Canada over allegations that the country’s largest lender misled customers about its related commitments. regarding climate action.

In another case, German and US officials are investigating reports and whistleblower allegations that DWS, a leading German asset manager, exaggerated the case. green login its funds and investments, leading to a lawsuit by a group of German consumers.

DWS has repeatedly denied that it deceived investors.

——————————

Greenwashing has company. Greenhushing and, thinking thinking magic, good luck. The best way to make all three disappear is to return to the anti-CO2 campaign. Consumers are important. Important taxpayers. Freedom from Big Brother government affairs.