{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["corporate audit"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'corporate audit' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=corporate+audit","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"chanmar-000092","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/chanmar-000092","title":"Where do brands stand on viscose ?","publisher":{"name":"Changing Markets Foundation","organization":"changing-markets-foundation"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2019-11-19","source_url":"https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CM_BRAND_TABLE_WEB_DIRTY_FASHION_DISRUPTED_LEADERS_AND_LAGGARDS_REVEALED_FINAL_DEC_2019.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The document provides a detailed audit of global brands' engagement with sustainable viscose production. It highlights a significant gap in transparency, as most brands disclose Tier 1 suppliers but fail to reveal the Tier 3 and 4 viscose fibre producers. While several brands have signed the Changing Markets Roadmap and committed to 'closed-loop' manufacturing by 2023-2025, many others lack specific viscose policies or chemical management standards like the ZDHC MRSL. A small group of 'frontrunners' such as Esprit, Tesco, and Marks and Spencer provide detailed lists of fibre suppliers, including major producers like Lenzing and Aditya Birla.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"chanmar-000092#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"A small number of brands provide high levels of transparency by disclosing their viscose fibre suppliers (Tier 3/4), whereas most only disclose Tier 1 or 2 suppliers. Esprit, Tesco, and Marks and Spencer are among those that have disclosed specific fibre producers.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"chanmar-000092#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Several brands have committed to transitioning their supply chains to 'closed-loop' manufacturing systems for man-made cellulosic fibres (MMCF) between 2023 and 2025, often aligning with the Changing Markets Roadmap or EU BAT standards. This includes commitments from Esprit, Marks and Spencer, ASOS, and New Look.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"chanmar-000092#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) Manufacturing Restricted Substance List (MRSL) is a primary benchmark for chemical management used by many brands, including H&M, Inditex, and Next, though some brands like Otto Group and Aldi South are not ZDHC signatories despite pledging to adhere to the MRSL.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"chanmar-000092#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Lenzing and Aditya Birla are identified as the dominant viscose fibre suppliers for a vast majority of the brands analyzed, including H&M, ASOS, New Look, and Puma.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"chanmar-000092#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["Global supply chain governance","water pollution"],"geography_discussed":["People's Republic of China","India","Indonesia","Austria","Germany","Thailand"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["corporate audit","transparency assessment"]},{"id":"ucs-000221","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/ucs-000221","title":"A Climate of Corporate Control","publisher":{"name":"Union of Concerned Scientists","organization":"union-of-concerned-scientists"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2012-05","source_url":"https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/a-climate-of-corporate-control-report.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report analyzes 28 S&P 500 companies to determine how they engage with climate science and policy. It finds a significant divide between companies that consistently support science-based policy and those that obstruct it. A large number of companies are identified as 'contradictory,' maintaining a public image of environmental concern while funding think tanks, trade groups, and politicians that undermine climate science. The authors argue that a lack of transparency in corporate political spending and risk disclosure allows this interference to persist, and they recommend stricter disclosure requirements for corporations and government contractors.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The study categorizes corporate behavior into three groups: Consistent, Contradictory, and Obstructionist. While some companies align their public relations with pro-science actions, more than half of the sample are 'Contradictory,' meaning they support climate science in some venues but oppose it in others.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Companies are more likely to express concern about climate change in public-facing venues, such as corporate websites, but are more likely to misrepresent climate science in communications with the federal government or through the funding of outside organizations.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Energy sector companies are disproportionately represented among those funding anti-climate candidates. Eight of the ten energy companies in the sample donated more than three times as much to 'anti-climate' members of Congress as to 'pro-climate' members.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Corporate influence is often exerted indirectly through trade groups and think tanks that conceal their funding sources. Examples include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which have opposed the EPA's Endangerment Finding.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a significant lack of transparency regarding corporate political spending. The report notes that companies are not required to disclose the specific issues they lobby on, and many donations to politically active groups are made outside of corporate foundations to avoid disclosure.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Many companies fail to fully disclose the physical risks climate change poses to their business operations in SEC Form 10-K filings, focusing instead only on the risks posed by climate regulations.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Privately held corporations, specifically Koch Industries, have exerted enormous influence on the climate dialogue through large-scale funding of think tanks and political campaigns that misrepresent climate science.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"ucs-000221#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["obsidian","climate policy","greenwashing"],"geography_discussed":["California"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["case study","policy analysis","corporate audit"]}]}