Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that the 'Sustainable Agriculture Initiative' (SAI), 'New Vision for Agriculture' (NVA), and 'Food and Land Use Coalition' (FOLU) promote a version of 'junk agroecology' (agroecología chatarra). This approach selectively adopts agroecological techniques to mitigate environmental damage while preserving the industrial, profit-driven corporate model. The authors contrast this with a transformative agroecology rooted in food sovereignty and social justice, which requires shifting power from corporations to small-scale producers.

The report argues that big agrifood capital is developing 'junk agroecology'—a selective appropriation of agroecological techniques integrated into a productivist, market-driven framework. Through an analysis of three major initiatives—the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the Food and Land Use Economy Coalition (FOLU)—the authors demonstrate how corporations use 'sustainable intensification' to greenwash the industrial food system. These initiatives prioritize technological determinism (such as gene editing and big data), the integration of smallholders into global value chains, and multi-stakeholder governance models that shift power from public institutions to private entities. The report concludes that a true agroecological transition requires participatory public policies rooted in food sovereignty and social justice, rather than corporate-led reforms.

The report argues that multinational corporations are promoting a 'fake agroecology' (agroécologie bidon) through initiatives like the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU). These initiatives are characterized as 'sustainable intensification' rather than true agroecology, as they prioritize technological productivism, market-driven value chains, and public-private governance over social justice and structural transformation. The authors contend that this approach allows industrial giants to 'greenwash' their image while maintaining the existing power structures of the global food system.

The report examines the carpet sector's failure to transition from a linear to a circular economy, highlighting that most carpets in Europe are incinerated or landfilled. It specifically critiques industry leaders Desso and Interface for 'greenwashing,' noting a significant gap between their sustainability goals and actual collection rates. The document also identifies the event industry as a major source of single-use carpet waste and proposes systemic changes in eco-design, collection infrastructure, and public policy to enable genuine closed-loop recycling.

The document analyzes the strategic efforts of the US government (via USAID), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and companies like Monsanto to introduce GM crops into African markets. It argues that these actors bypass national precautions by promoting 'harmonized' regional biosafety policies through bodies like COMESA and ECOWAS. The report highlights the failure of GM projects, such as the virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya, and the socio-economic risks of the 'Green Revolution' model, citing South Africa's experience where GM adoption has allegedly increased food insecurity and wealth inequality. It advocates for the adoption of the African Union's Model Law on Biosafety and a shift toward agro-ecology to ensure food sovereignty.

The report argues that 'sugar interests' employ multi-billion dollar advertising budgets to manipulate public perception, targeting vulnerable demographics such as children, women, and low-income populations. It details how companies use 'health buzzwords' and front groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom to frame sugar consumption as a matter of personal choice rather than a public health issue, while actively undermining scientific recommendations from bodies like the World Health Organization.

The document presents a satirical or corrective 'erratum' to Shell's 2010 annual report, detailing systemic failures in environmental protection and human rights. It lists specific cases of pollution in Nigeria, Curaçao, and Canada, labour abuses in Brazil, and the risks of high-volume fracking. The report proposes a set of 'Key Performance Indicators' for 2011, including a 5% annual decrease in absolute CO2 emissions and a commitment to invest 50% of annual profits into wind and solar power.

The report 'Failing the Challenge' by Friends of the Earth International criticizes Shell for prioritizing short-term profits over human rights and environmental protection. It documents a pattern of pollution, health crises, and human rights abuses across several countries, including Nigeria, South Africa, the US, and the Philippines. The authors argue that Shell engages in 'greenwashing' by using PR to mask its continued expansion of fossil fuel production and its failure to hold itself accountable for local damages. The report calls for changes to UK company law to ensure corporations are legally responsible for their global impacts.

The briefing by Friends of the Earth International criticizes Anglo-American Plc for environmental degradation and social injustice in its mining operations. In Zambia, the company is accused of polluting water and air, and securing secret agreements to avoid liability for pollution. In Peru, its planned copper mine threatens water scarcity and the livelihoods of local farmers. The document highlights the company's failure to comply with OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and calls for an international framework for corporate accountability.

The document argues that the financialization of nature allows companies to bypass strict environmental regulations through biodiversity offsets and carbon credits. It details the emergence of a 'conservation industry' comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that create the standards and accounting methods necessary for this system. The report highlights how extractive industries, aviation, and agribusiness use these mechanisms to access protected areas and 'greenwash' their activities, while noting that actual private investment in conservation remains a small fraction of global financial flows.

The report argues that the financialization of nature—transforming ecological functions into tradable units—serves corporate interests by facilitating greenwashing, easing regulatory compliance, and opening protected areas to extractive industries. It details the emergence of a new conservation industry comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial instruments like green bonds. The document contends that while these mechanisms are presented as solutions to the biodiversity crisis, they often act as a "mirage" of private investment, primarily benefiting corporations through improved credit ratings and a "social license to operate" while continuing environmental destruction.

The fact sheet criticizes the adoption of "nature-based solutions" by over 1,500 companies, asserting that these strategies allow firms to maintain polluting business models while claiming "net zero" targets. It highlights Shell and Nestlé as examples of companies using carbon offsets to mask continued emissions and environmental damage. The document advocates for "real zero emissions" through the cessation of fossil fuel extraction and the support of agroecology and community-led forest management led by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The report argues that the 'financialization of nature'—the process of turning ecological functions into tradeable monetary units—primarily serves corporate interests rather than conservation. It details how companies in extractive industries, aviation, and construction use biodiversity offsets to bypass environmental regulations and greenwash destructive activities. The document also highlights the emergence of a 'new conservation industry' comprising NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that promote these market-based approaches. Finally, it contends that private sector investment in conservation is significantly over-hyped, serving as a facade to secure public subsidies and avoid stringent environmental laws.

Global Witness asserts that 'supermajor' oil companies are conducting a 'brazen wealth transfer' by paying billions to shareholders while increasing oil and gas production. The statement highlights that companies like Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, and Chevron are ignoring scientific consensus and rowing back on climate pledges despite record profits and the increasing frequency of climate disasters.