Search Climate Insights Directory

The submission by Ecojustice and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) proposes comprehensive amendments to the Competition Act to align it with Canada's net-zero and environmental commitments. The authors argue that current laws fail to address 'greenwashing'—deceptive environmental claims—which distorts the market, penalizes genuinely sustainable businesses, and misleads consumers. Key recommendations include amending the Act's purpose clause to recognize sustainability, legislating specific prohibitions against common forms of greenwashing (such as misleading carbon offset claims and generic 'eco-friendly' labels), and expanding the public's ability to challenge deceptive marketing through the Tribunal without needing to prove specific damages. Additionally, the document suggests establishing a sustainability taskforce within the Competition Bureau, allowing for 'public benefit' considerations in merger assessments, and creating exemptions for competitor collaborations that advance environmental protection.

The author contends that 'carbon farming' activities are unsuitable for carbon removal certification because they provide temporary, volatile storage that risks enabling greenwashing and delaying actual emission reductions. Instead of market-based carbon credits, the document proposes 'activity-based finance' to support farmers and foresters in adopting nature-based practices, funded by public resources or polluter-pays instruments.

A coalition of 23 South African organisations is urging PR and advertising agencies to cease their partnerships with the fossil fuel industry, arguing that these agencies facilitate greenwashing and obstruct climate action.

The document outlines the critical role of scientific research in climate litigation, emphasizing how experts can help hold corporations and governments accountable for climate damages and disinformation. It identifies key research priorities—such as attribution science and the study of climate obstruction—and provides actionable ways for scientists to engage, including serving as expert witnesses, contributing to amicus briefs, and designing research specifically relevant to legal proceedings. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Science Hub for Climate Litigation is presented as a central resource to bridge the gap between the scientific community and legal practitioners.

The document advocates for reforming the Competition Act to address greenwashing, which it describes as a market distortion that prevents consumers from making informed choices and hinders firms investing in environmental quality. The authors propose several amendments, including updating the Act's purpose clause to include environmental and climate considerations, establishing clear substantiation standards for environmental claims, and requiring public disclosure of the data used to support such claims. They also suggest introducing enhanced penalties for environmental harm, expanding private rights of action for consumers, and allocating penalties to the Environmental Damages Fund. The statement highlights that while other jurisdictions like the EU, France, and California have implemented mandatory disclosures or bans on generic claims, Canada lacks dedicated statutes for regulating environmental claims to the general public.

The report finds that greenwashing is rampant in the food sector, particularly among high-emission meat and dairy companies. It highlights the use of vague or misleading terms like 'carbon neutral' and 'climate positive' to influence consumer behavior, noting that a significant portion of consumers in the UK and Germany are more likely to purchase products with such labels.

The report identifies widespread greenwashing in the food industry, particularly among high-emission meat and dairy producers. It combines a market study of corporate claims with a YouGov survey showing that a significant portion of consumers in Germany and the UK are influenced by 'climate-neutral' labels, despite low overall trust in sustainability claims for animal products.

The report identifies widespread greenwashing in the food sector, particularly among major meat and dairy producers. It highlights the use of misleading labels like 'carbon neutral' and 'net zero', the reliance on carbon offsetting over absolute emissions reductions, and the use of idyllic imagery to mask intensive farming practices. Polling in the UK and Germany shows that while consumers are concerned about greenwashing, they are still influenced by these claims in their purchasing decisions. The document calls for stricter government regulation of green claims and a systemic transformation of the food system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

ClientEarth argues that EIOPA's reliance on historical data to assess transition risks is flawed because future decarbonization will be non-linear and more rapid than past trends. The organization advocates for a precautionary approach, specifically proposing a 100% capital requirement for companies engaged in 'New Fossil Fuel Activities' (exploration, expansion, or development). ClientEarth also warns that sustainability market indices and corporate emissions targets are often unreliable due to greenwashing and inadequate methodologies, urging EIOPA to include absolute emissions and scope 3 emissions in its risk assessments to avoid underrepresenting systemic financial risks.

The report finds that five major Swiss financial institutions—UBS, Credit Suisse, Swiss Life AM, Zurich, and Pictet—continue to provide billions in financing and investments to companies expanding coal, oil, and gas production. Despite public net-zero pledges, the authors argue these institutions maintain weak policies with significant loopholes, engage in 'net-zero greenwashing,' and send mixed signals through inconsistent voting practices at shareholder meetings.

The signatories support the European Commission's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) but argue that the current legislative proposal contains critical shortcomings. They demand a clear distinction between carbon removal and emissions reductions, aligned with IPCC definitions, to prevent the misclassification of activities that merely reduce carbon release. Additionally, the authors call for strict guardrails on the use of removal certificates to prevent greenwashing and 'mitigation deterrence,' suggesting that different types of removals be labeled and regulated based on the duration and reliability of their carbon storage.

ClientEarth argues that the TPT framework must move from permissive language to mandatory, science-aligned standards to correct a market failure where corporate net zero commitments lack credible transition plans. Key recommendations include requiring alignment with 1.5°C pathways, mandatory disclosure of all Scope 1-3 emissions, and a prohibition on counting carbon credits toward reduction targets. The document also advocates for stronger links between transition plans and financial statements, more rigorous reporting on corporate lobbying, and the integration of 'just transition' and nature-positive objectives.

The document outlines 13 best practices for climate reporting, emphasizing the need to connect stories to climate causes and consequences, integrate climate coverage across all news beats, and center climate justice by highlighting marginalized and Indigenous voices. It advises journalists to avoid jargon, report on solutions alongside problems, and remain skeptical of greenwashing and corporate spin. Furthermore, it argues against platforming climate denialists in the name of balance and encourages the use of representative visuals and self-care for reporters facing burnout.

The document analyzes the 2023 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) findings for 24 global corporations, concluding that their net-zero targets are largely exaggerated and misleading. It highlights systemic issues such as over-reliance on low-quality carbon offsets, the exclusion of indirect emissions from carbon neutrality claims, and a lack of short-term ambition. To protect consumers, the brief recommends a complete prohibition of 'neutrality' claims in the EU, proactive enforcement by public regulators, and a shift toward a 'contribution claim' model for financing climate projects.

The document argues that current green and sustainable debt instruments rely on non-binding standards and proposes a stricter framework. For green bonds and loans, it suggests requiring exclusive use for green activities (referencing the EU Taxonomy or Climate Bond Initiative) and an 'entity-level' criterion, such as excluding harmful sectors or requiring a certified 1.5°C-aligned transition plan. For Sustainability-linked bonds (SLB) and loans (SLL), it proposes mandatory prior adoption of a certified transition plan and KPIs linked to material emission reductions. Additionally, it recommends banning the use of green debt for refinancing and implementing significant financial penalties for failing to meet environmental targets.

The briefing outlines six trends for financial institutions in 2023: the rise of short-term transition plans, political backlash against ESG investing, the growth of renewables over plateauing fossil fuels, the need for climate upskilling of employees, increased regulatory scrutiny on greenwashing, and the shift toward using transition-relevant data for portfolio steering.

The Canadian Climate Institute criticizes Ontario's proposed clean energy credit system, asserting it allows companies to claim 100 per cent clean electricity while others still report based on the average grid intensity, leading to double-counting. The author contends that such credits do not result in actual emission reductions, especially as Ontario plans to add 1,500 megawatts of natural gas-fired capacity to replace the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

ClientEarth's response to the FCA's CP22/20 proposes several enhancements to the SDR framework to ensure consumer protection and environmental integrity. Key recommendations include the adoption of a "do no significant harm" principle, the implementation of "double materiality" in reporting, and the tightening of criteria for "sustainable focus" and "sustainable improver" labels. The organization warns that the term "sustainable" may be misleading if products only target narrow objectives while causing harm elsewhere, and calls for a robust enforcement roadmap to oversee the self-certifying labelling regime.

The report finds that while 92% of surveyed business leaders view reducing carbon emissions as an urgent priority, many struggle with the 'how' of decarbonization due to budget and technological constraints. Businesses increasingly view the voluntary carbon market (VCM) as a critical tool for immediate action, though concerns over greenwashing and market transparency persist. While science-based targets are widely supported, there is a significant demand for clearer, more realistic guidance to help organizations meet their 2030 and 2050 goals.

The 2023 F-List report identifies numerous global advertising and PR agencies that maintain contracts with fossil fuel companies despite climate warnings. It highlights a gap between the sustainability commitments of holding companies like WPP, Omnicom, and IPG and their actual client rosters. The report specifically critiques the use of influencers to repair the image of 'Big Oil' and details the ongoing promotion of projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).