Search Climate Insights Directory

The ASIA F-LIST 2023 report examines the role of advertising in sustaining fossil fuel consumption across selected Asian markets. It argues that companies use reward programs, prize giveaways, and 'purpose-washing' campaigns—such as rural development projects and environmental restoration—to distract from their contribution to the climate crisis. The report notes a gap between sustainable intent and action among Asian consumers, partly due to misleading marketing, and highlights a growing but inconsistent regulatory landscape for climate disclosure in the region.

The report analyzes fossil fuel marketing in Asia, identifying two primary strategies: incentivizing increased fuel consumption through loyalty programs and prizes, and 'purpose-washing' to shift climate responsibility onto individuals or project a sustainable image. It notes a gap between Asian consumers' sustainable intent and action, partly due to misleading marketing, while highlighting a trend toward mandatory climate disclosures in countries like India, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

The report analyzes the 2022 reporting practices of 100 large EU companies, finding that while adoption is high, significant issues exist regarding the precision of legislation, the complexity of reporting forms, and the relevance of defined activities for many sectors. It highlights a discrepancy between the eligibility reported by financial and non-financial companies and recommends simplifying reporting requirements and clarifying key legal terms.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the draft EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) is fundamentally flawed due to poor definitions of carbon removals and a failure to specify their role in climate policy. The author contends that the proposal risks promoting 'mitigation deterrence' by allowing removals to substitute for deep emission reductions and by permitting the use of temporary storage for offsetting permanent emissions. Furthermore, the document criticizes the CRCF for conflating emissions reduction with removals, utilizing vague quantification baselines, and failing to implement social protections against land grabbing.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use. It highlights a significant lack of supply chain transparency and an overreliance on recycled polyester from PET bottles rather than fibre-to-fibre recycling. While many brands support proposed EU Textile Strategy legislation, there is a stark gap between their public sustainability marketing and actual decarbonization progress.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use. It highlights a critical lack of transparency in supply chains and criticizes the reliance on PET bottle recycling as a 'false solution' that does not reduce overall synthetic volumes. Most brands fail to address microfiber pollution or invest significantly in fiber-to-fiber recycling, while some continue to source polyester from coal-based production despite climate pledges.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use over the last five years. It highlights a systemic lack of supply chain transparency, an over-reliance on recycled polyester from PET bottles as a 'false solution', and a failure to set absolute Scope 3 emissions targets. While many brands express support for the EU Textile Strategy's regulatory measures, the report argues there is a significant gap between these public stances and actual corporate action.

The document asserts that big business, a primary driver of biodiversity loss, has significantly increased its influence over the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It details how corporations use 'green-sounding' coalitions, revolving doors, and the infiltration of national delegations to promote ineffective, market-based solutions like 'Nature-Based Solutions' and 'Nature Positive' while avoiding regulation. The report highlights specific cases of biotech industry influence and the role of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which includes companies with poor environmental records. It concludes that corporate capture prevents the transformative change needed to stop species extinction and recommends strict limits on business participation in UN negotiations, including a ban on business representatives in national delegations and the end of corporate partnerships.

The report argues that large corporations and their lobbying groups have systematically co-opted the CBD and the GBF process. It details strategies such as 'revolving doors', privileged access to the CBD Secretariat, and the promotion of ambiguous terms like 'nature positive' and 'nature-based solutions' to replace binding regulations with voluntary reporting and self-certification. The document highlights the role of groups like Business for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in steering the GBF away from addressing structural drivers of biodiversity loss.

The report analyzes the 'Nature Positive' concept, which aims to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. It argues that the term is vaguely defined and relies on 'net gain' accounting, which allows for the continued destruction of ecosystems if compensated elsewhere. The authors contend that such offsetting is often technically impossible, particularly in forest and marine ecosystems, and frequently leads to human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document further asserts that the concept is pushed by the private sector to avoid strong regulations and to create new business opportunities, while failing to integrate the rights and knowledge of those who protect 80% of existing biodiversity.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls for the urgent delivery of the $100 billion annual climate finance commitment to developing countries and the implementation of market signals to steer private capital toward net zero. The coalition emphasizes the need for reforming fossil fuel subsidies, implementing carbon pricing, and mandating transparent, comparable sustainability reporting standards aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to prevent greenwashing and facilitate sustainable investment.

Carbon Market Watch analyzes a leaked draft of the EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), warning that the proposal fails to define permanent storage, lacks liability rules for carbon reversals, and ignores social safeguards. While the author notes positive environmental sustainability objectives, they argue the framework risks certifying temporary removals as permanent and could allow agricultural emission reductions to be mislabeled as removals, potentially undermining EU climate targets.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) reports that between September 2020 and August 2022, five major oil companies—BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Aramco, and Chevron—spent $23.7 million on US Google Search ads, with $10.9 million dedicated to greenwashing. The report highlights a discrepancy between these companies' public sustainability claims and their internal documents, while also noting that Google continued to accept $421,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for climate denial ads despite promising to stop doing so.

Reclaim Finance warns that sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) are frequently used as instruments for greenwashing, allowing highly destructive companies to label debt as sustainable despite making only marginal efforts toward climate transition. The organization cites HSBC's inclusion of bonds linked to the EACOP project as an example of this risk.

The report examines the growth of green bonds in emerging markets, identifying critical success factors such as sound regulatory frameworks, investor demand, public sector participation, and macroeconomic stability. It details barriers including underdeveloped capital markets, a lack of bankable projects, and the risk of greenwashing. The document provides a five-step issuance process and analyzes the roles of development banks and national governments in catalyzing markets. Case studies on India and Kenya illustrate different stages of market readiness, from a corporate-led leader (India) to a nascent market (Kenya), offering tailored policy advice to enhance sustainable finance flows.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. The combined greenhouse gas emissions of these companies (734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The document highlights a significant lack of corporate transparency, with 60% of the analyzed companies failing to report total emissions or scope 3 emissions. It calls for binding emission targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies collectively emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of all anthropogenic global methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. The authors highlight a significant lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report total emissions across their value chain (Scope 3). The document calls for binding government targets for agricultural emissions and a systemic shift toward agroecological systems to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The complaint argues that TIAA/Nuveen engages in systematic greenwashing by marketing sustainable ESG products while maintaining substantial holdings in coal, oil, and gas, and acquiring land in Brazil linked to deforestation and human rights abuses. It requests that the PRI Board investigate these practices and require corrective actions, including full divestment from fossil fuels by 2025.

The article examines 'regulatory climate shaming'—the governmental publication of corporate climate impact data to generate public pressure—as a means to counter climate obstruction. It argues that despite the controversy surrounding public condemnation of corporate reputations, such tactics are essential for fighting climate denial and greenwashing, particularly within the fossil fuel industry.

A study by Öko-Institut for Carbon Market Watch finds that major European airlines rely on low-quality, cheap carbon offsets and lack transparency in reporting, often using misleading claims like 'carbon-neutral flying' to mask a lack of substantive emissions reductions.