Search Climate Insights Directory

A joint statement by ClientEarth, ECOS, Carbon Market Watch, and EEB proposing stricter EU regulations on 'greenwashing' and product durability. The authors argue for the prohibition of environmental claims based on offsetting, the requirement for science-based interim targets for future performance claims, and the banning of environmental advertising for fossil fuel products. They also propose measures to combat obsolescence by mandating transparency regarding repairability, software updates, and the availability of necessary spare parts.

Friends of the Earth argues that the USDA's $2.8 billion funding for 'climate-smart' commodities projects constitutes a corporate giveaway to major agribusinesses, potentially enabling greenwashing and further agricultural consolidation.

The We Mean Business Coalition and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development argue that the current draft of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) risks flooding the market with incomplete information. They advocate for alignment with the International Sustainable Standards Board (ISSB) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to ensure global comparability and reduce the reporting burden. The authors specifically criticize the 'rebuttable presumptions' concept and the lack of maturity in certain KPIs, such as biodiversity offsets, suggesting a phased-in approach for less mature metrics to prevent greenwashing and maintain investor trust.

Climate Bonds Initiative introduces the 'Five Hallmarks of a Credibly Transitioning Company' to combat greenwashing in transition finance. These Hallmarks—Paris-aligned targets, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting—provide a science-based methodology to evaluate whether a company's transition is rapid enough to meet the 1.5C goal. The report details the integration of these Hallmarks into a new certification scheme for non-financial corporates and SLBs, emphasizing the need for common sectoral pathways over company-specific baselines. It also highlights the growth of the SLB market, particularly among high-emitting sectors, and the necessity of comprehensive scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions accounting to ensure transition credibility.

The report identifies over 230 advertising and PR companies that continue to work for the fossil fuel industry despite making public net-zero or sustainability commitments. It specifically examines holding companies like WPP, IPG, Dentsu, Publicis, and Omnicom, as well as the PR firm Edelman, noting that many have erased fossil fuel clients from their websites or refuse to disclose client lists. The document highlights a disconnect between internal corporate goals—such as WPP's 2030 net-zero value chain target or IPG's 2040 net-zero goal—and their continued representation of companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Saudi Aramco. It also details legal challenges and accusations of greenwashing linked to these partnerships, such as lawsuits against WPP's work for BP and Shell. The report concludes by calling for the advertising industry to stop supporting fossil fuel clients to avoid complicity in climate disinformation.

The document argues that carbon offsets are scientifically flawed and act as a barrier to necessary emissions reductions, exposing companies to significant legal risks including consumer protection lawsuits, regulatory enforcement, and shareholder actions.

The document examines the rise of 'greenwashing' litigation related to plastics, where companies are challenged over misleading claims about recyclability, biodegradability, and corporate sustainability. It details a proliferation of class actions in the US and Canada, NGO-led challenges in the EU and US, and increasing enforcement by regulators like the FTC and CMA. The briefing also identifies an emerging 'second generation' of lawsuits brought by shareholders who allege financial losses resulting from deceptive environmental statements.

The document outlines the legal risks associated with plastic waste management, specifically focusing on incineration, recycling claims, and the illegal trade of plastic waste. It highlights how companies are increasingly exposed to litigation due to the environmental and health impacts of incineration, the perceived failure of recycling to solve the plastics crisis, and breaches of international waste shipment treaties like the Basel Convention.

The report argues that the gas industry is pushing hydrogen heating to avoid a 'death spiral' as consumers switch to electric heat pumps. It claims that converting gas grids to hydrogen could cost European users €240bn and that 'hydrogen ready' boilers are a greenwashing tactic to lock in fossil gas use. The document highlights that hydrogen combustion emits dangerous nitrogen oxides (NOx), contrary to industry marketing, and that heat pumps are significantly more cost-effective and efficient than hydrogen-based heating.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that 'net zero' is a global scientific concept that should not be applied to individual entities, as doing so encourages the use of ineffective offsets and speculative technologies. CIEL recommends that standards for non-state entities require absolute emissions reductions, the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. The document specifically criticizes the fossil fuel industry for using net-zero pledges to mask continued production and warns that reliance on Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) and technological Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is risky and unproven. It advocates for mandatory regulation, transparent reporting, and the integration of human rights and climate justice into all net-zero frameworks.

The report argues that krill fishing is inherently unsustainable as it threatens a fragile ecosystem already stressed by climate change. It highlights the dominance of Aker BioMarine in the market and identifies numerous European retailers and aquaculture companies that use krill-based feed or sell krill oil supplements. The document criticizes the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for failing to account for climate change and predator impacts, and calls for an immediate moratorium on krill fishing.

The report argues that krill fishing is inherently unsustainable as it threatens a fragile ecosystem already stressed by climate change. It highlights the dominance of Aker BioMarine in the market and identifies numerous European retailers selling salmon fed with krill meal. The document criticizes the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for ignoring climate change effects and calls for an immediate moratorium on krill fishing.

The report details how krill fishing, dominated by Aker BioMarine, exacerbates climate-driven threats to the Antarctic ecosystem by competing with key predators for food. It exposes a lack of transparency in supply chains, where krill meal is used in aquaculture feeds sold by major European retailers, and krill oil is widely sold as dietary supplements. The document criticizes the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for ignoring climate change and predator impacts, and calls for an immediate moratorium on krill fishing.

The report argues that Antarctic krill fishing is unsustainable, threatening a fragile ecosystem already stressed by climate change. It highlights how the industry, dominated by Aker BioMarine, uses greenwashing and problematic certifications like the MSC to justify its operations. An investigation reveals that krill-oil supplements are widely sold by the world's largest retailers and krill meal is extensively used in European salmon aquaculture, often without consumer-facing labels or retailer policies to exclude it.

The document examines sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) as a complement to green bonds, noting that their effectiveness in driving climate transitions depends on standardized performance indicators, science-based targets, and the mitigation of greenwashing risks. It calls for further research into the additionality of SLBs and their ability to incentivize carbon performance and system-level financial innovation.

ClientEarth warns EMR Capital that financing the proposed Whitehaven coal mine in West Cumbria poses significant climate-related financial risks and may breach fiduciary duties to investors. The letter highlights the mine's incompatibility with the 1.5°C warming limit and the likelihood of it becoming a stranded asset due to declining demand for coking coal in the UK and EU steel industries. ClientEarth further asserts that the investment contradicts EMR Capital's status as a UN PRI signatory and its own ESG policy, potentially exposing the firm to legal challenges and accusations of greenwashing.

Reclaim Finance argues that the GFANZ consultation draft lacks sufficient rigor and clarity, specifically regarding 2030 emission reduction targets, the cessation of fossil fuel expansion, and the definition of net zero. The organization advocates for the adoption of Race to Zero (RTZ) criteria, including a 50% reduction in financed emissions by 2030 and the requirement for permanent carbon removals (at least 1,000 years) to neutralize residual emissions. Reclaim Finance further challenges the classification of fossil gas as a transition fuel and calls for more stringent accountability mechanisms, such as the exclusion of financial institutions from alliances if they fail to implement credible, RTZ-aligned transition plans.

The author asserts that the plastic industry is set to double production by 2030 while only 9% of plastic has been recycled globally. The text highlights how companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo use voluntary targets to mask a lack of progress and lobby against deposit return systems in the US. Additionally, it criticizes European supermarkets for a lack of transparency regarding their plastic footprints and for employing greenwashing tactics to avoid systemic change.

The report highlights a disconnect between business-as-usual growth projections for animal agriculture and climate science, which predicts significant production losses and stranded assets. A survey of 201 investors reveals that while 82% view climate change as a material risk to meat and dairy investments, 55% believe investors are not sufficiently addressing these risks. The document emphasizes the critical need for methane reduction, noting that livestock is responsible for 32% of anthropogenic methane emissions, and calls for financial institutions to demand transparent reporting and support a transition toward alternative proteins.

The report analyzes 21 international taxonomies to provide a framework for a potential Canadian transition taxonomy, emphasizing the need for science-based thresholds to avoid greenwashing in a resource-dependent economy.