The Truth Behind Greenwashing: Corporate Deception is Stalling Climate Action

I have noticed a definite “uptick” in the amount of “box ticking” in branding climate awareness when trying to sell goods or services.

Imagine buying a product you believe helps fight climate change, only to find out the company behind it is exaggerating—maybe even fabricating—its green credentials. This is the growing issue of greenwashing, and Tyson Foods, one of America’s biggest meat producers, is now in the hot seat. Accused of overstating its sustainability efforts with promises like “net-zero by 2050,” Tyson’s case is not just another corporate slip-up—it’s part of a larger problem where feel-good marketing clouds the truth. Whilst the environmental costs are high, the real damage might be to the trust between consumers and the companies they rely on to do the right thing.

Tyson Foods isn’t alone in this controversy. As consumer demand for sustainable products grows, many companies are quick to tout their eco-friendly credentials. But when these claims are empty or exaggerated, it creates more than just confusion for shoppers — it erodes trust and stalls genuine efforts to address climate change.

Earlier this year, JBS, a Brazilian meat conglomerate, was sued by the New York Attorney General for similar greenwashing claims. JBS had pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2040 but, like Tyson Foods, lacked a concrete plan to make this a reality. Such instances highlight a troubling trend where companies leverage sustainability buzzwords to maintain consumer loyalty without making meaningful environmental changes. Greenwashing lawsuits are on the rise globally. Europe and Australia have led the charge in holding corporations accountable, with their advertising integrity boards frequently issuing violations for misleading environmental claims.

Several high-profile cases have exposed the damaging impacts of greenwashing. For instance, Volkswagen’s infamous “Dieselgate” scandal, in which the company falsely marketed its diesel engines as environmentally friendly, cost the company billions of dollars in fines and settlements. Volkswagen rigged its vehicles to appear less polluting during emissions tests, deceiving regulators and consumers for years. The fallout from the scandal highlighted how corporate deception can damage consumer trust, impact the environment, and have severe financial consequences for businesses.

Similarly, ExxonMobil has been under investigation for allegedly misleading the public and its shareholders about the risks of climate change. Internal documents revealed that the company had been aware of the environmental risks associated with fossil fuel use since the 1970’s but had publicly downplayed or dismissed these concerns. Exxon’s greenwashing efforts involved promoting its investments in renewable energy, which, in reality, constituted only a small fraction of its overall business.

These cases are stark reminders that greenwashing is not just a marketing misstep—it has real-world consequences. By diverting attention away from meaningful action, companies engaging in greenwashing contribute to further environmental degradation and delay critical efforts to combat climate change.

Greenwashing is not just about companies making themselves look good. It’s about misguiding well-intentioned consumers. Many people want to spend their money in ways that align with their values, supporting companies they believe are doing the right thing. But when corporations exaggerate their environmental impact, they rob people of the chance to make informed decisions. Consumers may unknowingly support businesses that are contributing to climate change rather than helping to reduce it.

The environmental consequences are just as severe. When companies like Tyson Foods or JBS make empty promises, it delays meaningful action. In the case of Tyson Foods, beef production is responsible for a significant portion of its greenhouse gas emissions, but the company has yet to outline a clear path to reducing these emissions in a meaningful way. Instead of contributing to real progress, greenwashing creates a smokescreen that hides the ongoing environmental damage.

I think we must spare more than a thought for the businesses that are genuinely working toward sustainability often find themselves at a disadvantage, competing with companies that make bold but false claims. This undermines the market for truly sustainable products and creates confusion for consumers trying to make responsible choices. I am advising my hard-working climate conscious clients to take positive action both legally and with PR to protect their efforts.

Thankfully, the rise in greenwashing lawsuits is pushing some companies to be more transparent. Advocacy groups, legal frameworks and concerned consumers are playing an increasingly important role in holding businesses accountable for their environmental promises. For example, the lawsuit against Tyson Foods could result in the company being forced to pull back its climate claims or publish an actionable plan to back up its goals.

Time is pressing, we must get past quaint labels and examine what we find. Greenwashing does more than just harm the reputation of companies like Tyson Foods or JBS—it undermines the global fight against climate change. If corporations don’t back up their pledges with real action, it’s not only their credibility at risk but our planet itself.

© Lawrence Power 2024

Your Climate – a Mid Term 2024 Report.

What we must realise is that the 2015 Paris Agreement set an ambitious goal – to limit global temperature rise to ‘well below’ 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, with an optimistic target of 1.5 degrees. What I now fully appreciate is that the “pledge” nature of the commitment had no teeth of enforceability. We need laws that bite.

As the consequences of climate change become clearer by the day – look no further than the deadly floods which rocked Central Europe just last week – the urgency of decisive measures have never been clearer. Yet recent headlines are depressing – COP28 appears to have been a damp squib, and current data indicates that regrettably in early 2024 we have already surpassed the 1.5 degree target. Please do pause on this point and realise how shocking this reality is. Despite Paris promises in 2015; the first world has knowingly presided over failure to comply.

Despite this, going forward and of further concern is that private companies – key players in the race to reach net-zero, are drifting away from the very targets which they had adopted with much fanfare. Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, has abandoned it’s longstanding commitment to counterbalance it’s emissions in the face of the rapid expansion of its AI data centers.

In spite of these drawbacks, I still believe there is room for some cautious optimism. The upcoming COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan seeks to reaffirm the international commitment to the 1.5 degree target – emphasising the need for investment as a vehicle for change. Ahead of the summit, many investors are rallying around the need for net zero. This year, could a meaningful and real commitment be on the horizon?

The $29 Trillion Coalition

This month, more than 530 financial institutions – managing $29 trillion in assets – signed a statement urging governments to enact policies to unlock capital for the net-zero transition. This includes calling for national policies which will accelerate the transition to a net-zero, climate-resilient economy – including mandatory climate-related reporting and decarbonisation strategies for high-emitting sectors.

These are all published in the 2024 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis, outlining 5 critical policy areas:

1. Enact economy-wide public policies

This might include providing incentives such as grants and loan guarantees to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies that enable the net zero transition. Likewise, that states should ensure that their targets for nationally determined contributions align with the 1.5 degree Celsius goal.

2. Implement sectoral transition strategies, especially in high-emitting sectors

For example, remove subsidies for fossil fuels and replace them with clean energy subsidies that boost clean energy deployment and bolster low-emission fuels. This statement comes at a time where fourteen of the worlds biggest banks and financial institutions are pledging to increase their support for nuclear energy; a low-carbon form of energy which could be crucial in the energy transition.

3. Address nature, water and biodiversity related challenges contributing to and stemming from the climate crisis

Why is this an issue? To tackle this, it suggests that governments establish and deliver commitments to address water scarcity and pollution, halt degradation of other national ecosystems, including halting and reversing deforestation.

4. Mandate climate-related disclosures across the financial system

The statement includes a radical proposal to institute mandatory climate risk disclosure in financial reporting, subject to external assurance, with reporting for all public and large private companies and financial institutions. In my view, this will require discovery powers for the external reviewer(s) with penal powers for wilful failures/breaches/cover-ups.

5. Mobilise further private investment into climate mitigation, resilience and adaptation activities in emerging markets and developing economies (EDMEs)

For developing countries, the energy transition needs to be balanced against other urgent priorities – health, poverty, and economic growth. Recognising the hurdles faced by EDMEs in achieving these goals, the statement emphasises the need for external assistance; such as scaling up technical assistance provided to EDME governments, or enhancing the use of collaborative platforms such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships to scale climate finance contributions and delivery in EDMEs.

©Lawrence Power 2024

Legal Climate Counsel

How Sustainable Were the 2024 Olympics? – A Closer Look At Green Promises

As the 2024 Olympics and the Paralympics have ended, the question of sustainability comes to the forefront.

Many wonder whether the efforts made to ensure sustainability have truly been realised and whether these Games will be remembered as “historic for the climate” and the greenest in history. However, as previous Olympic Games have shown, promises of green initiatives often fail to result in significant change.


Paris 2024: Promises of Sustainability

The 2024 Paris Games aimed to succeed where others have struggled, committing to various measures to reduce their environmental impact. Most notably, unlike many previous host cities, Paris avoided constructing new complexes and facilities, instead relying on existing infrastructure.

An impressive 95% of the buildings and areas hosting the Games were already in place, eliminating much of the environmental toll associated with new construction. The Games also placed an emphasis on renewable energy and sustainable transportation, aiming to cover electricity use with green sources.

Other measures included:

  • Leasing over 60% of equipment rather than purchasing new.
  • Reducing 50% of single-use plastics in food and beverage consumption.
  • Ensuring 100% of infrastructure, furniture, and equipment have a second life beyond the Games.
  • Using eco-design, with recycled and repurposed materials.

The Paris Games introduced several innovative measures, including heating aquatic pools using waste heat from nearby data centres and launching a “climate coach” platform to help other sporting events reduce their carbon footprints.


Criticism Despite Efforts

While these initiatives are promising, there is vaild criticism. One analysis of 16 Olympic Games from 1992 to 2020 found that even the most modern Olympics have struggled with environmental sustainability. Sochi, Rio, Tokyo and London, for example, were among the least sustainable, despite claims to the contrary.

Even with the changes in Paris, questions remain. Can these efforts offset the emissions generated by 600,000 spectators and 10,500 athletes travelling to the city?

Advertising, labour, memorabilia, hotels, food and broadcasting also contribute to the Games’ carbon footprint, making it difficult to fully declare them sustainable. The triathlon and swimming events, held in the Seine, also sparked concerns, and many criticised Paris’s attempts at eco-friendly measures. Even athletes voiced their concerns, many turning to social media to express frustration with some of the eco-friendly measures. Issues ranged from discomfort with recyclable beds and dissatisfaction with the food, to criticism of event locations. It seems that in some cases, sustainability efforts may have inadvertently affected the athlete experience.


Looking Ahead

While we wait for the Paris Games to release final data on the overall sustainability of the event, many remain hopeful that they will demonstrate that with focus and effort, the Olympics can one day become truly green.

As sustainability continues to evolve in global events, is your organisation prepared to make a difference? Contact my team for advice on environmental regulations and strategies for sustainable event planning.

©Lawrence Power 2024