Apple just lost a court case in Germany over its “CO2-neutral” watch (Link in comments).
Apple used forestry-based offsets as part of its neutrality claim. The judges ruled that the offsets were too short-lived, and that “consumers reasonably expect such claims to guarantee carbon storage through at least 2050.” It’s kind of an odd ruling — criticisms of offsets are fair, but how many consumers have ANY knowledge or expectations about offsets?
But, no doubt, offsets are messy — lots of issues around legitimacy, additionality, permanence, and more. It’s right to ask companies to be clearer about what’s real. But here’s the risk: If courts hammer firms for every imperfect claim, it could discourage them from talking about or pursuing climate action.
As the article says, even “environmental groups remain divided,” and quotes my colleague Elizabeth Sturcken from Environmental Defense Fund. She talks about Apple’s advanced, multi-pronged approach to decarbonization. There’s a LOT of real work there in energy procurement and supply chains.
This isn’t simple. Defining what “right” looks like in corporate climate action rarely is.
[See discussion on this post on LinkedIn]
fyi, some other recent posts
The law is a big driver of corporate sustainability ;Two interesitng stories here: National Law Review is warning boards to get a lot smarter about climate risk and resilience planning. And some big companies in EU arguing for stronger reporting rules.
Whole body biometrics (or, Why on earth would you build this?)
[Image, ChatGPT and my prompts]
2519
