[Related to my blog from yesterday on whether sustainability is dead…Bloomberg Businessweek recently published a cover story about companies retreating on climate pledges. I wrote two posts on LinkedIn about this. First, Businessweek overstated the case, but it had some important points (post 1). That said, we need to be clearer about how we identify a retreat (post 2)]
Thoughts on the Businessweek story
There’s a good article in Bloomberg by Ben Elgin on companies backing off from climate goals. As often happens in journalism, the headline (and picture) are more dramatic than the nuanced case he’s making.
The larger conclusion is that corporations can’t solve climate change alone and we need smart policy. Paul Polman and I make this case repeatedly in our book where we call for “net positive advocacy.” (Thanks to Ben for quoting us)
The only thing I’d quibble with is the idea that there’s a broad retreat on sustainability goals or action. It’s far messier than that (e.g., see link to my take on PepsiCo’s mixed bag goals in the comments). Things clearly aren’t great in the U.S., but there’s a broader world. And there’s some great research coming out soon (more later) showing that the retreat is not nearly as widespread as headlines suggest (spoiler there’s more retreat on social issues like DEI).
But that said, the article is dead on about two huge problems:
– Nearly universal greenhushing (it’s not a time of bravery). My concern is that if you’re quiet, even if you keep decarbonizing, you can’t do the systemic partnerships — including working with government on policy — needed to solve the biggest issues.
– The (longstanding) gap between company corporate climate goals and what they or their trade groups lobby for. Kudos to ClimateVoice (I’m on the Board) and founder Bill Weihl, as well as InfluenceMap, for calling this out repeatedly. We need what some call “Corporate Political Responsibility.”
Bottom line: it’s complicated, but we have to keep pushing companies to engage and question their trade associations…even in the face of hostility from the government.
We need much more courage.
[LinkedIn discussion on this post 1]
How do we measure a pullback on climate goals
There’s been a flurry of articles (and posts) claiming a corporate pullback from sustainability — with a special focus on climate.
The Bloomberg article discussed below declares (in the headline) that companies are “abandoning their climate pledges”, which the article itself doesn’t really prove. The truth is more complicated and nuanced (and not really known yet). Research from PwC (see David Linich‘s posts) and others show that more companies are expanding their goals than shrinking them.
But critics raise fair concerns:
Are companies on track to deliver on big goals?
Are they relying on questionable tools like low-quality carbon offsets (e.g., unbundled RECs).
There are three related, but separate, issues getting lumped together.
1) Setting goals — Are companies scaling ambitions up or down?
So far, the data says there is NO broad retreat (some high profile examples, yes, but more seem to be expanding than retracting)
2) Progress toward goals — Are they making headway?
Some (many?) companies are falling short, but falling short is not the same as failing. If I set a “science-based” goal to exercise 150 minutes per week, and I only hit 100, my health is still improved.
3) Tactics used – Are reductions credible?
Concerns about using RECs are absolutely founded, but companies have pulled back from that market — I’d welcome some more data from others here on that.
We need much clearer conversations that distinguish among these three.
The fast-rising claims of ‘abandoning climate’ are not yet justified.
We need a much more nuanced discussion before we declare defeat. Given how much companies follow the herd, oversimplifying the story could reinforce the backsliding we’re worried about.
[LinkedIn discussion on post 2]
2511
