Danny ChenWe’ve talked about current greenwashing trends and the consumer protection evolvement. In this post, we have organized common greenwashing climate litigations happen in the past.
#1 Business are accused for oil-related pollution such as water contamination, soil degradation, livelihood destruction to the local communities with loose regulation in the past.
R1: The damages are real when the regulation is not in place due to the different jurisdictions and different backgrounds. Most legal systems follow the principle that laws are not retroactive, which may lead to intergenerational and cross-regional climate injustice.
#2 Businesses mislead customers that the whole business process is sustainable due to carbon offsetting.
R2: Sustainability is more than greenhouse gas emissions. When claiming the whole business process is sustainable via carbon offsets “only,” may discourage other important sustainability actions.
#3 Business Self-Made Sustainability Labels Do Not Receive Public Recognition.
R3: The recognition of sustainability labels requires transparent information with impartial judgment. If a business fails to receive mass public support, it is recommended to reconsider following the common market practice.
#4 Business-designed products with a limited lifespan to encourage consumers to replace them frequently
R4: Although some stakeholders may consider the practice as greenwashing. If we could integrate the planned obsolescence with the recycling/up-cycling system properly, the impacts may be hard to deem as negative from the environmental perspective.
#5 Business Climate Policies Do Not Align the Paris Agreement and International Human Rights
R5: The Paris Agreement targets government parties with no legally binding agreement. For international human rights, most businesses adopt voluntary commitments today. Placing all the environmental responsibilities toward businesses is a sign of stakeholder irresponsibility or free-riding. Without market demands from customers, there will be no businesses, not to mention environmental pollution.
#6 Businesses who commit to 2050 net-zero emissions or sustainability development produce more fossil fuels.
R6: There is no problem with the “net-zero emissions” or “sustainability development” claims with producing more fossil fuels for market demands. These are 2 separate topics.
#7 Business gave massive financing to fossil fuel projects that failed to meet global climate goals.
R7: Before making the judgment, focus on the purpose rather than the behavior. Not all financing leads to bigger environmental harms; when more green taxonomies are in place, financing will smooth the process of the net-zero transition.
#8 Business Directors do not implement strong business climate strategies to meet climate targets.
R8: For publicly listed businesses, the decision-making processes relate to various factors and stakeholder engagement. Filing lawsuits against specific business directors to urge immediate business action may not be an appropriate way to do so.
#9 Business fails to pay climate levies due to business insolvency proceedings
R9: Business climate action matters, but it is inappropriate to ask more when the business operation is under difficulties.
As we mentioned, not all greenwashing practices should be considered equally, and not all greenwashing climate litigations are appropriate to achieve the net-zero goal in the long-term. As a stakeholder lived in a net-zero transition phase, holding independent judgement with critical thinking is important to make your climate decision.
