EWF alleged that Tyson’s promise to reach “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and its sale of “climate-smart” beef, could not be credibly substantiated. Before pulling its Brazen Beef line in 2024, Tyson had marketed the product as “the first climate friendly beef with 10% greenhouse gas reduction,” a claim that Matthew Hayek, an environmental scientist at New York University, says he never believed. Echoing what he told Corporate Knights in 2024, Hayek reiterates that “10% just seemed like such a fine-grained amount of emissions reduction that was well within the margin of error.” He is “skeptical that anyone had the information that could ‘prove’ that when that consumer went to the grocery store, they were actually getting 10% fewer emissions than the steak right next to it.”

“The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods,” a company spokesperson told Reuters.

EWG claims that Tyson spent less than 0.1% of annual revenue on actual emission-reduction efforts, and that was “mostly on research – $50 million out of a total annual revenue of roughly $53 billion.” It adds that Tyson spends about “three times as much on advertising as it does on research.”

All the while, according to EWG, Tyson is producing greenhouse gas emissions that “exceed those of Austria or Greece,” with its beef production responsible for 85% of those emissions.

A particularly polluting food

One third of global greenhouse gases are linked to agriculture, with beef remaining disproportionately responsible. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, “the global livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for between 12% and 19% of total human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making it one of the world’s highest emitting sectors.” This has led some major meat-industry players to invest heavily in climate-friendly marketing campaigns and carbon offsets – not in reducing production.

For example, Canada’s Maple Leaf Foods, which produces pork and poultry, has claimed since 2019 to be “the world’s first carbon neutral food company.” It relies in part on offsets, according to its website, “that help us neutralize our remaining, unavoidable emissions.” The company has also pledged to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 emissions “by 30% by 2030 against a 2018 base year” and the “intensity [per tonne of product produced] of our Scope 3 GHG emissions by 30% by 2030 against a 2018 base year.” Scope 3 emissions account for roughly 90% of Maple Leaf’s total reported footprint, with third-party pork and poultry suppliers responsible for the majority, more than 30%, of those emissions.

Fellow meat giant JBS USA had also made similar promises, to “reach net zero by 2040.” But in early November, New York State’s attorney general found the company lacked any credible plan to meet that promise. As a result, JBS agreed to remove or revise its “Net Zero by 2040” statements on U.S. consumer-facing websites so that the target is presented as a “goal,” not a firm pledge or commitment. The company’s website now describes it as an “ambition.” It will also pay US$1.1 million to support climate-smart agriculture programs.

Hayek, who has long been vocal about so-called climate-friendly meat claims, says that while “greenwashing is not going away anytime soon,” he hopes these cases “bring a little bit more attention to the fact that meat is a particularly polluting food.” Hopefully, he adds, this “discourages unfounded climate marketing, and not the important work of climate-target setting and value-chain decarbonization.” What is ultimately required, he says, is to “make animal production less polluting and to shift away from animal production.”

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance writer covering animal rights and welfare and plant-based food topics. She is also the culture and disinformation correspondent for Sentient. 

The post Global meat giants Tyson Foods and JBS are being held to account for greenwashing appeared first on Corporate Knights.

They wouldn’t be alone. But that’s no reason to throw these new competition rules in the “dunny” just yet. We can take a lesson from our mates in Australia who are swiftly adding sustainable finance as a claim to fame along with sensational natural beauty and colourful idioms.

In last week’s federal budget, the government committed to reforming its anti-greenwashing legislation, which has created uncertainty in the market and inhibited reporting that investors rely on. Bill C-59, passed in 2024, created a significant shift in Canada’s regulatory landscape by amending the Competition Act with the intention of restoring trust in environmental communications following widespread evidence of consumer skepticism of corporate sustainability claims.

High stakes for firms

It’s certainly true that greenwashing is bad for consumers and bad for the environment. Government action to address it in competition law is entirely appropriate. However, C-59 has created significant concern over litigation risk across corporate Canada. Why?

First, we can expect that private disputes will surge since private parties – such as competitors, consumer groups or nongovernmental organizations – can bring claims before the Competition Tribunal, provided the cases are deemed to be in the public’s interest.

Australian regulators have developed clear guidance, backed by enforcement actions and cross-agency coordination.

 – Thomas Walker and Maya Saryyeva, Institute for Sustainable Finance

Second, there is a “reverse onus” requiring anyone making environmental claims to prove that the claims are based on “adequate and proper tests” or “internationally recognized methodology” – a vague standard open to interpretation despite attempts by the Competition Bureau to provide guidance. Moreover, the Competition Tribunal may order companies to pay back the profits derived from greenwashing and give the money to people who were affected, essentially mirroring a class action system outside the civil court framework.

Finally, there is the scale of potential penalties: up to $10 million for a first violation, triple the benefit derived, or 3% of worldwide revenue if the value of the benefit cannot be reasonably determined. That’s “big bikkies” for any firm.

RELATED

Are corporate claims of ‘greenhushing’ just more greenwashing?

RBC’s climate retreat sparks debate over anti-greenwashing law

‘Greenhushing’ bears a steep cost for the world’s biggest brands, report finds

Of particular concern for financial institutions is that the law does not clearly distinguish between marketing claims aimed at consumers and ESG (environmental, social and governance) disclosures intended for investors. Consumer-facing information is directed at the public with the purpose of influencing purchasing behaviour or enhancing brand reputation, while disclosures for investors are directed at shareholders, analysts and financial markets. Their purpose is to inform investment decisions by showing how ESG issues and risks affect a company’s financial performance or long-term strategy. This blurring of categories in the law could inadvertently chill legitimate sustainability reporting, potentially making it harder for Canadian firms to attract capital from global investors who are increasingly focused on climate risk.

In June, the Competition Bureau released updated guidance to address stakeholder feedback. While it provided some helpful clarification, many questions remain. The definitions are not legally binding, and without clear, industry-specific examples, many firms are still unsure how to comply. The bureau’s view that consumer protection rules take priority over securities regulation has also not eased worries about overlapping regulations.

The Australian model

Australia’s approach is more mature and robust than Canada’s. Australian regulators – including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – have developed clear guidance, backed by enforcement actions and cross-agency coordination.

The Australian framework offers specific substantiation standards for ESG claims; detailed examples of compliant versus non-compliant statements; strong alignment between financial and competition regulators; and a track record of proactive enforcement, especially in superannuation fund and investment marketing, in contrast to C-59’s private right of action.

While Australia shares Canada’s intent to curb greenwashing, its detailed, regulator-coordinated framework, its sector-specific examples, and its phased mandatory climate-reporting requirements provide greater legal certainty and reduce the risk of discouraging voluntary ESG disclosures, a crucial factor for any country seeking to align its capital with net-zero goals.

Improving the regulation

Bill C-59 is an important step toward strengthening consumer protection and restoring integrity in corporate environmental claims. However, its ultimate success will depend on whether the federal government and regulators can resolve remaining uncertainties and avoid unintended consequences. From examining the Australian example and public feedback in Canada, the following recommendations emerge:

The Competition Bureau should issue clearer guidance, including sector-specific examples. Note, however, that questions will remain about whether following guidance would reduce a firm’s litigation risk. It is ultimately up to the courts to interpret the legislation.

As well, there should be stronger coordination between the Competition Bureau and financial regulators to ensure that policy goals are aligned. Additionally, Canadian Securities Administrators should restart its long-delayed process to make corporate climate-related reporting mandatory and aligned with standards set out by the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board. Compulsory disclosures would enhance clarity for both businesses and investors.

At least while the legislation is being reviewed, the federal government should suspend the private right of action to reduce the risk of litigation. Plus, the federal government should amend the legislation to implement safe-harbour provisions for forward-looking disclosures, which would offer legal protection to companies that are attempting to make crucial projections about the future that might inform capital allocation decisions but are dependent on subjective assumptions.

With these improvements, Canada can move closer to a regulatory environment that promotes both accountability and climate-aligned capital flows, without deterring corporate transparency. That would be a “cracker” outcome for everyone.

Thomas Walker is executive director (academic) of the Institute for Sustainable Finance (ISF) at Smith School of Business, Queen’s University. Maya Saryyeva is director of ISF.

The post Australia’s anti-greenwashing law offers a model for Canada appeared first on Corporate Knights.

As temperatures climbed and our forests and communities burned over the last year, several Canadian companies abandoned their sustainability commitments. These companies joined the global ranks of Amazon, Walmart, FedEx, Delta, PepsiCo and numerous banks and fossil fuel companies in weakening their climate promises.

While one might think fear of the U.S. regime had brought this on, the Royal Bank of Canada, Maple Leaf Foods, the Canada Pension Plan and many others instead pointed to a homegrown enemy: Canada’s relatively new anti-greenwashing law, Bill C-59. This outcry became particularly virulent when a new private right of action came into effect in June 2024, a year after the law itself, allowing private plaintiffs to sue for deceptive marketing before the Competition Tribunal.

Greenwashing is communication that misleads people into overly positive beliefs about an organization’s environmental activities. Basically, companies aren’t walking the talk. Canadian lawmakers saw this as impeding fair competition and harming Canadian consumers, so Bill C-59 required evidence to back up environmental claims. Simple.

Or not. Several large Canadian businesses have been arguing loudly against the bill since it was passed. Rather than simply offering evidence to back up their environmental claims, many stated that the law was too complex and risky and that they were instead doing sustainability in secret by “greenhushing.”

As one of the leading global scholars studying greenwashing and greenhushing, let me offer some clarity. In short, I don’t think that word means what they think it means. Greenhushing refers to companies taking genuine actions to reduce their environmental impacts but choosing to downplay or stay silent about their actions publicly. Firms that are truly greenhushing are walking but not talking.

You may see where I’m going here, but let me expand.

Greenhushing means a firm is walking the walk

A firm that is greenhushing is taking genuine action to decrease its environmental impact. Those doing so seriously are likely using at least one of the standards, measures and metrics devised by scientists and international bodies to aid firms in these reductions. This is well-established territory. We know how to measure most environmental impacts, and we know how to measure reductions in those impacts.

In a recently published paper, the first of its kind, colleagues and I interviewed more than 50 firms in the wine industry that truly are greenhushing. It turned out that even though they weren’t public about it, all but two were certified to at least one known standard (Organic, Biodynamic, LEED, Fair Trade, etc.). These certifications cost time and money. Yet firms told us they were certifying to learn from experts, have a plan and metrics to follow, compare themselves to competitors, and keep themselves honest. Greenhushing is not “choose your own adventure,” and it certainly does not mean you use either no metrics or your own more favourable metrics.

If any of us wants to buy a car with better gas mileage, for example, we are very unlikely to simply take the word of the salesperson. We want a number verified by someone credible who is not selling us the car, and we want that to be a number we can compare across cars and companies. Whether they put that number in the ad for the car is a different matter, but we still want some good solid evidence.

Greenhushing means a firm is not talking the talk

Talking very publicly about how you are not going to talk about maybe doing something secretly sustainable is still talking. Of course, many of the greenhushing firms I studied do tell select audiences what they are doing. But when I hear these vague yet very public claims of secret “greenhushed” sustainability, I am deeply suspicious. When we now hear how actively they were talking to politicians in backrooms about their supposed greenhushing? Well, let’s just say my greenwash-meter is on overdrive.

If we are concerned about honest and innovative green Canadian firms greenhushing, as we should be, the best way we can support them is by stopping greenwashing.

– Wren Montgomery, cofounder, Greenwash Action Lab.

If not greenhushing, what are these firms doing?

If firms are loudly telling us they are still doing green things, yet providing no evidence, this is not greenhushing. It is just our same old friend greenwashing in a different guise. Vague and unsupported environmental claims are greenwashing.

With research showing that upwards of 50% of green claims are greenwashing, many of the firms who were being silent had taken Bill C-59 seriously and had stopped making unverifiable claims. But, if they weren’t doing anything credible to begin with, they weren’t greenhushing. They had merely stopped greenwashing.

RELATED

RBC’s climate retreat sparks debate over anti-greenwashing law

Canada’s new greenwashing ban rattles fossil fuel industry

Opinion | Canada’s new anti-greenwashing rules are not as bad as oil and gas industry says

All that being said, some firms do legitimately greenhush, like the ones I research. But my research found something fascinating: the primary reason honest green businesses weren’t willing to talk about sustainability was not stringent legislation or fear of backlash. Instead, they thought there was too much greenwashing in the market and they would be lumped in with all the other greenwashers if they did more talking.

To summarize the research, if we are concerned about honest and innovative green Canadian firms greenhushing, as we should be, the best way we can support them is by stopping greenwashing. Luckily, that’s what Bill C-59 and the Competition Bureau had set out to do.

If we want to permit climate disinformation to continue to disrupt markets, inhibit sustainable innovation and drive out genuine green companies? Unfortunately, that’s what Carney’s budget has set out to do.

Wren Montgomery is an associate professor at Ivey Business School at Western University and cofounder of the Greenwash Action Lab.

The post Are corporate claims of ‘greenhushing’ just more greenwashing? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

For the world’s largest companies, there is a lot of money at stake when deciding how to portray their sustainability efforts, and some companies are leaving billions on the table by under-communicating their progress.

Apple’s complex record on sustainability

The post ‘Greenhushing’ bears a steep cost for the world’s biggest brands, report finds appeared first on Corporate Knights.

An international campaign spearheaded by the Global Climate and Health Alliance (GCHA), called Break the Fossil Influence – Fossil-Free Health Communications, is adding more muscle to that scrutiny, by shunning the public relations firms that work with fossil fuel entities.

More than 30 organizations, representing the interests of more than 12 million health professionals around the world, have signed a commitment to no longer work with PR agencies that also provide services to the fossil fuel industry. They include Amref Health Africa, Médecins Sans Frontières, The Lancet, the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations, the World Federation of Public Health Associations, the World Organization of Family Doctors and the Yale Center on Climate Change and Health.

Many in the fossil fuel industry have shamelessly greenwashed, even as they have sought to delay climate action – with lobbying, legal threats and massive ad campaigns.

– António Guterres, UN Secretary-General

“Fossil fuels are making people sick – and the companies behind them are spending millions on advertising and PR to cover it up,” Shweta Narayan, campaign lead at GCHA, said in a statement. “The same PR firms spreading fossil fuel disinformation are also working with health organizations – a clear conflict of interest for health.”

It’s not just physical health: a contingent of mental health professionals who wrote an open letter in support of the campaign noted that mental health is at stake too. Air pollution has been linked to anxiety, depression and psychosis, they wrote, especially for children and children of mothers exposed to particulate matter during pregnancy. A survey of 10,000 young people from 10 countries in 2021 found that nearly two-thirds are “very” or “extremely” worried about climate change.

“We see it every day: the quiet despair of displaced families, the anxiety of children growing up in a world on fire, the disorientation and grief communities face after floods, drought, and wildfires,” the authors of the letter write. “Climate anxiety is no longer a fear of what might happen – it is the emotional response to what is already happening.”

A global struggle for climate truth

The Fossil-Free Health Communications commitment led by GCHA echoes global efforts to chip away at climate misinformation by targeting those who are carrying it out. A 2024 report from Clean Creatives found that more than 500 advertising agencies had more than 1,000 contracts with fossil fuel companies in 2023 and 2024, including messaging giants such as Edelman, Dentsu and FleishmanHillard.

The 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP29, held last November in petroleum-producing Azerbaijan, saw dozens of delegates from PR agencies roam its halls, including many of the same agencies that were singled out by the Clean Creatives list. Clean Creatives celebrated a more positive milestone in 2024, as more than 1,000 PR agencies pledged to divest from fossil fuels.

RELATED

Could fossil fuel companies be prosecuted for murder?

How Big Oil’s spin doctors are influencing influencers

Can fossil fuel lobbyists be barred from global climate talks?

A number of jurisdictions have tried to curtail fossil advertising with laws. In 2022, France became the first country to ban fossil fuel ads. In 2022, Sydney, Australia, banned coal, oil and gas advertising; in 2024, The Hague in the Netherlands became the first city to ban advertising for fossil fuels and carbon-intensive industries such as airlines and cruise ships. Amsterdam and Edinburgh have passed similar restrictions, although they are not legally binding. 

Doctors in Canada have mounted a similar campaign against fossil fuel advertising. Last winter Charlie Angus, a former member of Parliament, tabled a private member’s bill to prohibit misleading advertising by the oil and gas industry. It was met with furious backlash and did not receive a hearing in Parliament, however.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has consistently sounded the alarm over the role of PR agencies in stalling more meaningful climate action for years. “Many in the fossil fuel industry have shamelessly greenwashed, even as they have sought to delay climate action – with lobbying, legal threats and massive ad campaigns,” Guterres said in a speech on World Environment Day in 2024. “They have been aided and abetted by advertising and PR companies – mad men fuelling the madness.”

Natalie Alcoba is a Buenos Aires–based journalist and senior editor at Corporate Knights.

The post Global health organizations shun PR firms that work for fossil fuels appeared first on Corporate Knights.

“Investors and stakeholders are concerned about the ripple effects this action will have on the rest of the Canadian banks because we know they tend to move in lockstep with one another,” says Claire Trottier, a board member of the Trottier Family Foundation, in an email to Corporate Knights. Trottier says banks could create major uncertainty among their investors by dropping climate goals and disclosures. Any pullbacks must be “replaced by mechanisms that are more robust and actionable, rather than simply being dismantled,” she says.

The Quebec-based foundation recently mounted a campaign by investors to pressure RBC and other Canadian banks to maintain their climate commitments and disclosures in the face of a global retreat on sustainability issues. The campaign came a few months after all major Canadian and U.S. banks exited the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, the global climate network for banks.

In its annual sustainability report, RBC disclosed that it had “retired” a goal to mobilize $500 billion in sustainable finance by 2025, a target originally set in 2021. The bank also said it would not disclose its energy supply ratio (ESR), a metric that compares a bank’s low-carbon and fossil-fuel financing. It also said it is reviewing its financed emissions targets in the oil and gas, power and transportation sectors. The bank said anti-greenwashing changes to the federal Competition Act last year prompted these pullbacks.

Regulators have an important role to play making sure that claims are not outlandish. They have to be truthful. But I think that C-59 is being weaponized by companies so they don’t have to disclose as much.

– Dominique Barker, chief financial officer and head of sustainability, Lithium Royalty Corp

The anti-greenwashing amendments “limit the information we can share on certain sustainability disclosures and the progress we are making and have restricted our ability to publicly report on several metrics,” Jennifer Livingstone, RBC’s vice president for climate, said in a statement. “We are disappointed not to share these metrics externally but will continue to monitor and report them internally to measure our progress.” She said the key roadblock posed by the anti-greenwashing legislation is a “requirement to align to ‘internationally recognized methodologies’ where none exist.”

I4PC supports nixing $500-billion pledge

While the retreat on ESR reporting has produced widespread disappointment, RBC’s big-ticket pullback from sustainable finance has generated some support among climate-concerned investors. Investors for Paris Compliance (I4PC), a network for climate-focused investors, praised the bank for dropping its $500-billion sustainable finance commitment. “We see this as a positive step away from misleading environmental or climate claims,” I4PC wrote in a blog post.

The sustainable finance target “included many financial activities that were not quantitatively linked to achieving net-zero emissions – and in fact, in some cases, actually increased emissions,” says Kyra Bell-Pasht, I4PC’s director of research and policy. “We’re happy to see them step away from it and acknowledge that it’s not fit for purpose.”

I4PC supports three previous and more verifiable financing goals that the bank has committed to achieve by 2030: $1 billion for climate solutions, $35 billion for low-carbon energy and $15 billion for renewables. However, it’s not clear whether the bank intends to report progress on these goals.

Investors disappointed by ESR retreat

Last year, RBC and U.S. banks Citi and JPMorgan pledged to start reporting their ESRs, as a result of an agreement with the New York City pension system. This year, Scotiabank in Canada also pledged to report its ESR following investor pressure coordinated by the Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE). Developed by the “new energy finance” division at Bloomberg (BloombergNEF), the ratio illustrates an institution’s level of low-carbon-energy financing compared with its fossil fuel financing. Bloomberg estimates that the ratio needs to be at least 4:1 low carbon to fossil fuel worldwide by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

In an email statement following the bank’s recent disclosure, a spokesperson for New York City comptroller Brad Lander, who supervises the pension system, praised RBC for agreeing to employ the ESR metric internally. “However, we are disappointed that recent changes to Canada’s Competition Act led RBC to drop its sustainable finance targets and the disclosure of its energy supply ratio,” he added.

While the New York City pension system seems to accept RBC’s contention that the anti-greenwashing legislation restricts its ability to disclose targets and metrics, other investors are not so sure. A SHARE spokesperson said in an email it’s not clear whether the anti-greenwashing legislation applies to the ESR metric.

Related

As banks backslide on climate, Canadian shareholder groups demand reforms

Climate-action group SBTi holds firm on targets for companies

How climate risk disclosure became a battleground for the clean economy

I4PC went further, writing in its blog that RBC is putting “undue emphasis” on the anti-greenwashing legislation “as an excuse for not disclosing its energy supply ratio.” The post notes that BloombergNEF estimates RBC’s ESR at 0.36:1, far lower than the 4:1 ratio needed globally to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Bell-Pasht says it’s hard to understand why RBC contends that its ESR may be offside anti-greenwashing legislation (which requires that claims be consistent with global standards). She notes the ratio is based on advice from the Institute of International Finance, a global banking network. “We’re a bit confused,” she says. “RBC says its ESR methodology is based on international guidance. It sounds like it’s defensible and does align with the Competition Act.”

Anti-greenwashing bill ‘weaponized’

Dominique Barker, chief financial officer and head of sustainability for Lithium Royalty Corp., says that Bill C-59, the anti-greenwashing amendment passed last year, was introduced to ensure that corporate environmental claims are truthful. “Regulators have an important role to play making sure that claims are not outlandish,” Barker said in comments to a panel discussion May 5 in Toronto sponsored by the Queen’s University Institute for Sustainable Finance. “They have to be truthful. But I think that C-59 is being weaponized by companies so they don’t have to disclose as much.”

But Andy Chisholm, a member of the previous Liberal government’s sustainable finance advisory panel, told the forum that the heavy penalties set out in C-59 (as high as 3% of global revenues) and the right it gives to third parties to launch lawsuits are making lawyers very cautious in the climate disclosure advice they provide to corporate clients.

“You’ve got to get the disclosure regime going before you start creating all sorts of penalties,” Chisholm said. The federal advisory committee recommended a “safe haven” to provide companies with legal protection on climate disclosures, he added. “Instead of a safe haven, we put in place national legislation which says anybody has a right to contest something.” Chisholm, an RBC board member, said he was speaking for himself, not on behalf of the bank.

The federal government needs to provide better guidance to resolve the confusion over the anti-greenwashing legislation, Trottier said in her statement. “Some unintended consequences of Bill C-59 have introduced uncertainty and led to a pullback in corporate disclosures – ironically making it harder to assess the very risks the legislation is meant to uncover.”

Eugene Ellmen writes on sustainable business and finance. He is a former executive director of the Canadian Social Investment Organization (now the Responsible Investment Association).

The post RBC’s climate retreat sparks debate over anti-greenwashing law appeared first on Corporate Knights.

At least 39 fossil fuel companies and 12 industry-linked organizations – including Shell, TC Energy, and the Pathways Alliance – have supplied classroom resources that downplay the sector’s role in driving global heating, states a new report. The materials emphasize consumer responsibility and technological solutions, while largely omitting the need for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.

The post How Big Oil promotes climate change misinformation in Canadian schools appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The PR companies that help them sell that message are not far behind.

Dozens of the consultants registered for the two-week conference, called COP29, come from 10 public relations agencies that work with oil giants such as Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil and Shell. The agencies include Edelman, Dentsu, FleishmanHillard and Burson, according to a DeSmog review of the official delegates list, as well as reports by the PR industry trade press.

Staff from seven of these agencies registered with delegations from countries taking part in the negotiations, including Japan, Brazil, Turkey and the United Kingdom, as well as the United Arab Emirates, which hosted the last round of the annual negotiations.

Governments often hire PR teams to create content, provide media training and handle press at high-level conferences. Most of the consultants were listed under each country’s “party overflow,” which gives them access to policymakers, politicians and business leaders outside the negotiation zone.

Since the start of 2023, these 10 agencies have collectively held at least 91 contracts to burnish the reputations of companies involved in the fossil fuel industry, according to research by DeSmog and Clean Creatives.

It is unclear whether any of the agency employees registered for COP29 have also worked on fossil fuel accounts. At big communications companies, which can employ thousands, only a small number of employees might be working on oil and gas contracts at any one time.

Nevertheless, the proximity of employees from so many fossil-friendly PR firms to the climate negotiations underscores wider concerns about the communications industry’s role in helping to defend the business models of major polluters. “Any agency with fossil fuel clients at a climate summit is a walking conflict of interest,” said Duncan Meisel, director of Clean Creatives. “Fossil fuel PR agencies show up at events like the COP in order to delay progress by claiming their clients are somehow essential and responsible companies.”

Climate advocates are calling on the advertising and PR industry to stop protecting polluting companies and oil-exporting countries from pressure to decarbonize, often by pushing risky climate solutions like carbon capture or arguing that fossil fuels are necessary for energy security.

In June, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called for communications agencies to drop their fossil fuel clients, saying that oil and gas companies had been “aided and abetted by advertising and PR companies – Mad Men fuelling the madness.”

Three months later, Clean Creatives published a report documenting more than 1,000 fossil fuel contracts in the PR and advertising industry since the start of 2023.

The PR firms pushing for Big Oil in climate solutions 

At the Baku conference, Saudi Arabia and allied oil exporters are attempting to block an agreement made at COP28 in Dubai last year to “transition away” from fossil fuels from being included in this year’s final text, according to reporting by the news service Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

The Saudi government, which has worked to hinder UN climate talks for decades, owns the largest oil company in the world by revenue, Saudi Aramco.

New York–headquartered Burson, one of the PR agencies attending COP29 as part of Turkey’s delegation, has worked for Saudi Aramco at least as recently as 2023, according to research by Clean Creatives. Burson also has 10 other current or recent clients in the fossil fuel sector.

Burson was formed by a merger between Hill & Knowlton and BCW in July, which created the largest PR firm in the world by revenue.

When Egypt, the host of 2022’s climate summit, hired Hill & Knowlton to lead public communications for the conference, more than 400 scientists signed an open letter calling for the agency to drop its fossil fuel clients. The letter described Hill & Knowlton’s work for oil giants such as Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil – clients now retained by Burson – as “incompatible” with spearheading the PR for UN climate negotiations.

Burson is a subsidiary of U.K.-based WPP, the largest global network of PR and advertising agencies in the world by revenue. WPP’s agencies have collectively held at least 79 fossil fuel contracts since the start of 2023, according to Clean Creatives.

Twenty-two employees from the U.S.-based firm Teneo, which has been hired by the Azeri hosts to work on COP29, were registered as part of the Azeri delegation – the most of any agency in the analysis – along with one in the New Zealand delegation. The most senior registered member of Teneo’s COP29 PR team is Geoff Morrell, a former BP communications chief.

Related

An authoritarian petrostate takes centre stage as COP29 host

Meet the man most responsible for saving COP29 from irrelevancy

Could the UN’s new carbon trading system give a needed boost to the green shift?

In the run-up to COP29, Teneo conducted an extensive public relations campaign for the Azeri government that portrayed the country as a leader in climate action. The company is in line to earn $5 million for this work, according to documents the company filed with the U.S. Department of Justice under rules requiring U.S. companies to report work for foreign governments.

That task has been complicated by Azerbaijan’s plans to increase oil and gas production. A senior Azeri COP executive was secretly filmed as he appeared to use his role to set up meetings to explore possible fossil fuel deals.

Teneo has worked with at least six oil and gas producers in the past five years, including Chevron and Shell, according to research by DeSmog. The climate plans of both companies, like those of the majority of the fossil fuel industry, are incompatible with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement between nations to keep global heating “well below” 2°C (3.6°F) above the historic average, according to a May report by Oil Change International.

Azerbaijan’s delegation also includes six consultants from BTP Advisers, a communications firm that specializes in advising governments with a history of using controversial PR tactics.

In January 2023, an Australian scientist told non-profit news outlet EUobserver that he had been tricked into promoting “Azerbaijan propaganda” by BTP as the firm sought to buff the country’s image during its conflict with neighbouring Armenia. According to reporting by The European Conservative, BTP confirmed it was working for Azerbaijan but did not make any further comment on the allegations.

In May, BTP CEO Mark Pursey told AZERTAC, the Azerbaijan state news agency, that hosting COP29 in Baku would be an opportunity for the oil-and-gas-reliant nation to demonstrate its clean energy capabilities – comments that were later recycled in other state news stories.

Japan’s delegation to the Baku summit includes five representatives from Tokyo-based marketing and PR conglomerate Dentsu. In the past two years, the firm has held at least 27 contracts with 25 different companies involved in the fossil fuel industry, including ExxonMobil and BP, according to DeSmog research.

One staff member of FleishmanHillard – a global agency headquartered in the United States that is owned by holding company Omnicom – registered for the summit as part of Brazil’s national delegation, along with one employee of Brazil-based FSB Comunicação.

According to Clean Creatives, since the start of 2023 FleishmanHillard has worked for oil and gas producer Repsol, oil-field-services company SLB and fossil-fuel-reliant utility company Engie. FSB Comunicação works for Brazilian gas distributor Comgás.

Lynn Davidson, a senior director at APCO, a global lobbying firm headquartered in Washington, is registered as a U.K. delegate. APCO has worked for two oil and gas producers since early 2023, including Tullow Oil, which is headquartered in London and operates in Africa, and an Australian company named Jadestone Energy.

Davidson was previously an advisor to Alok Sharma, the president of the 2021 UN climate summit held in Glasgow, and prior to that worked at Teneo.

Another APCO director, Thomas Billinghurst, is part of the United Arab Emirates’ delegation. Billinghurst created videos and generated news coverage for senior U.A.E. climate envoys in the lead-up to the oil-rich nation’s hosting of COP28 in 2023.

Several global PR firms, including Edelman, Weber Shandwick and FTI Consulting, are also on the ground in Baku to conduct research rather than as part of country delegations, according to reporting by the trade publication PR Week.

Together, these three firms have collectively held at least 33 fossil fuel contracts in the past two years, according to Clean Creatives, for clients including oil and gas producers and lobby groups such as TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil and the Asia Natural Gas & Energy Association.

With additional reporting by Kathryn Clare

This article was first published on DeSmog. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style. Read the original story here.

The post Who are the top PR firms greenwashing Big Oil at COP29? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In addition, the six Pathways member companies (CNRL, Cenovus, ConocoPhilips, Imperial, MEG, Suncor) deleted their corporate sustainability reports from their own websites, also apparently in response to provisions in the omnibus bill about a basic expectation that companies, of all shapes and forms, should be able to back up environmental claims with real evidence. This, despite the fact that these reports already referenced the types of internationally recognized standards and frameworks that the greenwashing legislation calls for, not to mention the fact that some of them are referenced in the companies’ regulatory filings – meaning they were already subject to securities regulators’ basic expectation of accuracy and completeness.

A month later and the sustainability reports are still nowhere to be found, but the Pathways website is back. And it is worth noting what has changed.

Where once there were claims about the companies working together to reduce their absolute emissions by 22 million tons (Mt) annually by 2030, and to net-zero by 2050, there is now a statement that Pathways is “focused on advancing environmental innovation and pursuing emissions efficiencies from our oil sands operations”. This indicates a renewed focus on emissions intensity – to reduce the amount of carbon per barrel of oil produced – rather than on the absolute emissions reductions that they had previously promised. In any case, even after many years of work in this area, only very modest gains in emissions intensity have been achieved – and oil sands’ absolute emissions have grown 142% since 2005.

What of their huge, world-leading carbon capture and storage (CCS) network, that they often stated they were working at pace to set up – and that would achieve around half of their 2030 22 Mt target? All that has been replaced by language indicating this proposed project is still at a relatively early negotiation stage: “We’re working with governments to ensure the appropriate fiscal support and regulatory approvals that will be necessary to make this project a reality.”

Related:

• He floated banning fossil fuel ads in Canada. Then came the threats.
• Canada’s new greenwashing ban rattles fossil fuel industry
• Parliament grilled Canada’s Big Five banks on their fossil fuel financing – here’s why it matters

It remains to be seen how and where Pathways will launch its next public advertising campaign, if it chooses to launch one at all. For now though, its slimmed-down website is, in our view, a more accurate depiction of the nature of the work that Pathways does, and the extent of its role as an organization. At Pembina, we have always supported the stated goals of the Pathways initiative, but have also tried to draw attention to the fact that Pathways never had the ability to act meaningfully on emissions reductions. It is not an oil sands operator hence it cannot file regulatory applications; it does not hold the “purse strings” nor have shareholders to steward to, hence cannot make final investment decisions. All Pathways could ever do is talk on behalf of the oil sands companies. As their new website shows, they don’t have much to say anymore – until, of course, some real action is taken to reduce oil sands emissions.

On that front, what has been missed in all the noise and furor of the last few weeks is the fact that Bill C-59 also contained the finalized provisions of the long-awaited federal investment tax credit on CCS projects. That is, of course, the very tax credit that Pathways and its members lobbied hard for and have spent the last couple of years saying was the missing piece of the puzzle they needed before they could reach final investment decisions on their projects. So, while less than a week after Bill C-59 was passed Shell announced their CCS project’s final investment decision, the Pathways Alliance and its member companies remained silent on theirs.

On the road to credible solutions for the sector, a very poor outcome would have been the industry taking this moment to withdraw from this conversation entirely. But given that we know Canadians and Albertans are interested in action – not just talk – on reducing emissions, we hope the new Pathways website won’t take up too much of the limelight. Public and government attention should instead be focused firmly on the real decision makers: the oil sands executives.

In a world that may soon be set to need much less oil, and with countries starting to make moves towards examining the carbon intensity of their energy imports, reducing emissions from our oil sands may shortly become an issue of market access, with clearly big implications for Alberta’s future economy. The stakes, in other words, could not be higher. Bill C-59 answered the executives’ questions on government support for their foundational carbon capture projects; they now have the information they have been asking for to move to final investment decisions. It’s time now for the member companies to let their actions do the talking.

MC Bouchard is the Pembina Institute’s oil and gas program director.

The post Canada’s greenwashing law has been a major reality check for the oil lobby appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The terms are contained in Bill C-59, which received royal assent last week and includes several changes relevant to companies doing business in Canada. Among them are amendments to the Competition Act that intend to address unsubstantiated environmental claims.

The bill prohibits a public “statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate change” if the claims are not based on “an adequate and proper test.” It also demands that the claims be in accordance “with internationally recognized methodology.” In both cases, the onus is on the person making the claims to provide the relevant proof. In addition, consumers will now be able to take their complaints directly to the Competition Tribunal. Those found to be in violation could be slapped with penalties up to $15 million and 3% of a corporation’s annual worldwide gross revenues.

A coalition of environmental and health organizations celebrated the bill, describing it as “a potential watershed moment” in dealing with the “systemic problem” of making spurious environmental claims. “False green claims, or greenwashing, not only deceive consumers but also contribute to pollution and environmental degradation, with serious implications for human health,” said Leah Temper, with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), an organization that has been pushing to ban fossil fuel advertising altogether in Canada. In addition, “it skews the competitive landscape, impairs sustainable consumption decisions, harms consumer trust and undermines companies’ incentives to invest in green innovation,” noted Tanya Jemec, a lawyer at Ecojustice.

While most of the attention has been focused on oil and gas companies, the regulations in Bill C-59 are not specific to any one industry, suggesting that new scrutiny could now be applied to popular terms such as “net-zero,” “carbon-neutral” and “sustainable.”

For the Pathways Alliance, a coalition of six of the largest oil and gas producers in the country – and currently under investigation by the Competition Bureau for its environmental claims – the new rules create “significant uncertainty” for companies trying to communicate how they are trying to improve their environmental performance. As a result, it erased all content from its website, social media and other public communications. Other oil and gas companies have removed information from their websites or added disclaimers.

“This is a direct consequence of the new legislation and is not related to our belief in the truth and accuracy of our environmental communications,” Pathways Alliance said on its website.

The province of Alberta also chimed in with outrage, issuing a statement calling the legislation “absurd authoritarian censorship” that will serve only “to stifle the many billions in investments in emissions reducing technologies” and block the ability of Canadians to “hear the truth about the energy industry.” It said it was considering mounting a constitutional challenge or the use of the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act to “protect free speech.” In the days leading up to the bill’s royal assent, the province shut down its controversial Canadian Energy Centre, also known as its “energy war room,” a publicly-funded provincial corporation that had been created to defend the energy sector.

Law firms such as BD&P raised concerns about “the uncertainty and ambiguity” of the wording in the bill, but some advocates point to the fact that details will be fleshed out in guidance expected to be issued by the Competition Bureau to help companies know when they’re crossing a line. Environmental organizations say the legislation itself is already proving effective.

“The fact that Pathways Alliance has taken such drastic action shows that they know they don’t have evidence to support the story they’re selling on carbon capture, and that its member companies’ business plans don’t align with a net-zero future,” Emilia Belliveau, energy transition program manager for Environmental Defence, said in a statement.

The Pathways Alliance is behind a massive venture to build a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project that it says would help its member companies cut greenhouse gas emissions by 32% from 2019 levels by 2030 – an unproven technology that climate advocates say will simply give Canadian fossil fuel companies licence to keep drilling. The project involves building a 400-kilometre pipeline that would transport carbon dioxide from oil-sands facilities in northern Alberta to an underground storage chamber. A recent report from U.K. think tank InfluenceMap notes how, through Pathways, companies are branding themselves as “climate conscious entities” that publicly promote technologies like carbon capture storage “as a cover to weaken and block climate policy.”

InfluenceMap research shows that while Pathways presents “optimistic messaging” related to CCS publicly, correspondence with policy-makers suggests “a notable lack of confidence in CCS technology to achieve climate goals.” The Pathways Alliance is already under investigation by the Competition Bureau for its “Let’s clear the air” advertising campaign, which Greenpeace has alleged makes false and misleading claims about reducing emissions and helping Canada achieve its climate targets.

Ecojustice, CAPE, Équiterre, and the Quebec Environmental Law Centre called on François-Philippe Champagne, the federal minister of innovation, science and industry, to explicitly prohibit vague and hard-to-prove terms such as “green,” “eco-friendly” and “climate-neutral” through new regulations under the Competition Act. And they urged the Competition Bureau to hold public consultations before releasing finalized guidelines that will identify the standards that businesses are expected to meet. The European Union, for example, prohibits generic environmental terms such as “eco-friendly” and “biodegradable” and insists companies include clear specifications in prominent language on the same packaging, label or website.

“While the passage of Bill C-59 is a significant step towards clamping down on rampant greenwashing in Canada, gaps remain that will make it challenging to hold companies to account,” said Jemec, with Ecojustice, in a statement. That includes the kind of proof that companies will have to give to the public about their claims. While the Competition Tribunal might compel companies subject to complaints to provide this information during litigation, it might not be disclosed publicly, Jemec said

“And more importantly, what is still missing is transparency outside of litigation in the places where consumers are being bombarded with green claims,” she says. “This means that consumers – as well as competitors and regulators – are unable to easily verify the credibility of a company’s green claims at the time that they have to make decisions based on those claims, e.g. the point of purchase.”

France requires companies making environmental claims to disclose information about their claims in a format that is easily accessible at the time of purchase, for example with a QR code.

“Businesses that want the benefits of making a green claim should be willing and able to provide supporting information to the public upfront,” she said, “not just when challenged.”

The post Canada’s new greenwashing ban rattles fossil fuel industry appeared first on Corporate Knights.