Climate commitments vs public relations risks

Are Your Sustainability Claims Putting Your Company at Legal Risk? Recent research reveals a startling shift: Corporate sustainability commitments, once primarily a reputational concern, are increasingly becoming grounds for litigation. A comprehensive analysis published in Harvard Business Review highlights how the landscape of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) communication is fundamentally changing. The data is compelling: With over 2,500 active climate litigation cases globally, companies face unprecedented scrutiny not just for their environmental impact, but for how they communicate their sustainability efforts. The research points to a critical emerging pattern in corporate liability. A pivotal case study illuminates this trend: The 2024 legal action against JBS USA Food Company challenged their "net zero by 2040" commitment. What makes this case particularly significant is that it targeted a voluntary sustainability pledge, questioning not the missed targets, but the viability of the implementation plan itself. The research identifies an emerging corporate response: "greenhushing." Companies are increasingly withdrawing from public sustainability discourse to minimize legal exposure. However, the analysis suggests this strategy carries significant risks: - Market position erosion as competitors maintain transparency - Reduced ability to attract investment and talent - Missed opportunities for industry collaboration - Non-compliance with emerging regulations like the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive Evidence-based strategies for risk mitigation: 1. Integration of legal and communications functions in sustainability strategy development, supported by clear governance structures 2. Research-backed implementation plans preceding public commitments 3. Transparent progress reporting: Studies show 80% of stakeholders respond positively to organizations that acknowledge challenges while presenting clear remediation strategies 4. Active policy engagement to help shape the regulatory framework The research conclusively demonstrates that strategic sustainability communication isn't optional - it's a core business imperative. Success depends on balancing transparency with robust risk management protocols. Question for fellow leaders: How is your organization adapting its sustainability communication strategy in response to this evolving legal landscape? #sustainability #leadership #supplychain ___________ 👍🏽 Like this? ♻️ Repost to help someone ✅ Follow me Sheri R. Hinish 🔔 Click my name → Hit the bell → See my posts. ___________ References based on HBR analysis and current market research in corporate sustainability communications.

Sustainability officers are an increasingly endangered species. Last week, I spoke with a group of sustainability officers navigating a corporate landscape where terms like CSR, ESG, and climate change have become dirty words, or at least politically charged. Many companies are pulling back from public commitments on sustainability—not necessarily because the urgency has diminished, but because the risk of backlash has grown. In this environment, nature and biodiversity are emerging as safer entry points for corporate sustainability efforts. While climate change is often framed as a divisive issue, nature remains more broadly accepted across political & ideological lines. 👉 Why nature can be a less controversial framing Many companies are using nature as a strategic way to maintain environmental commitments while avoiding political entanglements. Here’s why: 🌳 Universality & positive connotations – Nature is widely seen as something to be cherished, regardless of political views. Protecting forests, oceans, and wildlife can carry fewer ideological conflicts than decarbonization mandates or carbon pricing. 🤝 Reduced partisanship – Climate discussions frequently spark debates over regulations, economic costs, and industry impact. In contrast, nature-based initiatives—such as habitat restoration, conservation, and biodiversity projects—are less likely to be viewed as partisan issues. 🌱 Tangible local impact – Nature-focused projects have visible, immediate benefits: cleaner air & water, restored landscapes, and healthier ecosystems. These local, concrete outcomes resonate more than global climate targets, which can feel abstract or distant. ⛈️ Strategic communication – By framing sustainability efforts around nature, companies can continue advancing environmental goals—like emissions reduction—without explicitly linking them to politically charged climate policies. 👉 The resilience narrative: An even broader framework For some companies, even protecting nature is seen as too controversial. That’s where another concept is gaining traction: resilience. One sustainability officer shared how their company avoids even the word "nature" in favor of resilience-focused language: ✅ Resilient supply chains that withstand environmental & geopolitical disruptions ✅ Resilient infrastructure that adapts to extreme weather & resource scarcity ✅ Resilient business models that reduce risk & increase long-term stability By focusing on resilience, companies can integrate sustainability into their strategy without triggering resistance—not as an ideological stance, but as a smart business decision. As the political landscape shifts, sustainability officers are finding new ways to keep moving forward. Whether through nature-based solutions or resilience framing, the goal remains the same: building a future where businesses & ecosystems can thrive together. If you're in this space, how are you navigating the current climate? 📷 Olympic Peninsula by me.

🌱 Are we walking the talk on corporate climate action? A new study by Colesanti Senni et al. (Environmental Research Communications, 2024) examines how corporations disclose their climate transition plans. Using a Large Language Model-based tool, the research assessed the disclosures of Climate Action 100+ companies—the largest global emitters. The findings reveal critical gaps and opportunities in how companies communicate their climate commitments. 📊 What the study found: ✔️ Most companies are adept at outlining ambitious targets (the “talk”), such as net-zero goals and interim milestones. However, they often fall short on the actionable steps needed to achieve them (the “walk”). ✔️ The companies that disclose more tend to show lower emissions, suggesting that transparency might signal a stronger alignment between planning and progress. ⚠️ A lack of standardization in reporting frameworks remains a major barrier. Without clear, consistent benchmarks, stakeholders are left questioning whether disclosures reflect genuine efforts or greenwashing. 🧩 My reflections: When I think about corporate climate responsibility, I see three interconnected layers: intentions, actions, and outcomes. Each is critical, but the gaps between them are where trust and progress falter. ✨ Intentions: Bold commitments are often a sign of leadership, but when they remain vague or unsupported by detail, they risk being seen as little more than a marketing exercise. 🔨 Actions: This is the most critical layer—and often the weakest link. Without concrete, measurable steps, even the best intentions lack credibility. Actions should demonstrate not just a plan but a willingness to take tough, sometimes unpopular, decisions. 📊 Outcomes: While outcomes are the ultimate goal, they’re also where the evidence lies. The study’s findings suggest that detailed disclosures might correlate with lower emissions, but is this because these companies are more transparent—or simply more prepared? This cycle of intentions, actions, and outcomes is not just a corporate issue—it’s a systemic one. How can we better connect these layers to create a climate response that is both transparent and transformative? 🌍 What are your thoughts? 💡 How can companies ensure their actions truly bridge the gap between intentions and outcomes? 💡 Are current disclosure frameworks helping stakeholders distinguish between real progress and polished promises—or are they creating more confusion? You can read the full study here: https://lnkd.in/exEDwzaK #ClimateAction #Sustainability #Greenwashing #CorporateResponsibility #NetZero

Pulling back on climate targets is not a strategy It’s a financial risk 🌎 The recent article in Bloomberg underscores a critical shift taking place within global financial institutions: a retreat from previously stated climate goals. This reversal, driven in part by political pressure and short-term financial incentives, is at odds with growing evidence on the material risks posed by climate change. While the financial sector initially responded to investor and regulatory expectations with ambitious climate pledges, many firms are now quietly scaling back commitments related to emissions, financing fossil fuels, and transparency. This retreat is not without consequence. Climate risk is increasingly being recognized as financial risk, with physical, transitional, and liability dimensions already materializing across markets. The cost of inaction is mounting, not only in terms of environmental degradation but also through potential losses in asset value, disrupted supply chains, and growing regulatory scrutiny. Financial institutions that deprioritize climate considerations risk mispricing assets, misallocating capital, and missing structural shifts in the global economy. Markets are not insulated from environmental risks. Asset managers and banks that fail to integrate climate risk into investment decisions will be exposed to material losses over time, particularly as regulatory frameworks tighten and global disclosures become more standardized. ESG scrutiny, once dismissed as a public relations exercise, is rapidly becoming a baseline expectation for fiduciary responsibility and risk-adjusted returns. Decarbonization remains a structural trend, not a passing phase. The financial sector’s influence over capital allocation places it at the center of the transition to a low-carbon economy. Disengaging from that responsibility creates exposure to reputational, regulatory, and financial risks—at the exact moment when resilience and foresight are most needed. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #risk #climatechange

Remember those bold corporate climate commitments? Yeah… about that Lately, I’ve noticed a worrying trend—companies quietly walking away from their climate pledges, hoping no one will notice. In New Zealand, several firms have dropped out of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) without a word. No announcements. No explanations. Just… gone. And they’re not alone. Globally, over 200 major companies—including Microsoft, Unilever, and Walmart—were recently delisted from SBTi for failing to follow through. Meanwhile, financial giants like Citigroup and Bank of America have exited the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. So, what’s going on? And why should we care? Why are companies backing out? Many signed up for climate commitments when the pressure was high—investors, customers, and employees were demanding action. But now, with economic challenges, changing regulations, and less scrutiny, some are quietly retreating. Decarbonization isn’t easy. It takes investment, structural changes, and real effort. But instead of being transparent about their struggles, companies are just… disappearing from these initiatives. Why does this matter? When companies break their climate promises, it’s not just disappointing—it’s dangerous. 1️⃣ It erodes trust – If companies can make big sustainability claims and walk away without consequences, how do we know who’s serious? 2️⃣ It slows down progress – If major corporations backtrack, it signals to others that climate action is optional. 3️⃣ It risks greenwashing – These commitments often drive PR and goodwill. But if there’s no accountability, it becomes all talk, no action. What should companies do instead? Backing out isn’t the problem—silence is. If companies are struggling to meet targets, they should: ✔️ Be transparent about the challenges ✔️ Adjust their strategy, rather than abandon it ✔️ Engage with stakeholders to find real solutions What can we do? As consumers, employees, and investors, we have power. We can: 💡 Ask companies tough questions about their progress 💡 Support businesses that are serious about sustainability 💡 Push for policies that make climate commitments enforceable #sustainability #greenhushing #esg

New Research Alert: Corporate Climate #Targets Lack Accountability ⁉️ A new study in Nature Climate Change exposes serious gaps in corporate climate commitments: Out of 1,041 companies with 2020 emissions targets: ✅ 61% met their targets ❌ 9% failed 🤫 31% silently abandoned their targets... But here’s the real problem: There were virtually no #consequences for failure. The study found: ⚠️ No significant market reaction ⚠️ Almost no media coverage (only 3 failed companies were mentioned) ⚠️ No impact on environmental scores ⚠️ No rise in climate-related shareholder pressure With major targets looming for 2030 and 2050, can we really trust corporate climate pledges without real accountability? 🔗 Read the full study: https://lnkd.in/dNy33kK6 This aligns with other research at the Max Planck Net Zero Lab, where they found: 📌 Less than 16% of analysed carbon credits represent real reductions → https://lnkd.in/dhfvQyUM 📌 Most companies spend less than 1% of capital expenditure on carbon credits → https://lnkd.in/damKtHZU Key takeaway: Without stronger #accountability mechanisms, corporate climate targets risk becoming just PR exercises. It’s time to demand real action. 👊 Keen to hear from CSO's and business leasers reading this posts, please share your thoughts 👇 #ClimateAction #Sustainability #NetZero #CorporateAccountability

2 types of corporate climate claims: Commitment vs Achievement 1. Commitment claims These are about committing to achieve targets in the future (often 2040 or 2050). Net zero targets, as set out by SBTi, ISO, Race to Zero, and other large voluntary standard setters, are a great example. These targets don't say much about what climate progress the company has achieved so far. 2. Achievement claims These are about recognizing climate action today. They include carbon neutral certification, VCMI Carbon Integrity Claims, and beyond value chain mitigation actions. Commitment claims are ambitious and pull us forward; achievement claims celebrate work done today. The risk of over-indexing on commitment claims is that they never materialize, and companies delay, or quietly sunset commitments long before they're achieved. HSBC's announcement yesterday that it has pushed out its net zero date by two decades is an example of this; and I suspect missing long-term targets may become more common. Pairing commitment + achievement claims maintains high ambitions and ensures climate action today. Many achievement claims do this already - eg - ISO carbon neutral, VCMI Carbon Integrity both require companies to set science-aligned, long-term targets while supporting present-day climate work. There is a time value to climate action: Acting on climate today is more beneficial than waiting until tomorrow. It's a miss for the climate if we focus only on lofty future commitments, but fail to hold ourselves to present-day action. Note - The chart is my own adaptation of a similar chart from Climate Impact Partners' 2023 report, The Landscape of Corporate Climate Claims. The 2023 report is no longer available online, but you can check out the 2024 version with analysis across several standards; 🔗 in comments.