Environmental Impact Insights

When in Doubt, Just Delete It? Corporate Climate Silence is Getting Louder 🌍🚨 According to a recent Financial Times investigation by Attracta Mooney and Susannah Savage, major U.S. corporations are quietly erasing climate commitments from public view. The report reveals that companies like Walmart, KraftHeinz, Meta, Ford Motor Company, and American Airlines have scrubbed or softened references to climate change from their websites. In some cases, bold pledges—like cutting emissions by 50% by 2030—have disappeared entirely. This isn’t happening in a vacuum. With political attacks on environmental policies intensifying, many companies are opting for "greenhushing"—downplaying or omitting sustainability efforts to avoid controversy. But of course, this makes perfect sense. After all, the election of Donald Trump has fundamentally altered the science of climate change and carbon emissions, right? Surely, CO₂ molecules now behave differently depending on who occupies the White House. 🤔🌱💨 (Okay, sarcasm over.) Here’s the real issue: erasing climate commitments doesn’t erase climate risks. 🔹 Investors are watching. The push for transparency in ESG reporting isn’t just about optics—it’s about long-term financial stability. Weakening climate targets today could mean increased regulatory scrutiny, shareholder activism, or even capital flight tomorrow. 🔹 Customers care. Greenwashing is bad. But greenhushing? It sends the message that a company’s commitment to sustainability is only as strong as the political winds allow. That’s a fast way to lose trust. 🔹 Employees are paying attention. Younger talent, in particular, prioritises sustainability. A quiet retreat on climate commitments could hurt not just a company’s brand, but also its ability to attract and retain top talent. Beyond the immediate reputational risks, this entire approach is staggeringly shortsighted. Climate change isn’t a PR issue—it’s a physical reality that will disrupt supply chains, displace populations, and drive economic instability. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the science, it only delays the inevitable reckoning. And at its core, this is deeply disappointing. Corporate leadership isn’t just retreating from climate action; it’s demonstrating a complete moral failure. If a company’s sustainability strategy evaporates the moment political pressure rises, was it ever real in the first place? 🌎💔 What do you think? Are we entering an era where businesses retreat on sustainability—not just in words, but in actions too? 🔗 Full article here: https://lnkd.in/egngPgqw #ClimateRisk #ESG #CorporateResponsibility #Greenhushing #Sustainability

Few organizations focused on environmental issues rank among the largest nonprofits in the United States. According to tax filings, only a small fraction of 501(c)(3) groups with more than $200 million in revenue in the most recent fiscal year are focused primarily on issues related to wildlife, conservation, and animal welfare. Of the $1.995 trillion in revenue generated by these 2,030 nonprofits, $4.3 billion, or 0.22%, was earned by environmental groups. Health (70%) and education (15.8%) 501(c)(3)s dominate the list of nonprofit behemoths. This is probably not surprising since health and education are two of the most immediate and tangible needs for most people. Both sectors rely primarily on earned income—fees for services and government contracts—rather than donations. That few environmental nonprofits make the list shouldn't be too surprising. The vast majority of environmental nonprofits are small, focusing on local issues (this is true for nonprofits in general, with 92% operating with less than $1 million a year). Additionally, many other entities besides 501(c)(3)s do conservation work: government agencies, private companies, Indigenous nations, communities, and other tax-exempt organizations. Some 501(c)(3)s focused on other areas, like health or education, may also be involved in environmental work. There are also many international environmental groups as well as U.S. nonprofits with international entities. Of course, bigger is not necessarily better. Larger organizations are not inherently more effective than smaller ones. The argument is often made that while size can beget influence and economies of scale in some kinds of work, it can also generate inefficiencies and a lack of connection to the constituencies served. Furthermore, impact is not solely measured by revenue. Environmental nonprofits often measure success through policy changes, conservation milestones, and community engagement, which can be equally significant though less financially quantifiable. So what does this mean for the future? With the effects of environmental degradation becoming more severe and thus relevant to more people, as well as people at the top end of the income level growing wealthier, it would not surprise me to see environmental nonprofits of all sizes receive a relative increase in their level of support in the coming years, independent of other factors. The largest U.S. environmental & conservation non-profits, by functional expenses ($ million): The Nature Conservancy - $909 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - $363 Wildlife Conservation Society - $313 San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance - $305 World Wildlife Fund - $283 The Conservation Fund - $254 Ducks Unlimited - $220 Environmental Defense Fund - $216 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - $182 Conservation International - $160 Note: The list excludes DAFs, fiscal sponsors, & animal welfare groups. Look for those in a future post.

Did you know that companies with women on their boards are more likely to measure and disclose their products' carbon emissions?  In fact, 87% of companies with women on their boards engage in carbon emission management compared to only 58% of companies without. Women leaders are at the forefront of driving impactful change in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices. Here are the factors that drive women directors’ disproportionate ESG impact:  🌿  Sound Environmental Management: Female directors strategically prioritize environmental sustainability, actively managing and enhancing their company's energy efficiency.  🌍 Impactful Insight:  Gender-balanced executive teams correlate with increased investments in renewable power generation, low-carbon products, and energy efficiency.  🌈  Social Inclusion Advocates: Companies with women on boards exhibit improved working conditions and robust employee benefits, elevating female labor participation within the organization. 🌟 Driving Social Change:  Female executives extend their impact beyond business, prioritizing social issues, employee well-being, and community welfare for a more inclusive, socially responsible corporate culture. My own personal experience bears testimony to this - one of the companies I serve on the board of is 75% female. I am inspired by each of our board discussions as we seamlessly weave our view on company performance with its ESG impact, focusing on sustainable practices and cultivating social inclusion. How have you seen women drive ESG initiatives? #WomenLeaders #ESGLeadership #BoardroomDiversity #SustainabilityChampions

By 2050, climate change may push 158 million more women and girls into poverty. While women handle 50% of global food production, only 15 countries include gender in agricultural climate planning. Despite often being hit the hardest by climate impacts, women and girls are powerful agents of change. From indigenous women protecting vital carbon sinks in the Amazon to female-led disaster committees reducing community vulnerability in flood-prone regions, to leaders and activists transforming international climate policy by championing gender-responsive approaches, their leadership drives effective solutions.    This #WorldEnvironmentDay, let's commit to gender-responsive climate action by centering women in policy development, directing climate financing to women-led programs and achieving gender parity in decision-making. Read more in my latest article:

Why is it more difficult for banks to assess their biodiversity footprint than for insurers and asset managers?   I have analysed data from 2022 to 2024 on mandatory biodiversity reporting by financial institutions in France under Article 29 of the Climate & Energy Law of 2019. Whereas a majority of the assets under management (AuM) at asset managers and insurers use the Mean Species Abundance (MSA) to report on their biodiversity footprint, only 12% of AuM of banks do. Here are the reasons why.     🏦 Banks hold different assets The assets under management of banks are of different nature than the assets of other financial institutions. They have large shares of real estate mortgages/loans and Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) loans. Some of them directly provide loans to farmers. Current "off-the-shelf" biodiversity databases do not cover those assets. They are limited to assessing listed companies (equity and debt) and sovereign debt. Only customisable measurement approaches (and not off-the-shelf databases) allow to measure the more complicated assets but the level of efforts is high (and the accuracy low).   🛠 Existing databases are limited mostly to listed companies Where do these differences in asset class coverage in existing databases come from? Why are listed companies and sovereign debt better covered than mortgages and SME loans? Does this relate to input-output modelling or life cycle assessment (LCA) databases or something else?   Current off-the-shelf databases rely on top-down approaches which are basically using industry & region turnover breakdown together with estimated or reported pressure or commodity levels. These are only available for listed companies. Mortgages are not linked to a turnover. They require ad hoc methodologies to estimate the pressures associated to building and to attribute responsibility to financial institutions. SME loans are linked to turnover but data are lacking on turnover breakdown (because SMEs don't report that). So the lack of coverage of assets beyond listed companies in existing databases is not linked to input-output modelling (e.g. EXIOBASE) or LCA methods, it is linked to the availability of asset-level data on turnover, pressures or commodities.   📉 The result? 78% of banks’ AuM still report nothing on biodiversity impacts. That’s a huge accountability gap.   💬 Know of a bank that’s gone further—measuring or acting on biodiversity impacts? Please share it as we need case studies to inspire and scale action!

When I was at HHS I worked with CDC to develop the Environmental Justice Index. It’s the first national, place-based tool designed to measure the cumulative impacts of environmental burden through the lens of human health and health equity. The team at CDC just pushed out an update that adds a climate module and some very cool county/census tract reports. https://lnkd.in/ejPw9qED

⛔️ Greenwashing consequences are too significant to ignore! And it's not just an issue for your marketing department or ad agency anymore... 💰 Oatly have been sued by their investors for false claims, including "general greenwashing", in their investor presentation and IPO registration statement It looks like the settlement is going to cost them $9.3 million. 📝 Lululemon are under investigation from Canada's Competition Bureau after an environmental advocacy organisation made a complaint based on claims made in the company's 2022 impact report. 🐟 An open letter from 30 conservation and environmental groups is calling on the Soil Association to remove Organic certification from Scottish farmed salmon, and two weeks ago the BBC published an article questioning the value of BCorp certification as greenwashing soars. ❓ What can we as corporate sustainability professionals take from this? 👉 All public facing documents (not just your advertising) are subject to Green Claims compliance - including your investor relations communications and impact/ESG reporting 👉 Which means that all teams across your business are responsible for compliance - sustainability can no longer be siloed 👉 It's not enough to assume that third party certifications and standards automatically make you compliant with the regulations. The rules are changing thick and fast, and they are as much about how you evidence and communicate you impact, as whether you have the evidentiary basis 👉 The fines, reputation risk and impact on stakeholder relations are too significant to ignore. Compliance should already be a priority, and this is only going to increase as new regulation comes into force. #CorporateSustainability #ESG #GreenClaims #Greenwashing

Navigating the Complex World of Sustainability Reporting 🌱 Did you know there are over 600 sustainability reporting standards, frameworks, guidelines, and industry initiatives worldwide? With countless climate-related rules and regulations evolving at international, national, and state levels, navigating this landscape can be daunting. Here’s a quick guide to some key organizations that are shaping climate-related reporting today: 🌍 Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) empowers companies and financial institutions globally to take decisive action in combating the climate crisis. 🌱 CDP is a not-for-profit charity that operates a global disclosure system, enabling entities like investors, companies, and governments to manage their environmental impacts effectively. 📊 Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) provides standardized global frameworks for measuring and managing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across private and public sectors. 📈 International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is developing standards aimed at creating a comprehensive global baseline of sustainability disclosures to meet investor and market needs. 📝 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) assists organizations in taking responsibility for their impacts by offering a common language for global communication about those impacts. Stay informed and make your #sustainability decisions more effective with these resources!

Climate Change and Gender: Why it Matters There is no climate justice without gender equality. Women are on the frontlines of the climate crisis, and extreme weather events disproportionately impact them. The UN estimates that 80% of the people displaced by climate change are women. In many rural areas, women and girls are often responsible for providing food and water for their families. This clearly shows that they are on the frontlines when climate disasters occur. Today, I want to highlight the critical intersection of climate change and gender equality because those brutally impacted by climate change mustn't be excluded from decision-making processes. Women deserve to be in the rooms where decisions about our planet are being made, and they need to participate actively in making these decisions. Here are some key reasons why this discussion is required in climate conversations: * Women are more likely to experience gender-based violence, lack of access to resources, and poverty as climate disasters escalate. Climate change affects women and girls disproportionately, particularly in developing countries. * Women are primary caregivers and managers of natural resources, and hence, they are critical to climate action. You cannot leave half of the world's population behind as you discuss what climate action should look like. * Women’s empowerment and girls' education are crucial for building resilience and addressing climate change. Project Drawdown lists 100 things that we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and education, together with empowerment, ranks among the top 10 solutions. * We need women's leadership in driving climate conversations. That is how we win when no one is left behind. * Women have limited access to land and credit, which makes it harder for them to adapt to climate change. Climate policies must address the unique needs and perspectives of women and girls. We should work together to amplify women's and girls' voices and experiences in climate conversations. Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below! #climatechange #genderequality #sustainability #womenempowerment

Greenwashing: The Hidden Threat to Sustainable Progress for Brands😯 1️⃣ Imagine picking up a "paper bottle" only to find it's plastic wrapped in paper 👇. This is greenwashing at its finest - and it's holding us back from real sustainability. 2️⃣ Greenwashing, the practice of making misleading environmental claims, is rampant across industries. As consumers increasingly demand eco-friendly options, some companies are taking shortcuts instead of making meaningful changes. 3️⃣ Why does this matter for brands? Greenwashing undermines genuine efforts towards sustainability. It erodes consumer trust, making it harder for truly sustainable brands to stand out. The European Commission found that 42% of green claims were exaggerated, false, or deceptive. This flood of misinformation slows our collective progress on critical environmental issues. The damage goes beyond the environment. Companies caught greenwashing face severe backlash. 4️⃣ Greenwashing also weakens regulatory efforts by obscuring real environmental impacts. This lack of transparency hinders effective policymaking to combat climate change. 🤗 To build a truly sustainable economy, we need honesty and accountability. Companies must back environmental claims with scientific evidence and transparent practices. Consumers must stay vigilant and demand proof behind eco-friendly marketing. 📢 Have you encountered obvious greenwashing recently? What was your reaction❓How can we better educate consumers to spot misleading environmental claims❓What steps should regulators take to crack down on greenwashing practices❓