Understanding Misinformation Impact

What happens when companies break their climate promises? Almost nothing. A new study has uncovered troubling truths about corporate climate commitments. Out of 1,041 companies with emissions reduction targets set for 2020: -9% (88 firms) openly failed to meet their goals. -31% (320 firms) stopped reporting on their targets without explanation. What happens when companies miss these targets? Practically no consequences: -Only three failed companies faced media scrutiny. -No significant market backlash, media sentiment shifts, or ESG rating downgrades. In contrast, companies were rewarded with positive press and improved ESG ratings simply for announcing these targets. The bigger issue: This accountability gap threatens the credibility of ambitious 2030 and 2050 climate pledges. Unlike financial targets, which are rigorously monitored, emissions goals often exist in a vacuum—without oversight or real consequences for failure. Interestingly, the study found that: -Firms in common-law countries and those with stronger media accountability had better success rates. -High-emitting sectors like energy and materials struggled the most, with the highest rates of "disappeared" targets. With more companies backing away from climate action, we cannot afford to let this cycle continue. It’s time for corporate sustainability leadership to move beyond announcements and deliver measurable, transparent results. Accountability mechanisms—demanded by both regulators and stakeholders are urgently needed. A great piece of work by Xiaoyan Jiang, Shawn Kim, and Shirley Simiao Lu! Let’s learn from these insights to ensure that corporate climate pledges actually deliver. #climatechange #netzero #esg

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

🌍 The Playbook of Resistance: How Industries Deny, Delay, Derail, and Deflect From tobacco to fossil fuels, meat, and beyond, the tactics remain strikingly familiar. When faced with the need for transformation, industries deploy the same well-worn strategies: deny, delay, derail, deflect. Here’s how it works: ❌ Deny: “They deny the science and the harm, just like the tobacco industry once did.” Whether it’s the dangers of smoking, the role of fossil fuels in climate change, or the environmental impact of industrial farming, denial is the first line of defense. ❌ Delay: *“Strategic dialogues” or “stakeholder engagement” are often used to create the illusion of progress. The goal? Buy time while real solutions are stalled. ❌ Derail: “Billions are poured into biased studies and campaigns aimed at distorting facts. The message? No need for change—everything is fine just the way it is.” Sound familiar? Fossil fuel companies have been doing this for decades, as have industries defending factory farming and unhealthy food systems. ❌ Deflect: “They spread unscientific narratives to shift blame and focus elsewhere.” Whether it’s greenwashing or promoting marginal, unscalable “solutions,” the aim is to divert attention from the systemic changes truly needed. 💡 Why it matters: This playbook isn’t just about one industry—it’s about all industries resisting accountability. Fossil fuels, tobacco, meat, big agriculture—the pattern is clear. They oppose change, not because it isn’t possible, but because it threatens their profits. This isn’t just about industry tactics—it’s about our future. 📢 How do we fight back? By flipping the corporate playbook—using creativity, storytelling, and community power to outsmart denial, delay, derailment, and deflection.

Silent Drought: How Climate Change is Stealing India’s Wheat Harvest!! Last week, I stood in a wheat field in Madhya Pradesh, where the air felt thicker than the soil under my boots. A farmer, his face etched with worry, snapped a brittle stalk. “This used to feed my family. Now, it’s just dust, (सब मिट्टी हो गया)” he said. His words hung heavy, echoing across parched fields that once brimmed with golden grain. This isn’t an isolated story—it’s India’s new reality. Studies confirm what farmers already know. Wheat yields are dropping due to rising temperatures. Heatwaves during critical growth phases—like the 2022 event that saw temperatures spike 7°C above normal—slashed yields by 4.5%, forcing India to ban wheat exports. Yet, official reports still tout “record production,” a narrative that feels increasingly hollow. My visits to Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh painted a stark picture: stunted crops, erratic rains, hail storms and farmers scrambling to adapt. One showed me decades-old yield logs—steady declines correlate with warming trends. “We’re told to celebrate ‘record harvest,’ but our storerooms tell another story,” he shrugged. Behind the glossy headlines of “bumper harvest,” a profit-driven cycle of deception thrives. Traders and corporate players often inflate production estimates post-harvest to flood markets with optimism, artificially suppressing prices. Then, mysteriously, as the marketing year progresses, these same entities revise claims downward, citing “unforeseen shortages” that justify price spikes. A closer look at annual data reveals this pattern: bullish forecasts after harvest, followed by panic-driven corrections months later. Farmers, already reeling from climate losses, bear the brunt—forced to sell low during the glut, then buy inputs at inflated rates as scarcity narratives take hold. This isn’t speculation; cross-referencing yearly procurement reports and market statements expose a recurring script. In India’s wheat belt, traders routinely overstate yields early in the season, only to blame “weather shocks” later. The result? A rigged system where truth is collateral damage. Breaking this cycle demands transparent, real-time yield audits and stricter accountability for manipulative forecasting. Until then, the only “record” being set is in corporate profit margins, not farm incomes. The solution to climate stress starts with accepting the crisis. Shifting to climate-resilient crops or changing cropping patterns. Protected farming, water-efficient practices, and restoring soil health are critical. Policies must redirect subsidies to invest in rural climate advisories. But none of this works unless we stop masking the problem with optimistic rhetoric. Climate change isn’t a future threat—it’s burning today’s harvests. The time for denial is over. Farmers are adapting; our systems must too.

Greenwashing risk in corporate sustainability 🌎 Greenwashing has become a critical concern for businesses aiming to communicate their environmental initiatives. Misleading or exaggerated claims not only harm reputations but also undermine trust among investors, customers, and other stakeholders. In today’s regulatory and market environment, credibility in sustainability is a business necessity, not an option. At its core, greenwashing often stems from a lack of rigor in sustainability practices. Common pitfalls include unsubstantiated claims, vague or misleading labels, and focusing on a single positive attribute while ignoring broader negative impacts. These actions can mislead stakeholders and dilute the value of genuine sustainability efforts, exposing companies to both reputational and financial risks. Greenwashing risks manifest across three critical dimensions of business: products, disclosures, and supply chains. Misrepresentation of product sustainability, overly ambitious corporate climate targets unsupported by data, and a lack of transparency in supply chains can all contribute to the perception of greenwashing. Regulatory frameworks like the CSRD and CSDDD now place greater emphasis on transparency and accountability, making non-compliance increasingly costly. Addressing greenwashing requires a strategic, business-oriented approach. This includes investing in rigorous data collection, third-party verification, and consistent messaging across all touchpoints. Aligning sustainability commitments with measurable outcomes not only reduces risks but also creates opportunities to build trust and attract purpose-driven investors and customers. In an era of heightened scrutiny, greenwashing is more than a reputational risk—it’s a missed opportunity to lead in a rapidly changing market. Businesses that prioritize transparent, data-driven strategies and integrate sustainability authentically into their operations will not only avoid greenwashing but position themselves as leaders in delivering real environmental and social value. Source: KPMG #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction #greenwashing

New Study Reveals Rise of 'New Denial' in Climate Change Discourse on YouTube Conclusions from a new report by Center for Countering Digital Hate are both disturbing and disappointing! 📍The report unveiled a significant shift in climate change denial narratives on YouTube, with a clear rise of what is referred to as "New Denial". This form of denial focuses on undermining climate impacts, solutions, and the credibility of the climate movement and scientists. 📍The report analyzes thousands of hours of YouTube content from 2018 to 2023, identifying a sharp decrease in "Old Denial" claims, which deny global warming and its human causes, and a simultaneous increase in New Denial claims. 📍The content from the identified channels has received billions of views, potentially generating millions of dollars in ad revenue for YouTube. 📍The study also highlights the failure of social media platforms to keep up with and address New Denial content, emphasizing the need for updated policies to counter these emerging narratives. 📍As climate advocates it is important to recognize this shift and respond effectively. Meanwhile digital platforms are recommended to demonetize and de-amplify climate denial content. 📍This report serves as a crucial call to action for all stakeholders to address the evolving landscape of climate change denial, safeguarding the integrity of climate discourse and action. #ClimateChange #ClimateDenial #SocialMedia #DigitalPlatforms #ClimateAction ##sustainability #esg #togetherforgreen #togetherforclimate #togetherforaction #cop28

Hiding or removing scientific data doesn’t protect the public—it puts lives at risk. Transparency in public health and scientific research is fundamental to trust, safety, and effective policymaking. Yet, we are now witnessing deliberate decisions to remove critical scientific data and public health information from our nation’s most trusted institutions, including the CDC, FDA, and NIH. These actions are not just concerning—they undermine public health, erode confidence in our medical institutions, and leave communities vulnerable. Access to accurate, evidence-based information is essential for healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public to make informed decisions. Suppressing or erasing this data does not protect us; it weakens our ability to respond to crises, from pandemics to chronic disease management. Science must inform policy—not be silenced for political convenience. We cannot afford to let misinformation or suppression dictate our nation’s health policies. I urge my colleagues, scientists, healthcare professionals, and advocates to speak up. Demand transparency. Hold leaders accountable. Support organizations that fight for evidence-based policies. We must ensure that decisions impacting public health are rooted in facts, not politics. Our future depends on it. #ScienceMatters #TransparencyInScience #PublicHealth #TrustTheData #ScienceNotSilence #EvidenceBasedPolicy #Advocacy

What if the biggest threat to climate progress isn’t denial — but distortion? As the climate crisis intensifies, so does the flood of content claiming to explain it. But not all information is created equal. From fossil fuel-funded greenwashing campaigns to viral posts that oversimplify or misrepresent the science, misinformation (false info spread unknowingly) and disinformation (false info spread intentionally) are shaping public perception, stalling action, and sowing confusion. And the consequences are real: ‣ Heat-related deaths in the U.S. have jumped 117% in the past 25 years. Climate denial makes people—and governments—less prepared. ‣ Despite a 99%+ scientific consensus, only 57% of Americans believe most scientists agree on climate change. That doubt delays action. We’re now spending valuable time fighting lies instead of scaling solutions. The thing is, climate disinformation is literally designed for virality on social media platforms. One study found that the top 5% of climate misinformation authors on LinkedIn generated nearly half of all comments and reshares. I often see that under my own posts- more engagement from trolls than real people in my community. So, this is the start to a new series of content I’m working on, focused on the mis/disinformation in climate. Do you have specific case studies you’d like me to look into or have questions you’d like answered? Drop them in the comments! #ClimateCrisis #MediaLiteracy #ClimateDisinformation #IPCC #Sustainability #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice #DigitalResilience

Accountability seems swift and relentless in the era of cancel culture, where reputations can crumble at the speed of a tweet. A single misstep, a whispered rumour, and one can be brought down in seconds. No one is too big to fail, no mistake too small to go unnoticed. The Post Office Ltd scandal paints a starkly different picture. For nearly two decades, a faulty IT system wreaked havoc on the lives of hundreds of postmasters. Accused of financial discrepancies based on its unreliable data, real people faced wrongful prosecutions, bankruptcies, and even suicide. Despite relentless campaigns by Private Eye, the BBC, Nick Wallis, the Daily Mail and a cross-party parliamentary campaign, true progress remained agonisingly slow. It took an unlikely hero to finally catch the public's eye: an ITV docudrama, Mr. Bates vs the Post Office. Why, after years of real human suffering, did it take fiction to spark action? Was a TV screen more compelling than real, raw stories of devastation? The answer, unfortunately, lies in the complex dance between power, inertia, and political prudence. Institutions like the Post Office have an inherent advantage: resources, legal might, and a tendency to close ranks under scrutiny. Victims’ voices are easily drowned out in their uphill battle. Add to that the reluctance of governments to account for errors, and the path to justice becomes one of glacial pace. The Post Office scandal is not an anomaly. One thinks of Nikki and Paul Turner, the Cambridge couple who uncovered the £1 billion fraud at HBOS in Reading; they are among hundreds of business owners whose livelihoods were destroyed by corrupt bankers at the Reading branch of HBOS bank. Further issues are still unresolved. Then there is Kashif Shabir's allegations of fraud at the Lloyds Recoveries unit in Bristol. Unfortunately, rather than seeking to address Mr Shabir’s complaint, Lloyds Bank has allocated resources to devising a strategy to deflect him. The Post Office saga stands as a chilling counterpoint to our narrative of ‘instantaneous online accountability’. It exposes a world where human lives can be truly crushed beneath the weight of institutional indifference while the public eye is distracted by fleeting online storms over semantics. While cancel culture is feared for its swift and unforgiving nature, the saga prompts me to wonder whether we should be just as concerned for the menace lurking at the opposite extreme – the chilling impunity enjoyed by so many of our powerful institutions, in the face of genuinely heinous errors and actions.

In my newsletter editorial this week, I argue that legal muscle, defensive public relations practice and media complicity are a greater threat to trust than misinformation.  A two-year gagging order prevented the UK media from reporting a catastrophic data breach involving 19,000 vulnerable Afghans, many of whom risked their lives to support British forces. This isn’t an isolated incident. The same strategies have been used to mask the truth in some of the most egregious institutional failings of our time - the Post Office scandal, the Infected Blood Inquiry, grooming gang cover-ups, the Hillsborough disaster, and the Orgreave Inquiry. In public relations practice, we often discuss disinformation and misinformation, specifically the external kind, that is seeded online by hostile states or spread by malicious actors. But what happens when misinformation comes from within? When facts are buried, records sealed and the public misled, the line between propaganda and governance begins to blur. If we want to restore trust in our institutions, accountability must come before reputation. Otherwise, we are feeding the very cynicism we claim to fear. Have a good week ahead. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eDjjfhYn