Greenwashing or greenhushing?

No one seems to care about the environment anymore. While increasingly violent environmental disasters continue to multiply (think of what happened in Libya or Morocco or Pakistan), CO2 emissions are hardly mentioned in the newspapers. This is the discouraging result of years of denialist policies. And more. Begun with former U.S. President Donald Trump's change of heart, this way of doing things has reached its climax with the decision to hold the last two COPs in countries that are anything but interested in reducing CO2 emissions. In Egypt, in 2022, and, in 2023, in the United Arab Emirates (one of the largest fossil fuel producing countries!).

Meanwhile, many large companies have decided to drop their greenwashing policies. The origin of this term is traced back to 2008: it indicatesa kind of environmentalism to front and present oneself as "green" (hence the term greenwashing) even when one is not. For years, many companies have focused their marketing campaigns on carbon offset policies. Multinationals in transportation, agribusiness, and even some of the major oil companies. Today, however, no one seems to believe in these policies to reduce CO2 emissions to save the environment anymore. And many companies thought that presenting themselves as "green" was just a waste of time (and money). So they have given up their own "carbon neutral" labeling. Recently, the FTSE 100 oil company, a leading proponent of carbon offsetting, announced that it would abandon its investments in carbon credits to buy natural offsets by 2030. Shell accelerates drive for net-zero emissions with customer-first strategy | Shell Global Other international groups in various sectors have done the same.

Accelerating this process may have been the results of a Guardian newspaper investigation that allegedly showed how, often, rainforest carbon offsets were useless. Even the Carbon Trust, a leading environmental certification scheme, has reportedly discontinued its carbon neutral labeling scheme based on offsets: in a statement it acknowledged that consumers may have been inadvertently misled by the label due to poor quality offsets. Revealed: more than 90 percent of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows | Carbon offsetting | The Guardian

Unique in continuing to support the validity of the voluntary unregulated carbon market would be the Africa Climate Summit. Last year, during the COP27 proceedings, it launched the African Carbon Markets Initiative, which aims to produce 300 million carbon credits annually by 2030, thereby unlocking $6 billion in revenue (and many more by 2050). Kenyan President William Ruto said that African countries have not achieved anything for carbon absorption that the world needs and announced new carbon market regulations in his country. U.S. climate envoy John Kerry also said Africa and the global South would benefit from a growing carbon market. "This market must become a market of billions to function effectively. To that end, we must ensure the environmental integrity of this market. This is critical, not only to protect the climate, but also to create a thriving market because people will not take the risk of being involved in a market that does not have the right standards and guidelines," he said. In Nairobi, however, environmentalists said they were concerned about the increase in carbon offsets. The fear is that, in many cases, it could be greenwashing techniques.

Last year, a Swiss consulting firm, South Pole, interviewed the contact persons of some 1,200 companies that had set a goal of zeroing their net greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly all had developed (or said they were ready to do so soon) reduction pathways consistent with keeping global warming within 1.5°C of pre-industrial levels. What emerged from the survey was that, surprisingly, nearly one in four companies said they were not interested in publicly disclosing their emission reduction targets. Another survey, conducted by CDP, went further. Even to the point of questioning the credibility of companies' climate transition plans. New CDP data shows companies are recognizing the need for climate transition plans but are not moving fast enough amidst incoming mandatory disclosure. - CDP An analysis of 4,100 companies based on 21 indicators (including emissions cuts, exposure to climate-related financial risks, supplier involvement etc.) found that only 81 of them, or 1.98 percent of the total, gave fairly comprehensive answers on all questions.

Another term has been coined for this way of doing things: greenhushing. "We need more than ever for companies making progress on sustainability to inspire others to start. This is impossible if progress happens in silence," says Renat Heuberger, ceo of South Pole.

The point is that while it is no longer economically viable for large companies to set their marketing campaigns on carbon offsets, buying emission allowances allows them to continue working even when they are outside the limits imposed by national and international guidelines. That is, greenhushing.

According to some, the decision by many companies stems from the fact that, for large and medium-sized companies, the harm of being accused of greenwashing-that is, of wanting to conceal their emissions by showing themselves to be green-would be greater than saying nothing. This is a more real risk today than one might think. There are publications, such as Eco age, that try to expose the most blatant cases. https://www.eco-business.com/news/18-brands-called-out-for-greenwashing-in-2022/ The risk of being forced to justify themselves or having reputational problems along with the costs of appearing green has led many companies not to even try. Even taking into account the fact that a kind of green skepticism is spreading in many parts of the planet. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review | Environmental Sciences Europe | Full Text (springeropen.com)

C. Alessandro Mauceri

Il Salto della Quaglia