Not every Purim day? A new report reveals that for some of the world's largest companies, putting on a "disguise" that presents them as more environmental than they really are is commonplace
Purim is the time put on costumes Colorful and original and pretend we are someone or something else. Part of what allows the holiday to be joyful and fun is the fact that we can pretend without cheating - it is clear to everyone that the little girl in red and blue is not really Wonder Woman, and that the man with the long furry ears is not a human rabbit roaming the streets. However, it turns out that there are huge companies that make great efforts to present themselves as something they are not, and to put on an environmentally friendly "mask" throughout the year - a phenomenon that has been nicknamed Greenwashing (or "Hatirekot", in Hebrew). BNew report The climate commitments of 25 giant international companies (among them Google, Apple and Nestlé) were examined, and they were awarded grades on the subject. The disappointing results of the report give us all another reason to drink until we know it this coming holiday.
In the new report, written by the research institute New Climate Institute, the extent of the "disguise" of companies that are solely responsible for about 5 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore their conduct can significantly affect the further worsening of the climate crisis and the taking of responsibility and dealing with the problem on the part of the business sector. The examined companies committed themselves to reach a state of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (that is, a state in which only a small amount of greenhouse gases is emitted, and it is also absorbed by the natural systems of the earth and by means ofCarbon adsorption from the atmosphere(and set goals for themselves in the field. However, according to the report, the steps that the companies list will actually lead to for an average reduction of only 40 percent Total emissions - and not a 100 percent reduction, as the term "net-zero" implies.
Ignoring the emissions up and down the road
The authors of the report explain that the public pressure on companies to act on the climate issue causes them to "disguise themselves": to release ambitious statements, which usually have no realistic coverage, and to exaggerate the description of the environmental actions that are being taken - in a way that can mislead consumers. They examined the emission reduction targets that the companies set for themselves, the steps they took in the matter and their transparency in the field. In practice, no company was awarded the highest possible composite score. Only one company (the shipping company Maersk) in the report received an "acceptable" grade (the second highest rating) while 3 received a "medium" rating, 10 received a "low" rating and 11 received a "very low" rating (the lowest possible rating).
One of the most problematic issues presented in the report is the tendency of many companies to take into account only the greenhouse gases that are emitted as a result of the production of the product itself, and to ignore the emissions that occur "downstream" or "upstream" - that is, emissions that are created due to production and the transportation of the materials that the companies use to manufacture their products, emissions that result from the use of the products that the companies produce or damage caused at the end of the products' life when they become waste. According to the authors of the report, it is sometimes about 90 percent of the emissions for which the tested companies are responsible.
Another problem that, according to the report, is common to many companies is an extensive reliance on Carbon offset measures - Investing in measures that absorb carbon from the atmosphere. The reliability of such measures is controversial, due to claims that the projects are not properly supervised and their effect may be limited in time - for example, an investment in planting a forest where the trees capture carbon from the atmosphere can be canceled in the event of a fire in that forest.
Google, Apple and Nestlé are going to a Purim party
One of the largest companies appearing in the report is Google, which claims to be Carbon neutral since 2007. According to the report, this claim is mainly based on the purchase of carbon offset credits that balance the company's greenhouse gas emissions - but it is very difficult to verify. The reason for this is that, according to the authors of the report, the credits purchased by Google come from ventures whose credibility is questionable, so it is difficult to know whether it is a legitimate environmental activity or a colorful disguise. In addition, according to the authors, it is difficult to give a full assessment of the effectiveness of the company's measures because it does not adequately reveal what is behind the "mask", and does not provide many important details - for example, regarding the volume of credits purchased each year from each project.
In addition, according to the authors of the report, Google ignores at least 60 percent of the emissions it is responsible for - which occur either down or up the road. Therefore, the authors of the report give the company a "low" score in integrity (the extent to which the company takes high-quality, reliable and comprehensive measures) and a "low" score in transparency.
Apple receives less bad grades from the authors of the report - "acceptable" in terms of transparency and "mediocre" in terms of integrity. According to the report, the company claims that it reached carbon neutrality in 2020 in regards to the production of the products themselves, and has committed to achieving full carbon neutrality that includes both the up and down road by 2030. These seem to be impressive achievements, but according to the authors of the report the road is still long, because that almost 70 percent of the emissions that Apple is responsible for come from above the road, and stem from the materials and services that Apple purchases for the production of its products. If you add to that the considerations down the road, according to the report, it is no less than 98.5 percent of the company's emissions. Therefore, the authors of the report point out that it is possible that the claim that the company presents - carbon neutrality already today, may mislead consumers. That is, Apple may be wearing a mask that shows who she wants to be in the future - but not who she is now.
Nestlé, the Swiss food and beverage giant that has set itself the goal of reaching net-zero emissions in 2050, received the lowest possible scores on the report's scale. According to the authors of the report, a careful analysis of the climate action plan published by Nestlé and its intermediate goals for 2025 (a 20 percent reduction in emissions) and 2030 (a 50 percent reduction) show that this is a deceptive disguise, and the reduction that the company refers to is compared to the current situation of "business as usual" - that is, a situation in which the company will continue to expand and increase its greenhouse gas emissions in these years - and not the situation today. In fact, according to the report, if you compare Nestlé's planned emissions to the amount of emissions it caused in 2018, Nestlé will reach a reduction of only about 2030 percent of its carbon emissions in 23.
According to BBC News, in response to Publishing the findings of the report, the Nestlé company said: "We welcome a careful examination of our actions and commitments regarding climate change. However, the New Climate Institute report suffers from a lack of understanding of our approach and contains significant inaccuracies." Google said: "We clearly define the scope of our climate commitments and frequently report on our progress in our annual environmental report, where information regarding our energy and greenhouse gas emissions is reviewed and approved by Ernst & Young." Apple did not directly respond to the report but told BBC News that it has a plan to reduce its carbon footprint.
make substantial changes
Liat Tzvi, an expert in environmental communication, compares the greenwash to green makeup, like the one used for a formal costume. "Companies that carry out greenwashing take a small environmental action that they carry out and use it to paint the company as one that cares about the environment," she says. "They create a false representation, and this is very destructive because it may cause society not to really change."
"In general, if a company does not take the environmental issue to the core of its business, almost everything will be greenwash", explains Zvi. "For example, a beverage company whose essence is to take plastic and deliver it to the consumer cannot become green without changing its existing model. Soda Stream is a good example of a company that saw where the future of such drinks lies - and completely eliminated the use of single-use plastic in its products." According to Tzvi, the big companies cannot meet the goals they have set for themselves if they do not recognize that they are required to make fundamental changes. "Many times, a new company will be the one to produce a more environmental product, because this requires new production lines and factories. For example, the existing car companies did not produce an electric vehicle before Tesla because it is produced in a different way."
Zvi explains that for "ordinary" consumers, it is difficult to understand when it is a scam and when it is a real environmental step - but there are ways to avoid wrong information. "The last place I would check how environmentally friendly a company really is is the company's website itself - these websites give the impression that everyone hugs trees," she says. "In general, you should know that everything that is fast, like fast food or fast fashion, is not good for the environment. Slow and long-term things are always more environmental", she concludes.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
