“Corporate Social Responsibility” is pretty much dead

Not that it ever showed much life. In any case it will only be resurrected if it’s forced on them. I don’t doubt that plenty of business school grads start with some measure of idealism. But current corporate culture gets them ditching that in a hurry.

It’s 15 years since Michael Porter and Mark Kramer galvanised the stodgy world of Corporate Social Responsibility with their report in the Harvard Business Review, ‘Creating Shared Value’, with the not unambitious sub-title of: ‘How to Reinvent Capitalism and Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth’...

Nobody talks about Shared Value these days. Back then, the idea that the surplus value created by companies could be shared more equitably between shareholders, employees, suppliers, communities and other stakeholders did indeed present itself as an imaginative way of rescuing capitalism from its own worst tendencies, moving beyond ‘self-defeating trade-offs between business and society’.

Well, yes – depending on how much faith you have in the idea of companies acting voluntarily for the ‘common good’– in the absence of legislation. In retrospect, Porter and Kramer were staggeringly naive in their expectations of the so-called ‘voluntary principle’. - Beyond Nuclear

Big Meat and Big Dairy spend pittances on cutting emissions

They actually spend considerably more on greenwashing.

Global meat and dairy giants are investing just a fraction of their revenues into cutting emissions despite being among the world’s largest polluters, according to new estimates.

Company spending on advertising outstripped that on low-carbon solutions, the report by campaign group Changing Markets Foundation found, as corporations ramped up attempts to win consumers over with their green credentials.

The meat and dairy sector – responsible for over 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – has come under increasing pressure in recent years to tackle major climate harms...

None of the companies in the report had targets to cut emissions that aligned with guidance from UN experts.

The report found that the sector failed to take action on tackling emissions, while also spending millions on marketing sustainability claims. Companies have seen a spate of greenwashing allegations in recent years, with multiple firms forced to pull misleading ads – including Brazilian meat giant JBS, which last year was ordered by the U.S. advertising watchdog to stop making “net zero” claims. - DeSmog

Majority of top companies are flagrantly greenwashing on climate change

Not a surprise.

The recent InfluenceMap study, assessing the climate commitments of nearly 300 of the world’s largest companies, has uncovered a troubling trend: over half are at risk of ‘net zero greenwashing.’ This finding highlights a significant disconnect between corporate pledges to support the Paris Climate Accord and actual policy actions, casting doubt on the integrity of these commitments.

The analysis focused on the world’s top companies from the Forbes 2000 list, revealing that 58 percent have not aligned their climate policy influencing actions with their public claims. This discrepancy raises concerns about the credibility of corporate commitments to achieving net zero emissions.

Catherine McKenna, chair of the High-Level Expert Group on the Net Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, emphasizes the urgency for businesses to align their actions with their climate pledges. “We urgently need every business, investor, city, state, and region to walk the talk on their net zero promises. We cannot afford slow movers, fake movers, or any form of greenwashing,” she states. - Nation of Change

Climate smart commodities?

Give 'em a way to greenwash...we'll see how it works out.

When Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack first announced USDA would spend $1 billion to support projects that produce “climate smart commodities” in February, there was confusion. What exactly is a “climate smart commodity” (CSC)? There is no current market, label or recognized standard. USDA suggested only that a CSC must reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon. No details about how much GHG must be reduced, how long carbon must be sequestered, or how efforts might be measured and by whom. Last week, the USDA expanded the program and awarded $2.8 billion in an initial round of 70 grants (more to come) for CSC projects, with an upcoming second round to reach $3.5 billion in total.

Now 70 different projects, all with different definitions and approaches, can claim the USDA-approved “climate smart commodity” moniker. The mushiness of positive words without clear definition, standards, goals or independent verification has long been used by agribusiness and food companies to their own ends From labels like “natural,” “sustainable,” and more recently “regenerative,” companies frequently make claims about farm and food products without having to meet clear standards or independent verification. Such terms stand in contrast to strong protocols and standards established under certified organic, for example...

As a result, it wasn’t surprising that a who’s who of agribusiness and food companies jumped at the USDA’s open invitation to define a “climate smart commodity.” - IATP