The CSR Newsletters are a freely-available resource generated as a dynamic complement to the textbook, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation.

To sign-up to receive the CSR Newsletters regularly during the fall and spring academic semesters, e-mail author David Chandler at david.chandler@ucdenver.edu.

Showing posts with label greenwash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greenwash. Show all posts

Thursday, January 22, 2026

Strategic CSR - Greenhushing

 
Welcome back to the Strategic CSR Newsletter!
The first newsletter of the Spring semester is below.
As always, your comments and ideas are welcome.
 

The other day, I was discussing with a friend the shift in public pronouncements by corporations about their equity and inclusion policies, and whether this reflected a similar shift in behavior (actions in addition to words). My sense is that many organizations are continuing as before (i.e., they are not fundamentally altering their mission and behavior), but are doing so surreptitiously. Perhaps a corollary is what is happening in the sustainability space, as explained in the article in the url below:

"Greenhushing is everywhere. While a rollback in green ambition has received a lot of attention in recent months, many speakers said companies were still pursuing their targets, just without talking about them in public. Peter Bakker, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, said that 91% of companies WBCSD surveyed globally said they are investing the same or more than they were last year in decarbonization. Similarly, Sherry Madera, CEO of the environmental disclosure nonprofit CDP, said its data shows that the majority of companies are either maintaining or increasing their climate ambition. But, she said those conversations are happening behind a closed door. "I don't think companies have the appetite to talk about this as much."

Of course, this reaction might evolve — stages of resistance and then submission, perhaps. In other words, perhaps organizations start out changing their words and labels, but continue their behavior. Then, as the pressure to change continues and new norms (and stakeholder expectations) emerge, behavior eventually follows.

To distort Warren Buffet's well-known quote about bankruptcy — change happens slowly, and then suddenly.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Corporations Are Bringing Climate Talk to a Whisper
By Coco Liu
March 4, 2025
Bloomberg

Posted by David Chandler at 8:00 AM

Friday, March 28, 2025

Strategic CSR - Buzzwords

I am increasingly seeing headlines such as this one, which appeared recently in the article in the url below:

"Don't Call it ESG, Call it Resilience."

In particular:

"There's a new buzzword in sustainability circles when it comes to investing in renewables and clean technologies: resilience."

The pertinent term here, I think, is "buzzword," which implies exactly the right amount of thought that has gone into this latest phase of the environmental conversation. To me, it feels more like a reaction to what suddenly cannot be said (i.e., ESG) than reflecting any serious attempt to chart a measured and coordinated approach to tackling climate change:

"'In the beginning you had 'social' and 'responsible investing' and then it became 'ethical investing' and then a whole host of other things have sort of emerged from that,' said Jason Britton, chief product officer at asset manager Sphere. ''Sustainability' was a buzzword for a really long time then 'regenerative' and 'triple bottom line,'' he said. 'This is an industry's effort to describe an incredibly complex thing in a series of one or two marketing words. 'Resilience' is the bingo buzzword of the day.'"

As a result, we should expect a demise similar to all the other acronyms or "buzzwords" that have come and gone, whether CSR, SRI, ESG, sustainability, green, offsets, and so on. In my world, words matter because, when ill thought through, they reveal underlying biases and ignorance, or simply an attempt to greenwash (to borrow another fluffy phrase). The sooner we realize that trends or buzzwords are not the way to tackle a fundamental and existential threat to humanity (see Strategic CSR – Jeans), the greater the chance we will have to do something serious about it:

"For investors, 'resilience' is the new catch-all term for investments aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change on their businesses. Often seen alongside terms like 'adaptation finance' or 'transition finance,' ESG professionals are using the word increasingly in marketing and communications related to their investments."

The sentiment 'moving deck chairs around on the Titanic' comes to mind. Of course, climate change is not waiting while we decide whether we are serious.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Don't Call it ESG, Call it Resilience
By Yusuf Khan
February 28, 2025
The Wall Street Journal
 
Posted by David Chandler at 5:40 AM

Thursday, March 6, 2025

Strategic CSR - Greenhushing

In contrast to the last newsletter that focused on greenwashing, the article in the url below notes that the phenomenon of greenhushing continues to spread:

"Greenhushing is the inverse of greenwashing: Companies are devoted to combating climate change yet reluctant to publicize their climate efforts. This phenomenon is emerging on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, driven by different factors."

Looking on the bright side, this does not necessarily mean corporations are pulling back from their resource and risk-related commitments, but just that they are not advertising what they are doing:

"In response to the changing political landscape, many executives in corporate America are dropping the mention of 'climate change' in meetings. Instead, they start to highlight non-climate benefits of their work, such as job creation and economic growth."

The contrast in patterns of behavior with Europe is interesting. There, corporations are also minimizing their public statements on sustainability related issues, but for a very different reason:

"In Europe, where climate change hasn't completely fallen off governments' agendas, companies are also keeping their climate actions away from public sight due to the risk of being seen as greenwashing. Overstating green claims cause reputational damage that is hard to repair."

As a result:

"In 2024, 63 out of the 100 largest publicly listed firms in the UK under-promoted their work on environmental protection, according to an analysis by market research firm Connected Impact. … When it came to US companies, the desire for staying unnoticed was even greater — as many as 67 major public and private firms resorted to greenhushing."

I have long understood that low-cost strategy companies like Walmart do not advertise to customers their progressive work on sustainability in their supply chain, but that is due to the danger of misperception around the price being charged (people believe that 'green' products are more expensive; see Strategic CSR – Greenhushing). In this case, it is a different stakeholder (the government) that seems to be driving greenhushing, with uncertain implications:

"Some worry the silence risks damaging consumers' trust and weakening peer pressure needed for motivating more companies to go green. While others say it is a wise business decision in difficult times."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


The sound of greenhushing
By Coco Liu
March 4, 2025
Bloomberg
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:32 PM

Monday, March 3, 2025

Strategic CSR - Greenwash

The articles in the two urls below offer contrasting approaches by different countries to the issue of preventing greenwash in finance. In the first article, the Swiss government (rather optimistically) is happy to trust the firms in its finance industry to self-regulate:

"Switzerland's finance sector can regulate its own members when it comes to combating the miss-selling of sustainability-themed investment products, the government said. The Federal Council had given banks, insurers and other finance firms until August to come up with an effective self-regulation framework on greenwashing."

In contrast, and employing a modicum of commonsense, the Australian government is proposing to introduce a new labeling system that will add substance to the ambiguous meaning of sustainable:

"The Australian government … will establish labels and disclosures for investment products marketed as 'sustainable,' including funds run by the superannuation industry, after a public consultation in early 2025, according to a sustainable finance framework released on Wednesday. The plan also calls for large businesses and financial firms to incorporate climate disclosures based on the Australian Accounting Standards Board's guidelines, which are due to be finalized in August."

The key to the difference is in the article headlines – while the Swiss will allow finance firms to "police themselves," the Australian government is planning to "crack down with new regulations." I wonder which approach will be the most effective in reducing the amount of misleading information and behavior that pervades all things sustainable?

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Swiss Say Finance Firms Can Police Greenwashing Themselves
By Bastian Benrath
June 19, 2024
Bloomberg

Australia Cracks Down on ESG Claims with New Regulations
By Ishika Mookerjee
June 19, 2024
Bloomberg
 
Posted by David Chandler at 8:21 PM

Tuesday, February 4, 2025

Strategic CSR - Aviation

I have been looking into the aviation industry, recently (see here). Thinking about how sustainability works in this space has been part of that inquiry. Along these lines, I found the article in the url below, which suggests we are nowhere near developing a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and that any headline you might have seen suggesting the opposite is misleading, at best:

"IPS report says replacement fuels well off track to replace kerosene within timeframe needed to avert climate disaster."

Even worse:

"Hopes that replacement fuels for airplanes will slash carbon pollution are misguided and support for these alternatives could even worsen the climate crisis, a new report has warned."

Specifically:

"There is currently 'no realistic or scalable alternative' to standard kerosene-based jet fuels, and touted 'sustainable aviation fuels' are well off track to replace them in a timeframe needed to avert dangerous climate change, despite public subsidies, the report by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive thinktank, found."

As with many good ideas in the sustainability space, the idea in theory is possible; in practice, scalability is the challenge:

"Chuck Collins, co-author of the report, said: 'To bring these fuels to the scale needed would require massive subsidies, the trade-offs would be unacceptable and would take resources aware from more urgent decarbonization priorities.'"

What are some of those potential tradeoffs?

"Burning sustainable aviation fuels still emits some carbon dioxide, while the land use changes needed to produce the fuels can also lead to increased pollution. Ethanol biofuel, made from corn, is used in these fuels, and meeting the Biden administration's production goal, the report found, would require 114m acres of corn in the US, about a 20% increase in current land area given over to the crop. In the UK, meanwhile, 50% of all agricultural land will have to be given up to sustain current flight passenger levels if jet fuel was entirely replaced."

The conclusion, due to the unique challenges of getting heavy airplanes off the ground:

"Phil Ansell, director of the Center for Sustainable Aviation at the University of Illinois, said the aviation industry had been faced with a much steeper challenge than other sectors to decarbonize. 'There's an under appreciation of how big the energy problem is for aviation. We are still many years away from zero pollution flights,' he said. … 'We are now trying to find solutions, but we are working at this problem and realizing it's a lot harder than we thought. We are late to the game. We are in the dark ages in terms of sustainability, compared to other sectors.'"

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


'Magical thinking': hopes for sustainable jet fuel not realistic, report finds
By Oliver Milman
May 14, 2024
The Guardian
 
Posted by David Chandler at 4:05 PM

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Strategic CSR - Goalposts

What to do when you face the likelihood you will fail to reach a goal you set yourself only a short while ago? Well, you move the goalposts, of course. Or, at least, that is what you do if you are a large corporation that is having second thoughts about your public commitment to reduce plastic waste, as indicated in the article in the url below:

"In 2020, dozens of major companies joined the U.S. Plastics Pact, signaling a commitment to minimizing plastic waste. Their goals included phasing out plastic straws, cutlery and intentionally-added PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals"; recycling or composting half of their plastic packaging; and making sure 100% of plastic packaging would be reusable, recyclable or compostable—all by 2025."

After all, the companies that signed this pledge are responsible for up to a third of all plastic waste in the U.S.:

"Signatories include major brands like General Mills, Nestlé, Kraft Heinz and Coca-Cola Co., the largest known contributor to global branded plastic waste, according to research published in the journal Science Advances. Retailers like Walmart and Target and packaging and materials suppliers also signed."

While all the companies have reiterated their commitment to reducing plastic waste, of course, the targets will need to wait a little longer:

"Now, with the 2025 deadline close at hand, the U.S. Plastics Pact has published an updated set of objectives. They look a lot like the 2020 goals, with a key difference: Many of the target dates have been pushed back to 2030."

OK, so one reconsideration is understandable. After all, this is difficult stuff, right?

"It is not the first time companies have pushed back timelines for aggressive recycling targets. Coca-Cola and Nestlé both made public promises as far back as 2007 and 2008 that didn't come to fruition, according to the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy group."

As always, it is easy to find reasons why we cannot make the progress we need to make. Ultimately, though, we either make the changes we need to, or we do not:

"Today, less than 10% of plastic waste in the U.S. is recycled annually, according to a 2023 report from the National Academy of Sciences. While companies frequently tout pilot projects for plant-based plastics or paper bottles, the problem is expected to get worse in the future. Recent projections have found that plastic waste could triple by 2060, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Companies Push Back Plastic-Waste Goals
By H. Claire Brown
June 11, 2024
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B10
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:56 AM

Tuesday, October 22, 2024

Strategic CSR - Google

The article in the url below is, on the face of it, a step back in Google's environmental performance:

"Google has ended its mass purchase of cheap carbon offsets and thus stopped claiming that its operations are carbon neutral, according to the tech giant's latest environmental report. The company now aims to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030. The Alphabet Inc. unit has claimed that it's been carbon neutral in its operations since 2007. The status was based on purchasing carbon offsets to match the volume of emissions that were generated from its buildings, data centers and business travel. But in its latest report, the company states: 'Starting in 2023, we're no longer maintaining operational carbon neutrality.'"

In reality, however, I think it represents a mature step in the way that we think (and talk) about reducing carbon emissions. In other words, it suggests Google is serious about reducing actual emissions, not simply trying to cover up emissions by purchasing ineffective carbon offsets (most of which are symbolic, if not downright fraudulent):

"It's a sign of a company learning to adapt to strengthening sustainability criteria. 'In line with a changing market — including a more robust carbon-removal ecosystem we helped catalyze — we've shifted our strategy,' a Google spokesperson said. 'We aim to avoid or reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to reach our absolute emissions reduction target.'"

In general, the carbon environment is getting tougher for any company that is involved with A.I. (see Strategic CSR – Three Mile Island):

"The changes to its carbon credits purchase strategy have coincided with Google and Big Tech's push on artificial intelligence, which Bloomberg News investigation has shown is extremely resource intensive. As a result, Google's total planet-warming emissions in 2023 are 48% higher than 2019. In that period, its total energy consumption has doubled."

But, this does not dismiss the heightened honesty with recognizing the carbon offset industry for what it is (see Strategic CSR – Carbon offsets):

"The definition of carbon neutral is when an entity balances its planet-warming emissions with techniques that draw down the same amount of carbon dioxide from the air. However, most companies making carbon-neutral claims today rely on cheap offsets — where one credit equals a ton of emissions — that are derived from projects that claim to protect forests or deploy clean energy and avoid the production of emissions. While those are actions that should help the world tackle climate change, experts have found that the purchase of the emissions-avoidance offsets does little to actually reduce emissions. Many deforestation projects exaggerate their claims, while most renewable energy plants would have been built without the small sums raised by the offset purchased. That's why most carbon-neutral claims from companies and products are questionable."

And Google has been a large contributor to the problem, previously:

"In 2022, Google bought nearly 3 million tons of such offsets to counterbalance its direct emissions and business-travel emissions. Though the company did not declare what specific projects those offsets came from, its sustainability report stated that the credits were verified 'under the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), American Carbon Registry (ACR), Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), or the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism.'"

This step is much more than a change in tone. It is a significant reassessment of its substantive understanding of the underlying problem:

"After offsets-based claims from companies came under scrutiny, Google stated in a Bloomberg Green story in 2021 that it aimed to reach carbon neutrality without offsets. But now, instead of bulk purchase of emissions-avoidance offsets, Google says it's going to focus on absolute reductions in emissions and buy carbon-removal credits for its residual emissions. These tend to be more expensive, but also have greater chance of verifiably drawing down carbon dioxide from the air."

In other words, a meaningful step forward.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Google Is No Longer Claiming to Be Carbon Neutral
By Akshat Rathi
July 8, 2024
Bloomberg

Posted by David Chandler at 8:39 PM

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Strategic CSR - Methane

Among the many reasons to be frustrated with the corporate conversation around ESG (and sustainability, in general) is the disproportionate attention focused on carbon, rather than other greenhouse gasses, such methane, which is so much more damaging in the short term (e.g., see Strategic CSR – Methane). This narrow focus can result in less pressure to set targets and less oversight of performance, even when targets are set:

"The United States' booming fossil-fuel industry continues to emit more and more planet-warming methane into the atmosphere, new research showed, despite a U.S.-led effort to encourage other countries to cut emissions globally."

This is particularly ironic, given the leading role the U.S. played in setting global limits on the emissions of this gas:

"Methane is among the most potent greenhouse gases, and 'one of the worst performers in our study is the U.S., even though it was an instigator of the Global Methane Pledge,' said Antoine Halff, the co-founder of Kayrros, the environmental data company issuing the report."

One reason could be where methane (relative to carbon) is emitted in the supply chain:

"Unlike carbon dioxide, methane emissions don't derive from consumption, but rather from production and transportation of the gas, which is the main component of what is commonly known as natural gas. Methane can leak from storage facilities, pipelines and tankers, and is also often deliberately released. Methane is also released from livestock and landfills, and occurs naturally in wetlands."

The lack of oversight has produced predictable results:

"The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is now more than two-and-a-half times as much as preindustrial levels, and more than half of the world's methane emissions are man-made."

Why methane has remained overlooked, however, is less important than the consequences of it having been so:

"Its presence in the atmosphere dissipates in roughly 12 years, a relatively short span of time, but numerous studies point to its heat-trapping effects as being as much as 80 or more times stronger than carbon dioxide's. That means it can have more immediate consequences for the climate."

What is consistent in the debate (as with most sustainability issues), though, is the degree to which everyone says they are willing to act, but then fails to do so meaningfully:

"In 2021, the United States was among the first signers and promoters of the Global Methane Pledge, which set a target of reducing global, man-made methane emissions by 30 percent from 2020 levels within a decade. The pledge has been signed by 158 countries. '2030 is rapidly approaching, though, and emissions are still being released in huge amounts,' said Mr. Halff. 'This seems in large part because oil and gas production is surging both in the U.S. and elsewhere.'"

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Despite a Global Pledge of Reduction, U.S. Emissions of Methane Keep Climbing
By Max Bearak
September 20, 2024
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A18
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:42 AM

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Strategic CSR - Incentives

An indication that society in general (and business in particular) is not serious about addressing climate change is the extent to which we are happy to wave through superficial statements or attempts at action, without serious oversight or follow-up. Instead, the approach seems to be 'let's all pretend we are doing something and not look too hard at the details, in case we remind ourselves that we are really not doing much, at all.' The article in the url below does a good job of highlighting the ongoing disconnect between words and action:

"An evaluation of more than 1,500 climate policies in 41 countries found that only 63 actually worked to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

My reading of the press coverage of this study is that the threshold to count was 'any at all.' In other words, the report is not saying that 63 policies failed to produce a lot of greenhouse gasses, but that they failed to produce any at all – nothing. This is shocking, if you sit down to think about it for more than a second. Helpfully, the article notes what does and does not tend to work. Perhaps not surprisingly, we need to incorporate economics into public policy in order to understand how to incentivize behavior that might make a difference:

"Subsidies and regulations—policy types often favored by governments—rarely worked to reduce emissions, the study found, unless they were combined with price-based strategies aimed at changing consumer and corporate behavior. ... The fraction of policies that worked combined financial incentives, regulations and taxes, according to the study."

'Hope,' it seems, is not a strategy!

"The study found the nations' overall climate emissions will exceed the Paris target by 23 billion metric tons of CO2 by 2030."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Most Climate Policies Are Ineffective at Cutting Emissions, Study says
By Eric Niller
August 22, 2024
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A3
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:51 AM

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Strategic CSR - Child labor (in the U.S.)

A common conclusion reached by students discussing the Nike (sweatshop) case that I teach in my strategy classes is that firms should be held responsible for the whole supply chain. When I point out that there is a cost to this that many Western consumers are unwilling to bear, the students find the dissonance challenging. But, a significant reason why strategic CSR is more valuable than the mainstream CSR discussion is precisely because it deals with empirical reality – incorporating models of human behavior in line with the decisions people actually make, rather than decisions we might wish they made.

In terms of whether companies are willing to audit their own operations (let alone whether external stakeholders are willing to pay), the article in the url below offers an extensive look at where we are, currently. There is an industry of private auditors that companies use to deflect the suspicion/accusation of transgressions in their supply chain. Companies hire these auditors to audit suppliers, largely because federal government agencies are too understaffed to enforce the legislation intended to protect exploited worker populations:

"In the past two decades, private audits have become the solution to a host of public relations headaches for corporations. When scandal erupts over labor practices, or shareholders worry about legal risks, or advocacy groups demand a boycott, companies point to these inspections as evidence that they have eliminated abuses in their supply chains. Known as social compliance audits, they have grown into an $80 billion global industry, with firms performing hundreds of thousands of inspections each year."

Unfortunately, child workers, who often staff the overnight and cleaning shifts (especially in labor- and machinery-intensive industries), often evade inspections given the limited (day) time inspectors actually stay on site. The article makes it clear that this convenient reality seems to be in the best interests of all involved (apart from, perhaps, the child workers who slip under the radar of every regulation intended to protect them):

"Children were overlooked by auditors who were moving quickly, leaving early or simply not sent to the part of the supply chain where minors were working, The Times found in audits performed at 20 production facilities used by some of the nation's most recognizable brands. Auditors did not catch instances in which children were working on Skittles and Starburst candies, Hefty brand party cups, the pork in McDonald's sandwiches, Gerber baby snacks, Oreos, Cheez-Its or the milk that comes with Happy Meals."

Why does this still happen?

"Children often use forged documents that slip by auditors who check paperwork but do not speak with most workers face-to-face. Corporations suggest that supply chains are reviewed from start to finish, but sub-suppliers such as industrial farms remain almost entirely unscrutinized."

So, what is the solution? How do we fund federal agencies to enforce the legislation that already exists? More specifically, how do we incentivize companies to realize that ensuring a clean supply chain is in their best business interests? The key, I think, is that when abuses like those revealed in articles like this appear, we need to act rather than look the other way. As long as there are no substantive consequences, then this greenwashing will continue until we decide, at some point, that it is no longer acceptable. Ultimately, though, it comes down to a willingness to bear the cost burden. Auditing an entire supply chain is expensive – who is going to pick up the tab?

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


An Industry Paid to Find Child Laborers, Doesn't
By Hannah Dreier
December 31, 2023
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
p1, 14-15
 
Posted by David Chandler at 3:51 PM

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Strategic CSR - Lego

The article in the url below reflects a company making a sustainability-related decision based on an honest assessment of its ability to make a difference, rather than the appearance of making a difference:

"Lego is scrapping plans to make its toy bricks from recycled plastic bottles after determining that switching to the material would result in it producing higher carbon emissions.

Importantly, the company is not giving up, just recognizing that the technology is not there, at present:

"Lego has long sought to replace its petroleum-based bricks with more sustainable materials. It tried making pieces from corn, but that resulted in bricks that were too soft. A wheat-based brick didn't look right. Bricks made from other materials over the years proved too hard to pull apart or lost their grip. Its latest effort was focused on recycled plastic bottles. The company found a one-liter plastic PET bottle could produce around 10 of its classic 2×4-stud bricks. The company has been testing bricks made from the material for their quality, durability and "clutch power"—the name Lego gives to the brick's ability to lock together with other bricks."

The challenge:

"Lego said it is abandoning the effort because it found that scaling up production wouldn't cut the company's carbon emissions: The extra steps involved in production would use more energy and manufacturing facilities would require retooling. … The company said it would instead continue with testing and developing Lego bricks made from a range of alternative sustainable materials, including other recycled plastics."

This reminds me of a phenomenon I have increasingly experienced when I meet people working in the CSR-related space. This is no doubt related to my advanced age and growing frustration, but I have taken to asking the people I meet whether they are interested in making money or interested in making a difference. It is obvious that there are plenty of ways to make money, via the perception of action or meaning. All the work being done in the market for ESG-related investment products is a great example – a whole industry has grown around consumer demand for more sustainable funds, with no discernible impact (as far as I can see) on either corporate behavior or, more important, actual carbon emissions. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people willing to dive into the space, because money is there to be made. When I push these people who I meet on the issue, 9 times out of 10 I don't hear from them anymore. My takeaway is that they are in it for the money, which is fine (people need to earn a living and markets offer a powerful motivator for change, when directed appropriately), but not conversations I want to waste time on. What is interesting about the Lego example is that it suggests the intention to make a difference, even if it means taking a short-term hit to perceptions (i.e., withdrawing a proposal that appears sustainable, on the surface).

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Lego's Latest Effort to Avoid Oil-Based Plastic Hits a Brick Wall
By Dominic Chopping
September 26, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B3
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:07 PM

Thursday, October 19, 2023

Strategic CSR - Recycle logo

The article in the url below reveals some of the difficulties with using a simplified, generic (albeit well-designed) logo or label to represent a complex construct. Specifically, the article is talking about the universally-recognized recycling logo:

"The 'chasing arrows' logo, designed by a college student for the first Earth Day in 1970, has become ubiquitous on everything from cartons of milk to shampoo bottles as a way to nudge users to recycle packaging rather than discard it."

The trouble is that the logo is now so widely used that companies are putting it on materials that, while theoretically recyclable, are almost never being recycled, at least not in the U.S. The result is a form of false advertising that the U.S. government wants to prevent:

"At issue is the use of the logo along with the 'resin number' of different types of plastics. Resin one and two plastics, such as bottles and jugs, are the most easily recycled products, but those marked with numbers three to seven, categories that include plastic bags, styrofoam and plastic trays, are typically not recycled and are instead sent to landfills or burned."

Again, the issue is not that these plastics cannot be recycled, it is that they cannot yet be recycled efficiently and, as a result, there is no functioning market for the original materials, once they have been used (see Strategic CSR – Labels):

"A new rule was needed, the agency said, to help clear up this confusion. In 2021, California passed a law to restrict the use of the logo to avoid misleading claims about recycling. Environmental groups are pushing for an end to the blanket use of the logo, too, claiming that its use amounts to 'greenwashing' by companies."

We either need to find a way to recycle these plastics in ways that are efficient and practical (without the plastic degrading so much that the recycled material does not have many practical applications), or we need to reduce the amount of single-use plastic in our lives (a challenge that has its own complications; see Strategic CSR – COVID-19):

"Only around 5% of plastics are recycled in the US, a proportion that has been declining since China announced it would no longer be accepting unwanted plastic waste from western countries in 2018. American households produce around 51m tons of plastic waste a year, more than any other country, with much of that either dumped in landfills, incinerated or littered, often ending up in the ocean."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Universal 'chasing arrows' recycling symbol could be dumped in US
By Oliver Milman
May 18, 2023
The Guardian
 
Posted by David Chandler at 10:49 AM

Monday, September 25, 2023

Strategic CSR - Green-hushing

The article in the url below suggests that, in the face of growing polarization around ESG-related issues, companies are engaging in more "green-hushing":

"Executives at U.S.-listed companies mentioned 'environmental, social and governance,' 'ESG,' 'diversity, equity and inclusion,' 'DEI' or 'sustainability' on 575 earnings calls from April 1 to June 5, down 31% from the same period last year. … That is the largest such year-over-year decline and the fifth consecutive quarter of year-over-year drops, following a pickup in these discussions and corporate social efforts in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020."

The chart in the article highlights the definite trend that emerged over the last couple of years:

 

Although executives are talking less often about the variety of issues that fall under the ESG umbrella, there does not seem to be any less action (which is encouraging):

"While such instances of 'green-hushing' may be part of a larger strategy for many companies to avoid weighing in on divisive issues, there is little sign that public companies are pulling back from the initiatives themselves, such as DEI employee training and emissions reductions. Companies still regularly voluntarily issue detailed sustainability reports, disclose greenhouse-gas emissions and tie a portion of their executive compensation to ESG metrics. Businesses are also busy preparing soon-to-be-unveiled new climate-disclosure requirements from the Securities and Exchange Commission by creating systems for collecting data and managing future compliance costs."

This reminds me of Walmart, which has long engaged in best-practice sustainability issues in its supply chain, but does not advertise their progress to their customers. Research suggests that customers who see a "green" product assume that it is priced as a premium product, even though it could easily be cheaper. But, Walmart is most concerned about its price sensitive customers and perceptions around value (rather than actual value), so better for the firm to engage in the practice, but not tell anyone about it.

This is opposite to a strategic CSR approach to business. Much better, in my opinion, to stand behind a clear set of values and run the business accordingly. In my mind, that generates greater loyalty to the firm among all stakeholders, which is essential in order to operate the business at its optimal potential.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Companies Seek to Avert Backlash, Avoid Talk of Social, Green Issues
By Mark Maurer
June 13, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A1-2
 
Posted by David Chandler at 9:26 PM

Wednesday, April 5, 2023

Strategic CSR - Fast fashion

The article in the url below highlights that, even the fast fashion companies acknowledge their business model is a threat to their own future success:

"In its 2021 annual report, Swedish retailer Hennes & Mauritz AB identified one trend as a 'high' risk to its business for the first time, higher-risk even than increased energy costs or availability of raw materials. Should consumers increasingly prefer 'products and services with low climate impacts from trusted companies that are seen as leaders in sustainability,' H&M wrote, the company might see a negative impact. As recently as 2018, H&M didn't list sustainably-minded shopping as a risk at all."

The reason these companies are growing more wary, the article argues, is that there are plenty of signals that a backlash is possible:

"… the past few years have seen tough feedback for fashion companies that push the limits on how quickly they can churn out clothing and accessories. Retailers like Shein, H&M, Zara and Boohoo have been repeatedly dinged by consumers, activists, the press and public officials for their mounting climate, water, and plastic pollution footprints, for labor conditions and for greenwashing. Meanwhile, report after report shows consumers signaling more focus on the environment when it comes to purchasing decisions. In one 2021 survey, for example, two thirds of US consumers said they would pay more for sustainable products."

The only problem is that, any resource intensive industry characterized by waste (and that is as good a definition of fast fashion as anything else) is only a problem if the stakeholders of these companies (i.e., customers, employees, suppliers, etc.) think it is a problem. If, instead, these stakeholders are quite happy for these firms to continue polluting the environment at a heady rate, then nothing changes:

"Except, people don't always shop their values. And for all the talk about shifting shopping patterns, there is no clear quantitative evidence of any demographic ditching fast fashion en masse — not even environmentally conscious Gen Z. That leaves retailers whose business model relies on fast fashion to size up the threat against it in their annual reports, sustainability reports and climate disclosures, where little consensus exists."

Seen in this light, the conclusion of the article is damning:

"It's clear that shopping habits could change, but no one is sure how, when or if climate-conscious consumers will be good or bad for business."

So, there we have it – an industry that is a heavy polluter; widespread acknowledgement that this is happening and is not good; and the complete absence of change since, ultimately, the stakeholders of these companies don't (yet) care sufficiently to do anything about it. Fast fashion might be the perfect metaphor for our whole approach to the environment and climate change.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Where Is the Fast Fashion Backlash?
By Zahra Hirji
March 15, 2023
Bloomberg
 
Posted by David Chandler at 2:54 AM
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)