Corporate Polluters: Evading Responsibility And Accountability

Companies get away with polluting through a variety of means. One of the main reasons is that governments often fail to intervene and prioritize economic concerns and the freedom of businesses over environmental protection. Additionally, companies employ strategies to avoid accountability, such as making superficial commitments to sustainability or shifting blame to other entities. These issues are further compounded by the fact that many of the most polluting companies are headquartered in regions with weak mandatory due diligence measures. While some companies have taken steps towards sustainability, their efforts are often insufficient, with many failing to address the emissions associated with the entire life cycle of their products.

Government inaction and lack of intervention

Secondly, governments may underestimate the harm caused by large-scale companies or believe that they are not the sole contributors to pollution. This underestimation can lead to a lack of urgency in implementing effective policies to curb corporate pollution. Additionally, the complexity of environmental issues can make it challenging for governments to identify the exact sources and causes of pollution, hindering their ability to take targeted action.

Furthermore, the implementation of environmental regulations and interventions can be influenced by political ideologies. Studies suggest that left-wing supporters are more inclined towards environmentalism and government intervention through taxation and public spending. In contrast, right-wing supporters may favor less government involvement and prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns. This ideological divide can result in inaction or inadequate responses to corporate pollution.

The potential economic impact of holding polluting companies accountable is another factor contributing to government inaction. There is a concern that imposing stringent regulations or fines could lead to bankruptcy and job losses. For example, in the case of the United States, there is a fear that increasing fines or shutting down polluting companies could contribute to the country's debt and unemployment. As a result, governments may be reluctant to take decisive action to avoid potential economic consequences.

Lastly, governments may rely on voluntary commitments and partnerships with companies to reduce pollution. However, these voluntary measures often fall short of the necessary systemic changes. Companies may prioritize managing their public image over genuinely addressing the problem, and the lack of binding commitments allows them to revert to their old habits once public pressure subsides. Therefore, government inaction and reliance on voluntary initiatives can enable companies to continue polluting without facing significant repercussions.

Companies' focus on PR over real change

Companies often prioritize public relations (PR) strategies over implementing meaningful changes to address their environmental impact. While they might face negative publicity for their harmful practices, these corporations are often more focused on mitigating the public backlash than genuinely committing to sustainable practices. For instance, when exposed for their role in deforestation, companies might announce new ""environmental sustainability" policies or join voluntary initiatives, but these commitments are typically non-binding, and companies often revert to their old habits once public scrutiny wanes.

Large corporations, particularly those headquartered in developed regions like the UK, EU, and USA, wield significant economic influence and profit from these markets. As a result, they can exert substantial pressure on legislators to avoid stringent environmental regulations that may hinder their business operations. This dynamic underscores the importance of mandatory due diligence measures and strong government intervention to hold these companies accountable for their actions.

Furthermore, corporations often set greenhouse gas reduction targets that fail to address the emissions associated with the entire lifecycle of their products. Upstream emissions, which occur during the extraction and refining of raw materials, and downstream emissions, which result from product use and disposal, are frequently overlooked. As a result, the majority of greenhouse gases attributable to corporations fall outside of their publicized climate commitments. This discrepancy highlights the gap between companies' public relations strategies and their actual efforts to mitigate their environmental impact.

Additionally, investors play a crucial role in influencing corporate behavior. A significant portion of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions is backed by public investment. Investors have the power to urge companies to disclose climate risks and transition away from fossil fuels. However, as long as investments in fossil fuel companies remain economically lucrative, there is a reluctance to divest from these industries. This inertia within the investor community contributes to the disconnect between PR promises and substantive environmental action.

Ultimately, while companies may focus on managing their public image, it is essential to recognize that their survival and profitability depend on maintaining positive public perception. Consumers are increasingly making purchasing decisions based on environmental and ethical concerns. Therefore, holding companies accountable, exposing their misdeeds, and demanding genuine change can be powerful tools to drive systemic environmental reforms.

Lack of mandatory due diligence measures

A lack of mandatory due diligence measures allows companies to get away with polluting. Many of the companies causing the most damage worldwide are headquartered in the UK, EU, and USA, or make a large proportion of their profits in these markets. If legislators in these jurisdictions were to implement stringent mandatory due diligence laws, it would have a significant global impact.

Due diligence laws would require companies to prove that their operations do not harm the environment or violate human rights. Financial penalties should be imposed on businesses that violate these laws, and affected communities, primarily in the Global South, must be able to seek compensation and other legal remedies.

Currently, when corporate wrongdoing is exposed, companies are often more concerned with mitigating negative publicity than addressing the underlying problem. They may announce new environmental sustainability policies or join voluntary initiatives, but these commitments are not binding, and companies often revert to their old habits once public pressure subsides.

Additionally, consumers should not be burdened with researching every purchase to ensure they are not inadvertently contributing to environmental degradation or human rights abuses. Instead, companies are best positioned to identify and mitigate these risks and should be held accountable through mandatory due diligence regulations.

Furthermore, investors in fossil fuel companies play a crucial role in the transition to a sustainable economy. By conditioning their economic support on commitments to decarbonization, investors can incentivize companies to adopt more environmentally friendly practices. However, without mandatory due diligence measures, investors may continue to pursue short-sighted financial gains at the expense of the planet's health.

Companies' greenwashing and false commitments

Greenwashing is a significant obstacle to tackling climate change. It involves using deceptive marketing and false claims of sustainability to mislead consumers, investors, and the public. This hampers the trust, ambition, and action needed to address the climate crisis and secure a sustainable planet. Many companies practice greenwashing, often making consumers believe they are environmentally friendly when they are not. For example, in 2016, the beverage brand Keurig began advertising its K-cup coffee pods as recyclable. However, most recycling facilities in the US and Canada wouldn't accept the pods, leading to greenwashing allegations and lawsuits. Similarly, Starbucks released a "straw-less lid" as part of its sustainability drive, but this lid contained more plastic than the old lid and straw combination.

Another example of greenwashing is when Volkswagen admitted to cheating emissions tests by fitting vehicles with a "defect" device that reduced emissions levels only during the tests. At the same time, the company was promoting the low-emissions and eco-friendly features of its vehicles in marketing campaigns. In reality, these engines were emitting up to 40 times the allowed limit for nitrogen oxide pollutants.

Greenwashing tactics include claiming to be on track to reduce emissions to net zero without a credible plan, being vague about operations or materials used, using misleading labels like "green" or "eco-friendly," and implying that minor improvements have a major impact.

To combat greenwashing, consumers should understand common tactics and make informed choices. They can research companies' commitments to initiatives like the UN's climate and sustainability programs and consider a product's entire life cycle, including raw material extraction, packaging, and disposal. Transparency and accountability are key, and standardized data is necessary to assess companies' progress toward their net-zero goals.

Additionally, legislators in countries where many harmful companies are headquartered, such as the UK, EU, and USA, should pass strong mandatory due diligence measures. These laws should require companies to prove that their activities are not causing environmental harm or human rights abuses and include financial penalties for non-compliance. Communities harmed by corporate actions must have access to courts to seek compensation and relief.

Investors' continued support for fossil fuels

Fossil fuel investments carry significant financial risks. When emissions are constrained, fossil fuel companies will have their carbon assets stranded. In recent years, a growing divestment movement of institutional and individual investors representing trillions in assets under management have responded to this climate risk by divesting all or some of their fossil fuel investments. However, this movement towards divestment has been slow, with institutional investors holding $5.1 trillion in bonds and shares of fossil fuel companies as of May 2024.

The five largest asset managers of fossil fuel investments are Vanguard, BlackRock, Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, State Street, and Capital Group. Together, these five companies hold and manage assets in fossil fuel companies worth $1.6 trillion. Vanguard, the largest fossil fuel investor worldwide, holds and manages assets of coal, oil, and gas companies worth $444 billion and does not have any fossil fuel policy. The US is the largest contributor to institutional investments in fossil fuel companies, with US institutional investors collectively holding $3.1 trillion in fossil fuel companies in 62 countries and accounting for 72% of total institutional investments in fossil fuel companies.

Despite the risks and growing calls for divestment, some companies continue to invest in fossil fuels. For example, in January 2015, it was revealed that Harvard had increased its direct investments in fossil fuel companies considerably. Additionally, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are among the highest-emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. While these companies have made efforts to address their environmental impact, such as investing in carbon capture and storage, the sums involved and the pace of change are often criticized as being insufficient.

The slow progress towards divestment from fossil fuels can be attributed to various factors. One factor is the belief that divesting from fossil fuels will not reduce demand but instead result in environmentally conscious investors losing influence over the operation of those companies. Additionally, fossil fuels have been the fastest-growing energy source over the last decade and are important raw materials for steel and cement in developing countries. Furthermore, some companies may be unaware of the risks associated with their investments or may prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability.

Frequently asked questions