The accusations of greenwashing against corporations are legion, with those who have supposed net zero strategies particularly vulnerable to claims that their efforts are little more than PR puffery.
When making such a charge, a recent paper from the University of Mississippi argues activists would be well served by using the company’s own words against them.
“The basic premise is that it’s very hard to figure out what companies are actually doing,” the researchers say. “Lots of companies, particularly fossil fuel companies, try very hard to not disclose their investments and their lobbying reports. It would be difficult to definitively answer the question ‘Does ExxonMobil, for example, genuinely support a carbon tax?’ by digging through their lobbying and their investments.”
“There is an easier path to figuring out whether or not the corporation actually supports green energy, and that path is ‘Do they still rhetorically support a continued investment in fossil fuels?’ Because that is antithetical to being green. It’s such a simpler question than doing investigative reporting, which is not only difficult, but which also leads to conclusions that are not absolute.”
Hollow words
The article focuses particularly on the words of ExxonMobil boss Darren Woods, who in 2017 stated that a key company priority was the development of a uniform carbon price. This would allow polluting companies to be taxed and therefore incentivizes cleaner energy production.
“ExxonMobil’s embrace of carbon pricing earned the corporation praise and favorable media coverage,” the authors explain. Yet they go on to argue that “ExxonMobil’s rhetorical defense of a carbon price reveals the hollowness of their environmentalism … lofty rhetoric paired with lackluster follow-through.”
The author argues that many companies accept that climate change is harmful and then try to pretend they’re doing some good things toward it. Alternatively, it’s common for companies to accept it exists but there isn’t really much that can be done to stop it.
While the author accepts that their article is unlikely to trigger a widespread change in corporate behavior, but they nonetheless hope that their article provides some tips on how to proceed.
“These companies have a fiduciary duty to maintain fossil fuel profits. I get that,” they conclude. “But there shouldn’t be New York Times op-eds patting ExxonMobil on the back because they said they support a carbon tax. We should be a little bit more reflective and not so congratulatory, because they haven’t really done anything.”
