Climate change: businesses’ hot air over sustainability obscures lack of real progress

Corporate pledges of sustainability and net zero emissions might sound convincing, but the evidence shows they provide little substantive progress
The climate crisis is now too far gone to entertain disingenuous slogans without robust and critical debate

Eric Stryson

Published: 3:30pm, 20 Sep 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

The ReThink HK conference last week was Hong Kong’s biggest business event for sustainable development. Many of the more than 500 speakers made reference to the recent flooding, further highlighting a changing climate and the need to reduce carbon emissions.

Juxtaposed with extreme weather – of which there is no shortage this year – corporate ESG and sustainability-related commitments might sound more convincing. However, the fact we are so easily convinced, and that the business narrative on sustainability is so dominant, is a growing part of the problem we need to better understand.

Scientists are clear that rising temperatures are causing extreme weather. The urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was reinforced again in the United Nations’ global stocktake, released recently, which indicates how far we still have to go to meet global targets. It does not follow that corporate sustainability initiatives will help get us there.

The largest companies collectively produce about 10 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Their supply chains could account for another 50 per cent. Efforts to monitor and reduce these emissions, while important, wrongly assume we can continue producing and consuming as usual – and as much stuff as companies can sell – while merely lowering the carbon intensity of business activity.

This corporate perspective on sustainability is out of touch with, or flatly ignores, physical limits which are also in the news as scientists have confirmed humans have crossed six out of nine planetary boundaries. As just one example, Danone could use 100 per cent recycled material in every plastic water bottle it sells – in 2021 it was 11 per cent – yet by continually increasing sales volume, it would not be sustainable. It would just be using recycled plastic.

An overflowing recycling bin in Wan Chai on June 9, 2019. Efforts to curb plastic pollution and encourage more recycling in Hong Kong have met with mixed success. Photo: Edmond So

Renewable energy is also commonly invoked while ignoring that fossil fuels still constitute 82 per cent of global energy use and are sustained by a consuming middle class, which is expected to grow by 700 million people in the next decade. As energy prices fall, we tend to use more.

The reality is that most of the executives making today’s “net zero” pledges will be retired or dead by 2050. Furthermore, the credibility of carbon offset schemes – the linchpin of such pledges – has been eroded by reports of widespread fraud. We must also remember that carbon is only one factor among many in the wider sustainability equation, such as water and land, and human elements such as livelihoods, inclusion and mental health.

We have been lulled into believing that commercial organisations operating in the interests of their owners and shareholders will somehow save us from the collective threats we face, foremost of which is the destruction of nature. They will not. Their aim is to reduce regulatory risk, deflect public criticism and amplify positive perceptions of their brand.

These should not be conflated with the broader sustainability goal to ensure future generations are able to meet their needs – to say nothing of current generations experiencing extreme weather such as wildfires, droughts and floods.

Widespread misunderstanding of this distinction is not just the fault of corporations. The sheer magnitude of the challenge can be stress-inducing and is actively ignored. Even some people who are well informed can sometimes seek refuge in authoritative, if overly simplistic, ideas.

02:50

El Nino is here, and it’s quite worrying, according to climate scientists

The tendency is to grasp onto quick fixes to placate a guilty conscience. Thus, Cathay Pacific offers passengers an option to “fly greener” through carbon offsets. Starbucks gives you a paper straw to reduce plastic waste. Your bank puts sustainability slogans on its ATMs. All provide false assurances designed to insulate corporate brands, not solve systemic problems.

We have been habituated against thinking deeply about complex problems. Technology is partly to blame in reducing attention spans. In Hong Kong, the extreme cost of living fosters narrow, transactional mindsets. With no time to think, casually labelling things “green” has become standard practice.

Critical thinking and honesty are needed, with the objective being not simply a lower-carbon version of business as usual but ending unsustainable business models through pricing and policy. Fast, disposable fashion comes to mind.

Corporate leadership should seek to reform anti-intellectual cultures where they exist. The cult of corporate brands, marketing as deception and pervasive internal politics conspire against meaningful debate within many big companies.

‘The white man’s waste’: why fast fashion is burying African beaches

The result is a bizarre state of affairs where one of the most outspoken champions of sustainability is Mars, a company that makes confectionery and dog food. Companies tend to emphasise incremental changes to existing business (the how), instead of fundamentally rethinking their core business activity (the what). Business should instead be rewarded for improving quality of life for everyone and for doing so by producing less.

Policymakers should rely on science for credible information to guide public awareness. There is value in being more alarmist to drive public mindset change. Critics might decry government intervention, but corporations and the media have no right to mislead the public, which is the net result of so much sustainability advertising.

The growing interest in sustainability is to be celebrated, but it need not be all about companies. It is about society and redesigning the future – less bottled water, more municipal water systems. What we should not tolerate is corporate messaging that obfuscates the issues or promotes blatant misinformation driven by financial gain.

If we learn anything from this year’s extreme weather, it should be that we are too late in the game to entertain disingenuous slogans without robust and critical debate. That means everyone needs to think harder.

Eric Stryson is managing director of the Global Institute For Tomorrow