So much for greenhushing.....turns out harsh criticism and holding companies to account doesn't scare them into a terrified silence. "Companies are increasingly reporting emissions across their value chain. Overall, 69% of listed companies disclosed their Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions as of May 31, 2024, an increase of 19 percentage points from a year earlier" "Nearly half (47%) of companies reported at least some of their Scope 3 emissions, a rise of 10 percentage points from a year earlier. Thirty-eight percent of companies disclosed at least some of their upstream Scope 3 emissions, up eight percentage points from a year earlier, while 28% disclosed at least some of their downstream Scope 3 emissions, up seven percentage points over the same period" From MSCI Inc.'s newest edition of their NZ tracker https://lnkd.in/dCu7syYg
I think the term “greenhushing” has been broadly used to describe the intentional non-reporting of companies’ purchase of carbon credits as part of meeting net-zero commitments. I have not seen it used referring to companies concealing the NZ commitments themselves? But maybe it is simply a matter of perspective?
Greenhushing, greenwashing, greenblushing: how many shades of green are used by accusers of malfeasance?
Only 69% I think the LSE mandates all listed companies disclose 1+2. If I'm right then 100% of those companies would be in the pot and it will be dragged down heavily by the orgs in exchanges where it is voluntary.
That sub 50% figure for *any* disclosure of S3 is a dire
Chief Growth Officer at Gold Standard
3moCould this be because there is (strangely) very little scrutiny or criticism of a company's footprint, while there is quite a lot of scrutiny or criticism over how they claim what actions they've taken or funded? Not making a value judgement here about whether companies should or should not be criticised for the actions they take or claim to have done, just pointing out what appears to be an asymmetry.