3 ms·

> The following global corporations have been awarded the 2021 inaugural Terra Carta Seal in recognition of their commitment to, and momentum towards, the creat

> The following global corporations have been awarded the 2021 inaugural Terra Carta Seal in recognition of their commitment to, and momentum towards, the creation of genuinely sustainable markets. These firms have credible transition roadmaps in place, underpinned by globally recognised, scientific metrics for achieving net zero by 2050 or sooner. 1) Seems like they're all companies that have noble commitments. 2) They don't seem that bad (tech and banks mostly) 3) Bad companies have the biggest potential for growth i suppose.

coldtea 5y ago
Sorry, but this is like what a marketing pamphlet from those very same companies might read. Such optimism and lack of any cynicism is weird! I've seen actual astroturfing that sounds more pragmatic than this!
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > I've seen actual astroturfing that sounds more pragmatic than this! Its a meaningless seal for a vague commitment to being "green". There are very low expectations here. Any improvement is good. And framing everything as needing to be green just forces the hand of every other company. I could care less what this seal means these companies are doing. But even a commitment to be more green that is ignored is better than no commitment and no action. At best, this creates a cohort of companies committed to and acting in global best interests, and at worst, it moves the overton window more so every other company is expected to be more green postured, which will eventually lead to more political and social expectations. Is that cynical and pragmatic enough ? :)
piva00 5y ago
> 2) They don't seem that bad (tech and banks mostly) AkzoNobel, a Swedish chemical manufacturer. Unilever, lol, fucking Unilever is earning a Seal for their "commitment". This feels almost purely a greenwashing-PR-thing than any kind of proper achievement mark. Anyone can have noble commitments, when those commitments come to fruition then they should be lauded. Right now it just leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth, it's bullshit stamped by a Prince, that's all.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Maybe I'm being a pessimist, but I wonder what percentage of their "commitment" was calculated in dollars donated as a tax-write off to the committee's pet green charity as compared to the percentage of Unilever actually changing any of their pollutive practices?

coldtea 5y ago

Sorry, but this is like what a marketing pamphlet from those very same companies might read. Such optimism and lack of any cynicism is weird! I've seen actual astroturfing that sounds more pragmatic than this!

vineyardmike 5y ago
> I've seen actual astroturfing that sounds more pragmatic than this! Its a meaningless seal for a vague commitment to being "green". There are very low expectations here. Any improvement is good. And framing everything as needing to be green just forces the hand of every other company. I could care less what this seal means these companies are doing. But even a commitment to be more green that is ignored is better than no commitment and no action. At best, this creates a cohort of companies committed to and acting in global best interests, and at worst, it moves the overton window more so every other company is expected to be more green postured, which will eventually lead to more political and social expectations. Is that cynical and pragmatic enough ? :)

piva00 5y ago

> 2) They don't seem that bad (tech and banks mostly) AkzoNobel, a Swedish chemical manufacturer. Unilever, lol, fucking Unilever is earning a Seal for their "commitment". This feels almost purely a greenwashing-PR-thing than any kind of proper achievement mark. Anyone can have noble commitments, when those commitments come to fruition then they should be lauded. Right now it just leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth, it's bullshit stamped by a Prince, that's all.

BizarroLand 5y ago
Maybe I'm being a pessimist, but I wonder what percentage of their "commitment" was calculated in dollars donated as a tax-write off to the committee's pet green charity as compared to the percentage of Unilever actually changing any of their pollutive practices?