Den ökologischen Fußabdruck möchten Firmen gern so gering wie möglich halten – gerade in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung. Um das zu erreichen, helfen sie manchmal auch ein bisschen nach. Einige Menschen sehen das kritisch, andere haben damit keine großen Probleme.
There is currently a huge proliferation of greenwashing. Consumers need to understand what is true and what is not. The mechanisms in place should help those organizations that police greenwashing to do so properly.
We can force manufacturers to comply with European import licences. For example, USB-C is now the common charger standard in the EU, and big manufacturers like Apple were forced to comply with this. Why can’t we do the same for hundreds of other products?
In the UK, the current Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) guidelines are a good start. Some of the organizations that were prosecuted under the CMA guidelines are ones that tend to be seen as good companies, like Innocent Drinks, which was accused of misleading customers. I’m also genuinely curious to see historic claims called out by CMA as being unacceptable. The sooner that happens, the sooner the world’s producers will get their act together.
We shouldn’t leave it up to companies to make their own decisions on environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies. The level of pollution and profiteering that certain companies are involved in is, frankly, immoral. The sooner that is legislated against, the better.
Current legislation hasn’t gone far enough. COP27 was sponsored by Coca-Cola, for example. This is reputation washing, but under the CMA guidelines, this is legal and legitimate.
Even though it’s a challenge, legislation should be globally applied. Admittedly, laws might not be as readily adopted in China and Russia as they are across Europe and the Western world, but that’s where the power of the consumer comes in. We need to get savvier and not knowingly buy things that are bad from an ecological perspective.
I’m all about progress, but at the end of the day, we’re investing to make money. We need rules, but legislation isn’t a solution. If you’re persuading someone to invest in a certain category because of legislation, then you’re doing them a disservice because that’s not necessarily the best option for them. Big fund companies are investing in environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds, even if they’re underperforming on the stock market, just because having that stamp means they can charge higher fees.
In comparison to ESG, which I think is a fad that’s emerged due to the exposure of bad business practices, you’ve got industries with a lot of positive tailwinds, like betting, alcohol and drugs, which I promote through my business, The BAD Investment Company. These sectors have survived multiple economic cycles and are relatively deregulated. The ESG world is much more speculative. It also plays on people’s emotions and leads them to neglect other portions of the market because of how they feel.
At the moment, it isn’t clear what defines an ESG fund. Very often, companies focus on one of its aspects: environmental, social or corporate governance. They simply hide the negative impact they are having in one area with progress in another. Just because a company has got an upgrade in their ESG standard, that doesn’t necessarily make it trustworthy. In 2021, for instance, McDonald’s got an upgrade in their ESG rating, despite massive carbon emissions.
Legislation can have a negative impact on business. Bigger companies in a position of power can absorb higher costs, but smaller businesses don’t have the resources to implement that type of change. A transition phase would work better than laws with hard cut-off points, as that could ultimately cause more damage.