Everything that fell under corporate social responsibility was every company’s darling following the murder of George Floyd and the onset of the pandemic in 2020. 

But fast forward to now, and brands are increasingly defending, scaling back or even canceling their ESG programs and platforms. Why? For one, too many made unrealistic promises—but it’s also a reflection of the fact that consumers have (finally) realized their influencing power beyond the cash register, and they’re eager to wield it. 

Reality check 

It’s been almost a decade since the global warming thresholds of 1.5°C and 2°C were thrust into the public consciousness because of COP21 in 2015. Almost simultaneously, the Science-Based Targets Initiative provided a robust mechanism for companies to assess their greenhouse gas emissions and set reduction targets. Many organizations joined the movement and also started committing to environmental impact reductions elsewhere in their value chain to make greater inroads at giving back to society.

What followed was an ESG target-setting frenzy. Sustainability professionals were delighted by so much senior leadership buy-in and subsequent work. And the results since 2015 may not have been achieved if it hadn’t been for Corporate America jumping on the ESG bandwagon. Think back to Allbird’s M0.0NSHOT sneaker, when Patagonia made Earth its only shareholder and Impossible Food’s plant-based burger arrived at supermarket meat aisles across the country.

As brands start approaching the first deadlines of their self-prescribed targets, their ambitions are beginning to unravel in the face of reality. In the case of the publicity-friendly topic of single-use plastics pollution, the limitations of recycling—both in terms of chemistry and U.S. infrastructure—have forced more than a few big names to change their goals or push back deadlines. Unilever, Grove Co., PepsiCo, Colgate and even the U.S. Plastics Pact have revised their roadmaps with most targets delayed from 2025 to 2030. 

Pagine: 1 2 3