

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Over the weekend, prior to the official start of the Rio+20 Earth Summit, corporations hosted their own sustainability party, hosted by the UN Global Compact. It's not difficult to picture it looked like: countless speeches and glossy brochures on corporations feeling good about themselves.

This complacency was well documented by "the largest CEO survey on sustainability of its kind", which the Global Compact published two years ago: 81 percent of CEOs believed that they were already doing enough. Sustainability issues were already "fully embedded" in the strategy and operations of their companies.
That's not sustainability, it's greenwash. The reality is closer to one of my favourite REM song lyrics: "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives - and I decline."
Way too often the very same companies who claim to be green and socially responsible are making big profits from exploiting and polluting the planet - and blocking others from moving forward. Twenty years ago, we released the Greenpeace Book on Greenwash at the 1992 Earth Summit to expose this. Our sequel to that book, the Greenwash+20 report shows that corporations such as Duke Energy or Asia Pulp and Paper still stand in the way of progress - and that governments still continue to let corporate polluters run the show by shying away from proper regulation, pollution pricing, accountability and liability.
Giving corporations a free (or cheap) ride isn't cheap for societies. KPMG has estimated that the external environmental costs of 11 key industry sectors were as much as US$ 846 billion in 2010 - an increase of 50 % (!) over the last decade. If companies had to pay for the full environmental costs of their business, on average they would lose 41 cents for every US$1 in earnings. Yet, making polluters pay is hardly an issue here at Rio+20.
A textbook example of greenwash is Shell, who for more than 20 years has been touting its leadership on sustainability, yet it is turning its back on renewable energy and strip mining forests in Canada to access tar sands. And worse, Shell is the first "supermajor" oil company to actively pursue a policy of significant oil exploration in the offshore Arctic.
But the green economy, which is one of the two main topics here at the Rio+20, isn't about "sustainable drilling" in the Arctic. It's about protecting the Arctic from exploitation altogether and instead catalyzing a green energy revolution. This is the kind of rule-setting we need from governments.
Corporations can't be volunteers. If solutions are to be delivered in time for our children to have a green and peaceful future, we need regulations to enforce and deliver them. Global corporations need global rules - and governments admitted as much at the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002. Yet, it is a sign of the power of those corporations holding us back that here at Rio+20 governments are nowhere near delivering what we need.
However, lack of regulation gives no excuse for corporations to continue their destructive practices. Corporations must take full responsibility for their supply chains and reject environmentally and socially harmful practices. Fortunately, there are companies who are showing signs of walking the talk. For example, Google is investing big time in renewable energy, Nike and H&M are eliminating toxic chemicals from their supply chains, supermarket giant Sainsbury's is sourcing sustainable seafood and backing marine reserves, and a growing number of corporations including Unilever and Nestle are refusing to buy from APP as long as it continues to clear rainforests and destroy peatlands in Indonesia. This is the kind of action we want to see from corporations, not empty statements.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Over the weekend, prior to the official start of the Rio+20 Earth Summit, corporations hosted their own sustainability party, hosted by the UN Global Compact. It's not difficult to picture it looked like: countless speeches and glossy brochures on corporations feeling good about themselves.

This complacency was well documented by "the largest CEO survey on sustainability of its kind", which the Global Compact published two years ago: 81 percent of CEOs believed that they were already doing enough. Sustainability issues were already "fully embedded" in the strategy and operations of their companies.
That's not sustainability, it's greenwash. The reality is closer to one of my favourite REM song lyrics: "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives - and I decline."
Way too often the very same companies who claim to be green and socially responsible are making big profits from exploiting and polluting the planet - and blocking others from moving forward. Twenty years ago, we released the Greenpeace Book on Greenwash at the 1992 Earth Summit to expose this. Our sequel to that book, the Greenwash+20 report shows that corporations such as Duke Energy or Asia Pulp and Paper still stand in the way of progress - and that governments still continue to let corporate polluters run the show by shying away from proper regulation, pollution pricing, accountability and liability.
Giving corporations a free (or cheap) ride isn't cheap for societies. KPMG has estimated that the external environmental costs of 11 key industry sectors were as much as US$ 846 billion in 2010 - an increase of 50 % (!) over the last decade. If companies had to pay for the full environmental costs of their business, on average they would lose 41 cents for every US$1 in earnings. Yet, making polluters pay is hardly an issue here at Rio+20.
A textbook example of greenwash is Shell, who for more than 20 years has been touting its leadership on sustainability, yet it is turning its back on renewable energy and strip mining forests in Canada to access tar sands. And worse, Shell is the first "supermajor" oil company to actively pursue a policy of significant oil exploration in the offshore Arctic.
But the green economy, which is one of the two main topics here at the Rio+20, isn't about "sustainable drilling" in the Arctic. It's about protecting the Arctic from exploitation altogether and instead catalyzing a green energy revolution. This is the kind of rule-setting we need from governments.
Corporations can't be volunteers. If solutions are to be delivered in time for our children to have a green and peaceful future, we need regulations to enforce and deliver them. Global corporations need global rules - and governments admitted as much at the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002. Yet, it is a sign of the power of those corporations holding us back that here at Rio+20 governments are nowhere near delivering what we need.
However, lack of regulation gives no excuse for corporations to continue their destructive practices. Corporations must take full responsibility for their supply chains and reject environmentally and socially harmful practices. Fortunately, there are companies who are showing signs of walking the talk. For example, Google is investing big time in renewable energy, Nike and H&M are eliminating toxic chemicals from their supply chains, supermarket giant Sainsbury's is sourcing sustainable seafood and backing marine reserves, and a growing number of corporations including Unilever and Nestle are refusing to buy from APP as long as it continues to clear rainforests and destroy peatlands in Indonesia. This is the kind of action we want to see from corporations, not empty statements.
Over the weekend, prior to the official start of the Rio+20 Earth Summit, corporations hosted their own sustainability party, hosted by the UN Global Compact. It's not difficult to picture it looked like: countless speeches and glossy brochures on corporations feeling good about themselves.

This complacency was well documented by "the largest CEO survey on sustainability of its kind", which the Global Compact published two years ago: 81 percent of CEOs believed that they were already doing enough. Sustainability issues were already "fully embedded" in the strategy and operations of their companies.
That's not sustainability, it's greenwash. The reality is closer to one of my favourite REM song lyrics: "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives - and I decline."
Way too often the very same companies who claim to be green and socially responsible are making big profits from exploiting and polluting the planet - and blocking others from moving forward. Twenty years ago, we released the Greenpeace Book on Greenwash at the 1992 Earth Summit to expose this. Our sequel to that book, the Greenwash+20 report shows that corporations such as Duke Energy or Asia Pulp and Paper still stand in the way of progress - and that governments still continue to let corporate polluters run the show by shying away from proper regulation, pollution pricing, accountability and liability.
Giving corporations a free (or cheap) ride isn't cheap for societies. KPMG has estimated that the external environmental costs of 11 key industry sectors were as much as US$ 846 billion in 2010 - an increase of 50 % (!) over the last decade. If companies had to pay for the full environmental costs of their business, on average they would lose 41 cents for every US$1 in earnings. Yet, making polluters pay is hardly an issue here at Rio+20.
A textbook example of greenwash is Shell, who for more than 20 years has been touting its leadership on sustainability, yet it is turning its back on renewable energy and strip mining forests in Canada to access tar sands. And worse, Shell is the first "supermajor" oil company to actively pursue a policy of significant oil exploration in the offshore Arctic.
But the green economy, which is one of the two main topics here at the Rio+20, isn't about "sustainable drilling" in the Arctic. It's about protecting the Arctic from exploitation altogether and instead catalyzing a green energy revolution. This is the kind of rule-setting we need from governments.
Corporations can't be volunteers. If solutions are to be delivered in time for our children to have a green and peaceful future, we need regulations to enforce and deliver them. Global corporations need global rules - and governments admitted as much at the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002. Yet, it is a sign of the power of those corporations holding us back that here at Rio+20 governments are nowhere near delivering what we need.
However, lack of regulation gives no excuse for corporations to continue their destructive practices. Corporations must take full responsibility for their supply chains and reject environmentally and socially harmful practices. Fortunately, there are companies who are showing signs of walking the talk. For example, Google is investing big time in renewable energy, Nike and H&M are eliminating toxic chemicals from their supply chains, supermarket giant Sainsbury's is sourcing sustainable seafood and backing marine reserves, and a growing number of corporations including Unilever and Nestle are refusing to buy from APP as long as it continues to clear rainforests and destroy peatlands in Indonesia. This is the kind of action we want to see from corporations, not empty statements.