Speaking at the UN Global Compact Network (UNGCN) Summit in Singapore last week, Dr Thanyaporn Krichtitayawuth, executive director of UNGCN Thailand, said the trend reflects a form of greenwashing known as greenrinsing – when firms repeatedly shift or revise climate goals they cannot meet.
“Some companies set a target just for few years until they get investments. Then they remove the target and create a new target to get (more) investments, and then they remove the target again,” she said. “We have seen this trend already.”
Krichtitayawuth said emissions data make it easy to identify which companies are genuinely decarbonising. She also acknowledged that many firms face real challenges in meeting their climate goals, particularly for Scope 3 emissions, which account for about 90 per cent of total business emissions and sit outside a company’s direct control.
“When requested, companies set ambitious targets – they have tried. But in reality, they cannot meet them, especially for Scope 3. It is impossible to achieve net zero for the supply chain,” she said.
She added that some firms may have had to withdraw unrealistic targets to avoid accusations of greenwashing, which is when sustainability claims are made but not fulfilled. However, greenrinsing is equally misleading, and the revision of sustainability targets should be made more transparent to current and potential investors.
The warning comes amid a wave of global corporate backtracking on climate commitments. Multinationals including Unilever, Volvo, Air New Zealand, Shell, BP and Coca-Cola have weakened or delayed their sustainability targets in recent months, citing shifting regulations and pressure to prioritise short-term profitability. Several major banks have withdrawn from climate alliances.
In Asia, pulpwood giant Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) was criticised for rolling back a landmark commitment in September by shifting its no-deforestation cut-off date from 2013 to the end of 2020. This meant that forest clearance by APP and its suppliers over that period is now considered “acceptable” under the new pledge, Greenpeace noted.
Krichtitayawuth said at the recent Unlocking capital for sustainability event in Bangkok that only around 1,400 of UNGCN Thailand’s more than 20,000 members have committed to carbon neutrality, and many are struggling to meet near-term targets. Thai companies that demonstrate credible, science-based decarbonisation pathways are recognised through the network’s Climate Action Leading Organisation awards scheme.
She also pointed to a shift among European firms towards rewarding suppliers that deliver low-carbon products, as a more practical approach to tackling value chain emissions. “They are now looking at the carbon footprint of individual products, not the company’s overall footprint,” she said.
Krichtitayawuth’s comments came as the European Union moved to water down its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The law, passed last year to hold companies accountable for human rights and environmental harms across supply chains, will now only apply to the largest listed firms after political pushback from member states.
