Executive Summary

“Greenwashing” refers to corporations falsely or misleadingly branding themselves as
environmentally conscientious. By using legally ambiguous or undefined terms like
“eco-friendly,” “carbon-neutral,” or “green,” businesses create the illusion of climate
consciousness while continuing to devastate the environment. This misrepresentation not only
deceives consumers but also undermines genuine efforts to address the climate crisis, as it shifts
attention away from the need for systemic change and regulatory oversight. legal structures and racial assumptions that continue to shape healthcare in the United States.

While misleading marketing can and does take place in any business sector, this paper will be primarily focusing on greenwashing in fossil fuel advertising. This issue extends beyond fossil fuel companies like Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips to include other transnational corporations (TNCs) such as Coca-Cola and V olkswagen, whose manufacturing and production processes are heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

Greenwashing is dangerous for a myriad of reasons. Beyond companies using the tactic to appeal to eco-conscious consumers, it exploits social responsibility campaigns to veil corporate malfeasance. In a phenomenon called “stakeholderism”, corporations attempt to self-govern their businesses to evade legal consequences. The notion that big business can and should control their environmental impact independently, without government oversight, lulls the public into a false sense of security and stifles necessary regulation. This also perpetuates a false narrative where the public is responsible for the climate crisis, successfully diverting accountability from corporations.

While measures designed to combat greenwashing exist, such as the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guidelines and the Star Energy Program, both policies are limited by their scope and enforceability. In order to effectively counter corporate greenwashing the United States federal government must enact the three regulations for fossil fuel advertising. It requires (1) clearer labeling laws, (2) third party certifications, and (3) penalties for false and misleading climate claims. This would encourage transparency and accountability in fossil fuel advertising and potentially set precedents internationally for combating climate misinformation.

Section 1: Background

Description of the Issue

“Greenwashing,” or the false corporate branding as environmentally responsible, is a tactic used by companies to appeal to growing consumer demand for sustainability without making truthful changes. This can present itself through advertising campaigns promising “reusable,” “green,” or “sustainable” business practices. While these labels sound promising at face value, they do not have any legal bearing. Without any significance behind these labels, companies are free to maintain harmful climate practices. All the while, simultaneously marketing themselves to the public as creating a positive impact for the planet. This hinders transparency and accountability.

Greenwashing is not a 21st century phenomenon. The term “greenwashing” originated in the 1980s, coined by ecologist Jay Westerveld. He was inspired to use the term after noticing ahotel encouraging guests to reuse towels under the guise of environmental concern. However, it was evident that the primary motivation was not sustainability, but rather reducing the hotel’s laundry costs. This early example captured the essence of greenwashing: presenting a false or exaggerated image of environmental responsibility to serve corporate interests.¹

Context

Greenwashing from fossil fuel advertising can be traced as far back as the 1980s. During this time, Chevron launched a marketing campaign called “People Do²”. As part of the initiative, the company televised several 30-second advertisements highlighting the company’s supposed commitment to the planet. One ad from 1986 features the company’s creation of a butterfly sanctuary next to one of their oil refineries³. “People Do” was so successful that it earned Chevron an Effie Advertising Award⁴. However, Chevron was by no means genuinely committed to environmental protection. It was revealed that many of their programs were already mandated by law. Further, the costs of their “do good” actions were drastically outweighed by the money they spent on the advertising campaigns. The El Segundo butterfly sanctuary cost about $5,000 to maintain, versus the $20,000 needed to create the ad and the overall $5 million to $10 million the company spent on the “People Do” project. It is clear that the company was more concerned with the appearance of “doing good” than actually “doing good”.

Significance

So why put millions into appearing green? Greenwashing happens for a reason, it is a tool for profit. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the climate crisis and it is affectingvtheir spending. Approximately 66% of global consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally sustainable products⁵. This means that a company’s perception asv“environmentally responsible” can significantly boost its brand loyalty and competitive edge. As a result, many corporations find it more advantageous to invest in the appearance of sustainability, through advertising and selective reporting, than to implement meaningful environmental reforms. In this context, greenwashing becomes a calculated marketing move, allowing companies to capture market share among eco-conscious consumers without fully committing to sustainable practices.

Scope & Stakeholders

This paper will be focusing on measures the United States federal government can undertake to combat greenwashing. While voluntary corporate initiatives and consumer awareness play a role, they are not sufficient to address the scale and impact of misleading environmental claims. Without legal definitions, oversight, and consequences, companies are free to market themselves as environmentally responsible while continuing unsustainable practices behind the scenes. Take for example the case of Nestle. This company was able to launch ad campaigns asserting their water packaging as “sustainable” despite being named a top plastic polluter⁶. To close this gap between branding and reality, federal intervention is essential. This includes creating enforceable standards for eco-labeling, mandating transparent climate disclosures, and establishing oversight mechanisms to hold corporations accountable. By implementing these measures, the U.S. government can protect consumers, promote sustainability, and set a global precedent for environmental transparency.

Section 2: Analysis

Status Quo

Let’s jump to the present state of greenwashing. Decades after “People Do”, Chevron created a new marketing campaign coined “We Agree”. It once again featured several 30 second ads, but this time lauding the environmental benefits of natural gas as the “cleanest conventional fuel there is⁷”. This ad portrayed a climate agenda that was in stark opposition to the company’s business practices. During that time Chevron was engaged in an $18 billion lawsuit in Ecuador over the actions of their subsidiary company Texaco. The lawsuit was filed against Chevron for dumping 72 billion liters of toxic water polluting 1700 mile area in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest⁸ . The repercussions were so severe the catastrophe was coined a “rainforest chernobyl”⁹ . In response to the lawsuit Chevron disputed the validity of the Ecuadorian courts and ultimately ended up winning the case¹⁰.

Even today, Chevron publishes an annual report titled “Sustainability Highlights”, which serves as a clear example of stakeholderism, a strategy in which corporations attempt to self-regulate in order to avoid external oversight. This lulls consumers into a false sense of security. By presenting curated data and selectively showcasing environmental initiatives, Chevron crafts the appearance of transparency and responsibility while maintaining strict control over the narrative. This type of reporting gives consumers the illusion that the company is held accountable through its own internal metrics, when in reality, it allows Chevron to sidestep more stringent, independent scrutiny. Such practices reinforce a dangerous precedent: that corporations can govern their environmental impact on their own terms, without regulatory enforcement or third-party verification.

This deceptive marketing is not exclusively taking place with Chevron. Greenwashing has become ubiquitous. Immediately after Chevron’s “People Do” campaign, Dupont followed course, and in 1989 launched their own ad announcing the advent of their double-hulled oil tankers with videos of seals and various marine life clapping to Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”¹¹. Today even the top 100 greenhouse gas polluters including Tesla, Dow, and Exxon Mobil all have mission statements promising “carbon-neutrality¹²”, “decarbonization”, and “reduced emissions”¹³. Even more sinisterly, these campaigns tend to mold a dangerous narrative about climate responsibility. They place the onus on the individual, distracting from their own corporate malfeasance. BP’s carbon footprint campaign is a clear illustration of this strategic distraction. By popularizing the concept of a “carbon footprint,” the campaign shifts the focus onto individual responsibility for environmental harm, diverting attention away from the vastly greater impact of corporate operations. This framing minimizes the role of large polluters and subtly implies that meaningful climate action rests primarily with consumers, rather than with the industries most responsible for emissions¹⁴.

Challenges & Impacts

Greenwashing poses a serious challenge to environmental accountability by allowing corporations to present a misleading image of sustainability without making meaningful changes.The root of the problem lies in the absence of standardized definitions and enforceable regulations for terms like “eco-friendly” or “carbon-neutral.” This regulatory gap enables companies to use vague, unverified claims in their marketing, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish between genuine environmental efforts and strategic branding. Without mandatory transparency or third-party oversight, many businesses exploit this ambiguity, diluting the impact of truly sustainable practices and undermining consumer trust.

The broader impact of greenwashing is its ability to stall real progress on climate action. By promoting narratives that shift responsibility onto individuals, such as individual carbon footprints, corporations deflect scrutiny from their own large-scale environmental harm. This tactic not only misguides public perception but also weakens the urgency for regulatory reform, as it fosters the illusion that voluntary corporate actions are sufficient. Over time, greenwashing fosters cynicism, erodes the credibility of environmental messaging, and allows unsustainable practices to persist behind a façade of corporate responsibility. In doing so, it becomes a major obstacle to achieving systemic change at a critical moment for the planet.

Section 3: Existing Policies

Federal Trade Association Green Guidelines

Strengths

Strengths The FTC Green Guides (16 CFR Part 260) provide guidelines for marketers on how to make environmental claims without misleading consumers. These guidelines serve as a framework for ensuring that claims such as “eco-friendly,” “sustainable,” and “non-toxic” are truthful and substantiated. By providing clear guidance on how to make truthful and substantiated environmental claims, the Green Guides help prevent companies from misleading consumers with vague or deceptive terms like “eco-friendly,” “sustainable,” or “non-toxic.” They serve as an essential framework for marketers, outlining best practices for environmental

Limitations

The FTC Green Guides are limited by the fact that these guidelines are not laws, but suggestions. Despite their value, the FTC Green Guides are limited by the fact that they are not legally binding regulations, but rather non-enforceable guidelines. While they provide helpful direction for businesses on how to avoid misleading environmental claims, compliance is voluntary unless a specific claim violates broader consumer protection laws under the FTC Act. This means companies can ignore the guidance without facing direct penalties, reducing the effectiveness of the Green Guides as a deterrent against greenwashing. Additionally, the guidelines have not been significantly updated in over a decade, leaving gaps in how they address newer forms of environmental marketing and emerging sustainability terminology. As a result, their ability to keep pace with evolving greenwashing tactics remains limited.

The Energy Star Program

Strengths

The Energy Star Program ensures that products bearing the Energy Star label must meet specific criteria set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for energy performance. The program helps reduce greenwashing by setting clear, quantifiable criteria for products marketed as energy-efficient. Energy Star certification is backed by independent testing, reducing the potential for misleading claims about a product’s energy efficiency. Administered by the EPA,the program sets clear, measurable criteria that products must meet in order to earn the Energy Star label. This helps eliminate ambiguity by ensuring that claims of energy efficiency are grounded in standardized, science-based benchmarks. One of the program’s most valuable features is its reliance on independent, third-party testing to verify performance, which significantly reduces the likelihood of false or exaggerated marketing claims. By offering a trusted certification that consumers can rely on, the Energy Star Program promotes accountability among manufacturers and supports informed purchasing decisions, ultimately driving the market toward more genuinely sustainable products.

Limitations

Despite its strengths, the Energy Star Program has important limitations. Most notably, it applies only to claims related to “energy efficiency” and does not address other commonly misused environmental terms such as “sustainable,” “green,” or “recyclable.” This narrow scope leaves significant gaps where companies can still engage in greenwashing through vague or misleading terminology unrelated to energy use. These threats undermine the program’s stability and credibility, raising concerns about the long-term enforcement and expansion of trustworthy Section 4: Analysis of Existing Policies

Political & Cost Feasibility

The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, while well-intentioned, suffer from a lack of feasibility when it comes to widespread enforcement and impact. One major limitation is that the guidelines are not codified into law, meaning companies are not legally obligated to follow them unless their claims are found to be explicitly deceptive under the broader FTC Act.environmental standards in the marketplace. This lack of legal weight reduces the Guides’ effectiveness as a regulatory tool and allows businesses to continue making vague or misleading environmental claims with minimal risk of consequences. As a result, the Green Guides function more as advisory suggestions than enforceable standards, leaving significant room for interpretation and noncompliance.

Additionally, the FTC lacks the resources and capacity to consistently monitor the vast number of environmental claims made in advertising, labeling, and corporate reporting. Without a dedicated enforcement mechanism or increased funding for oversight, violations of the Green Guides often go undetected or unpunished. Compounding this issue is the rapid evolution of sustainability marketing, which has outpaced the most recent update to the Guides. As new terms and tactics emerge, such as carbon offset claims or ESG branding, the outdated framework struggles to remain relevant. This creates a regulatory gap where misleading environmental messaging can flourish unchecked, making the Green Guides increasingly inadequate as a primary defense against greenwashing.

While the Energy Star Program has played a valuable role in promoting energy-efficient products, its feasibility as a comprehensive solution to greenwashing is limited. The program focuses solely on energy efficiency, which means it does not address the broader range of environmental claims, such as “sustainable,” “eco-friendly,” or “biodegradable”, that are often used misleadingly in corporate marketing. As greenwashing tactics become more sophisticated and extend beyond energy performance, the narrow scope of the Energy Star label leaves many misleading claims unregulated. This limited coverage means that while consumers may trust Energy Star-labeled products, the program does little to address the overall problem of deceptive environmental branding in other sectors.

In addition, the program’s long-term feasibility has been undermined by political vulnerability and inconsistent federal support. For instance, the Trump administration proposed major budget cuts to the EPA, including efforts to defund or significantly scale back the Energy Star Program¹⁵ . Such threats to its continuity raise serious concerns about the program’s stability, especially in a polarized political climate where environmental initiatives can be deprioritized. Without guaranteed funding and bipartisan commitment, the program remains at risk of being weakened or eliminated, limiting its ability to enforce standards, maintain independent testing, and expand its reach. This instability reduces the reliability of Energy Star as a long-term tool for combating greenwashing and promoting transparency in environmental marketing.

Comparative Analysis

Both the FTC’s Green Guides and the Energy Star Program aim to reduce misleading environmental claims, but they differ significantly in scope, enforceability, and effectiveness. The FTC Green Guides serve as a broad advisory framework for environmental marketing, covering a wide range of terms. However, they are not legally binding and rely on general consumer protection laws for enforcement. As a result, their impact is limited by voluntary compliance and the FTC’s limited capacity to pursue violations. The Energy Star Program, on the other hand, offers a much more focused and enforceable standard, applying specifically to energy-efficient products. Backed by the EPA, it requires independent testing and clear performance benchmarks, making it more reliable and actionable for consumers seeking trustworthy environmental information.

Despite these strengths, both approaches face feasibility issues that hinder their overall effectiveness. The FTC Green Guides are outdated and lack the legal teeth necessary to deter widespread greenwashing, while the Energy Star Program, although more rigorous, addresses only a narrow slice of environmental claims, those related to energy use. Furthermore, the Energy Star label’s stability is undermined by political vulnerability, such as past attempts to defund it, whereas the Green Guides suffer from under-enforcement and a lack of resources. It is because of these factors that the best course of action are clear labeling laws, third party certifications, and penalties for misinformation.

Section 5: Policy Recommendation

Clear and Enforceable Labeling Laws (1)

To combat greenwashing and enhance consumer transparency, it is essential to standardize eco-labeling terminology. Terms like “carbon-neutral,” “sustainable,” and “green” must be defined to eliminate ambiguity, properly monitor, and prevent deceptive marketing practices. Clear, legally defined language would ensure that companies cannot exploit vague labels to mislead environmentally conscious consumers. In addition to standardized terminology, legislation should mandate the full disclosure of climate-related data, including emissions, carbon offsets, and supply chain impacts, directly on product packaging and marketing materials. This level of transparency would empower consumers to make informed choices and hold companies accountable for their environmental footprint. Furthermore, requiring companies to conduct life-cycle assessments (LCAs) would ensure that environmental claims are supported by comprehensive, industry-consistent evaluations of a product’s full environmental impact, from production to disposal. To oversee and enforce these measures, a federal Green Labeling Authority should be established within the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This body would be responsible for approving, monitoring, and regulating all environmental labels, helping to create a trustworthy and uniform system that curbs greenwashing and promotes genuine corporate responsibility.

Independent Third-Party Certifications (2)

To strengthen the credibility of environmental marketing and curb greenwashing, a national registry of accredited third-party certifiers and auditors should be promoted to ensure that all green claims are verified by impartial, qualified experts. This registry would provide transparency and consistency in certification, helping consumers and regulators distinguish between legitimate and misleading claims. To further reinforce this system, companies should be incentivized to use verified third-party certifications as a prerequisite for making any climate-related claims in their advertising and product labeling. These certifications would serve as a baseline for trust and accountability. Additionally, the creation of federal certification standards that align with respected international benchmarks, such as ISO 14024¹⁶ or the Science Based Targets initiative, would ensure that U.S. regulations are globally relevant and scientifically grounded. Finally, to uphold the integrity of these systems, increased federal funding must be allocated toward auditing programs and compliance checks. These mechanisms are essential to detect, investigate, and deter fraudulent certifications, ultimately fostering a culture of honesty and responsibility in environmental communication.

Penalties for False and Misleading Climate Claims (3)

Impose significant financial penalties for companies that falsely market products or services as environmentally friendly. Enable private right of action for consumers and advocacy groups to sue companies engaging in greenwashing. Publicly disclose enforcement actions and create a “Greenwashing Watchlist” to deter future violations through reputational risk.

Expected Outcomes

Implementing standardized eco-labeling laws and creating a centralized Green Labeling Authority is expected to significantly increase transparency and consumer trust in environmental marketing. With clearly defined terms, verified third-party certifications, and full disclosure of climate-related data, consumers will be better equipped to make informed choices, and corporations will face greater pressure to back their sustainability claims with evidence. Over time, this increased accountability could shift corporate behavior toward more substantive environmental practices, reducing reliance on deceptive greenwashing tactics and encouraging real investment in sustainability.

Furthermore, by aligning U.S. standards with international frameworks like ISO 14024 and the Science Based Targets initiative¹⁷, these reforms could establish the United States as a global leader in environmental labeling integrity. This leadership could inspire other countries to adopt similar policies, driving international momentum for standardized climate communication. Domestically, improved regulation and enforcement would also level the playing field for companies that already invest in genuine sustainability efforts, allowing them to compete fairly against those who previously relied on misleading marketing.

Implementation Strategy

To effectively combat greenwashing in fossil fuel advertising, implementation must begin with strong federal legislation that establishes clear definitions for environmental terms such as “sustainable,” “carbon-neutral,” and “eco-friendly.” This legislation should authorize the creation of a “Green Labeling Authority (GLA)” within the FTC or EPA to oversee standardized eco-labeling, approve third-party certifiers, and enforce penalties for false claims. By embedding regulatory authority in a centralized agency, the federal government can ensure consistency, transparency, and accountability in environmental marketing across industries.

Simultaneously, a national registry of accredited third-party certifiers should be developed to verify corporate climate claims with impartial, evidence-based assessments. These certifiers would be held to rigorous standards aligned with international benchmarks such as ISO 14024 and the Science Based Targets initiative. To encourage widespread industry adoption, the government could offer incentives such as tax benefits, public recognition, or eligibility for federal contracts to companies that use verified certifications and disclose comprehensive climate data, including emissions, offsets, and supply chain impact, on their products and promotional materials.

Finally, long-term success depends on public trust and effective enforcement. A well-funded auditing and compliance program must be established to conduct regular inspections, investigate fraudulent claims, and hold violators accountable. The Green Labeling Authority should also launch a public education campaign to help consumers understand new labeling standards and access information about certified products. Together, these steps create a robust, enforceable system that reduces greenwashing, strengthens consumer protection, and promotes genuine environmental responsibility.

Potential Challenges

Despite the clear benefits of standardized eco-labeling and stricter oversight, several challenges may complicate implementation. A significant hurdle is political and cost feasibility. The current executive administration has expressed strong opposition to fossil fuel regulation and is already threatening to defund or dismantle existing programs like the Energy Star initiative. This political climate makes it difficult to pass new legislation or allocate the necessary funding to establish and maintain a Green Labeling Authority. Without strong bipartisan support and public pressure, efforts to regulate greenwashing may stall or be diluted during the policymaking process.

In addition to political resistance, industry pushback and logistical complexity present major obstacles. Corporations that benefit from vague sustainability claims may lobby aggressively against stricter regulations, citing increased compliance costs and administrative burdens. Establishing a national registry of accredited certifiers, enforcing uniform standards, and conducting consistent audits will require substantial investment, cross-agency coordination, and technical infrastructure. If not properly resourced, the system risks becoming fragmented or ineffective, potentially undermining its credibility and allowing greenwashing to persist under a different guise. Overcoming these barriers will require long-term political will, strategic advocacy, and a clear demonstration of the economic and environmental returns on regulatory investment.

Section 6: Conclusion

Summary

Greenwashing is not just a public relations issue. It is a serious threat to climate accountability. As this report illustrates, corporations, especially those tied to fossil fuel production and consumption, have mastered the art of appearing sustainable without making substantive environmental changes. Misleading marketing, vague labels, and self-regulated “stakeholderism” undermine the public’s ability to make informed choices and allow corporate polluters to avoid legal and ethical responsibility.

Despite consumer concern and existing policies like the FTC’s Green Guides and the Energy Star Program, loopholes in enforcement and definitional ambiguity leave the door wide open for abuse. As long as corporations are allowed to govern their own sustainability narratives, the illusion of progress will continue to mask environmental harm.

Call to Action

It is time for decisive action. We must push for comprehensive regulatory reform that brings transparency and truth into fossil fuel advertising. This includes:

1. Clearer labeling laws that define terms like “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” with legal

standards.

2. Independent third-party certifications to verify environmental claims.

3. Penalties for false or misleading climate messaging, creating real consequences for

deception.

Greenwashing thrives in the absence of oversight. To dismantle it, we need bold policy backed by public pressure. Government officials, regulatory agencies, and voters all have a role to play in demanding truth from corporations. Only then can we replace the illusion of sustainability with real, measurable progress toward climate justice.

Endnotes

¹ 1Will Kenton. Greenwashing. Investopedia, March 31, 2023.https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp.

² Oliver Milman. Greenwashing: How Ads Get You to Think Companies Are Greener than They Are. Guardian,August 20, 2016.https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/20/greenwashing-environmentalism-lies-companies

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ NielsenIQ. The Sustainability Imperative: New Insights on Consumer Expectations. (October 12, 2015). https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2015/the-sustainability-imperative-2/

6 Karen McVeigh. Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Nestlé Named Top Plastic Polluters for Third Year in a Row. Guardian, (December 7, 2020).https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/07/coca-cola-pepsi-and-nestle-named-top-plastic-polluters-for-third-year-in-a-row.

⁷ Gary Belsky. The Failure of Chevron’s New ‘We Agree’ Ad Campaign. Atlantic, (Oct. 20, 2010). https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/the-failure-of-chevrons-new-we-agree-ad-campaign/64951/.

⁸ BBC News. Venezuela Frees More Than 100 Arrested after Disputed Election Result. BBC News, (Nov. 17, 2024) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45455984

⁹ Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. The Amazon Chernobyl. (Jan. 19, 2012). https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/jlpp/2012/01/19/the-amazon-chernobyl/

¹⁰Elizabeth Amon. Citigroup, MF Global, Gupta, UBS, Chevron, Pfizer in Court News. Bloomberg, (Jan. 5, 2012). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-05/citigroup-mf-global-gupta-ubs-chevron-pfizer-in-court-news.

¹¹Ibid.

¹²Tesla. Impact Report. Tesla, Inc. https://www.tesla.com/impact

¹³ Political Economy Research Institute. Combined Toxic 100 & Greenhouse 100 Indexes: 2024 Report Based on 2022 Data. University of Massachusetts Amherst.https://peri.umass.edu/index-edition/combined-toxic-100-greenhouse-100-indexes-2024-report-based-on-2022-data/

¹⁴Clear Center. “Big Oil Distracts from Their Carbon Footprint by Tricking You into Focusing on Yours CLEAR Center at UC Davis, April 18, 2022. https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-distracts-their-carbon-footprint-tricking-you-focus-yours

¹⁵ Picchi, Aimee, and Tracy J. Wholf. Trump Administration Plans to Eliminate the Energy Star Program after 3 Decades. CBS News, (May 7, 2025). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-energy-star-program-epa-eliminate/

¹⁶ ISO 72458:2024 – Textiles — Fibres — Determination of Burning Behaviour by Oxygen Index. (Feb. 5, 2024).https://www.iso.org/standard/72458.html

¹⁷Science Based Targets initiative. Science-Based Targets: Ambitious Corporate Climate Action. May 20, 2026. https://sciencebasedtargets.org