Business
‘This is stealthy greenwashing’
Fossil fuel giants block pro-climate audiences from seeing ads on X, investigation finds.
8 April 2026
Most biodiversity commitments made by large influential companies are not precise enough to enable society to evaluate whether they are making progress towards their commitments.
This is the headline of new research by the University of Oxford and the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, published in One Earth.
Researchers identified 180 large transnational ‘keystone’ corporations across multiple sectors with significant environmental impacts and disproportionate influence over the biosphere.
While 79% had made some form of biodiversity pledge, only 13% reported sufficiently detailed, transparent and specific (robust) commitments to allow others to assess if targets have been met – a fundamental prerequisite of accountability.
‘Companies must be both ambitious and practical: meaningful commitments go further than just pledging to actions required by law, but also must consider clear implementation plans. Improving commitments is just the first step.’
DR SOPHUS ZU ERMGASSEN
Senior author, Department of Biology, University of Oxford
Over the past 50 years, keystone corporations have gained significant influence over the world’s resource reserves, production and trade. Biodiversity is rising on the corporate agenda – most of the companies in the study sample made pledges – but currently these commitments are not sufficient to be fully accountable.
The research helps to highlight how to spot a real commitment from a hollow one. Amongst commitments deemed as not robust, several issues repeatedly occurred: vagueness and lack of specificity; seemingly contradictory or incorrectly defined terminologies; and selective use of evidence to justify inaction or limited ambition.
For example, an agrochemical company cited an analysis that they themselves had jointly commissioned to make the dubious claim that pesticides are not a main driver of insect decline.
‘Whilst it is promising to see biodiversity pledges being made by many companies, for most of these companies, we currently can’t tell exactly what the promises mean and whether actions are contributing towards global goals. With clear and ambitious goals and actions, keystone corporations could have the leverage to act as biosphere stewards and drive transformative change.’
DR THOMAS WHITE
Co-author, Department of Biology, University of Oxford
Commitment robustness varied substantially across sectors. 18 of the 23 companies with at least one target meeting all criteria belonged to the agriculture and farming sector.
Within the cocoa sector, all five assessed companies (representing 56% of global processing and grinding) made commitments, with four making robust commitments meeting all criteria, and the fifth making commitments meeting most criteria.
A similar trend was seen in the soybean sector, where five of six companies (controlling 42% of global sourcing) made robust commitments.
In contrast, biodiversity commitments were sparse in sectors such as animal pharmaceuticals and oil and gas. Among animal pharmaceutical firms (10 companies representing 81% of the global market), half had no biodiversity commitments.
89% of corporations in the sample published some kind of publicly available report, but none produced a stand-alone biodiversity report. Of 13 companies for which no reports were found, six were national oil companies.
‘A serious biodiversity commitment should make clear what is being targeted, where, by when, and how progress will be assessed. Without that, it is little more than a statement of good intentions. Regulators, investors, scientists and civil society need information they can use to identify risks, assess ambition and track progress over time.’
DR JEAN-BAPTISTE JOUFFRAY
Co-author, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University
The researchers highlight several potential barriers to effective pledges: lack of alignment with commercial interests; exposure to reputational risk if they fall short of targets (so-called ‘greenhushing’); limitations in available knowledge and guidance on commitment setting and data limitations on the biodiversity impacts of their supply chains.
The researchers suggest several ways of prompting improved commitments: mandatory reporting requirements; business-science collaboration; sector-wide sustainability initiatives; increased participation in voluntary initiatives and pressure from stock exchanges, financiers and stakeholders.
The research marks a new milestone in efforts to identify the companies with the largest influence over the biosphere and clarify their responsibility in helping to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.
By showing where current commitments fall short, the study provides a method and a foundation for stronger accountability.
Fossil fuel giants block pro-climate audiences from seeing ads on X, investigation finds.
Parents for Future UK unveils new sketch tackling climate greenwashing with cast of rising UK comedy heroes.
Investigation reveals greenwashing by major brands – even after ASA ad bans.
MEPs adopt new law banning greenwashing and misleading product information.
