The latest meeting of the ESG Alliance’s “Natural Capital Fridays” Expert Club focused on climate transparency as one of the key tools for preventing greenwashing in corporate reporting and communications.
Participants discussed how requirements for companies’ climate and environmental claims are evolving, the role of methodology, data quality, and independent verification, and where the line lies between substantiated positioning of sustainable solutions and claims that may be perceived as greenwashing.
The overall conclusion of the discussion was that climate disclosures, as well as biodiversity and natural capital issues, increasingly require a shift from declarations to an evidence-based approach — with clear criteria, reliable data, and the possibility of independent verification.
Vladimir Lukin, Partner at Kept, noted that greenwashing does not always involve direct misrepresentation or exaggeration of information. Risks can also arise when the climate agenda itself is assessed through oversimplified assumptions about which technologies and solutions are inherently “good” or “bad.”
“Greenwashing here resembles the story of the Holy Inquisition. Why? Because the climate agenda is becoming dogmatized — completely unjustifiably. We are no longer appealing to an objective view of the situation and an objective assessment of efforts in the climate agenda, but instead operating with certain dogmas. For example, renewable energy is absolutely good, while fossil fuels are absolutely bad.”
According to Lukin, the risk of such accusations can primarily be reduced through systematic work: emissions inventories, assessment of reduction potential, setting well-founded targets, implementing adequately resourced measures, comprehensive disclosure, and independent verification. In other words, a climate claim should be embedded in a consistent chain of evidence rather than exist separately from the company’s actual processes.
Polina Zagorodnikh, Director of the Sustainable Development Risk Assessment Group at ACRA, explained how this logic is assessed by ESG rating agencies.
When preparing an ESG rating, the agency analyzes not only emissions and energy consumption volumes and their dynamics, but also companies’ internal policies, climate targets, scenario analysis, adaptation plans, risk management systems, and relevant KPIs.
“Overall, we see that companies demonstrate fairly deep work on climate-related issues. Our methodology is updated slightly every year, and we ask our clients and stakeholders what they believe is missing. Since last year, we have been placing increasing emphasis on biodiversity.”
Vitaly Burmistrov, Senior Manager of SIBUR’s Sustainable Development Division, presented the practical side of managing environmental claims. He spoke about approaches to avoiding greenwashing when developing a portfolio of sustainable products.
In particular, he presented PolyLow, a new low-carbon product brand that currently includes low-carbon PET produced at the company’s facilities. In defining the low-carbon criteria, SIBUR relied on the Standard for Products with a Verified Carbon Footprint “Polyethylene Terephthalate” developed by the Saint Petersburg Exchange, which establishes criteria for PET with a low and ultra-low carbon footprint. The low carbon footprint of the PET produced is achieved through energy-efficient technologies, the procurement of green energy, and the use of recycled materials.
The speakers also discussed a joint project with Napіtki Vmeste and Magnit to produce and distribute PET bottles with a fully offset carbon footprint, using Vivilen PolyLow PET containing 30% recycled material. To ensure transparency, the carbon footprint of the PET was verified, while the carbon footprint of the PET bottle was validated by Kept experts. The remaining footprint was fully offset using SIBUR’s carbon units.
“Our PolyLow product range currently includes only PET, but in the future we may consider adding other products whose carbon footprints we are currently working to reduce. At the same time, we understand that any claim about a low carbon footprint or another ‘green’ initiative must be supported by appropriate criteria and evidence to ensure full transparency, both in our claims and in the implementation of projects with our partners, as was the case with the project described above.”
Avinash Kumar, President of Earthood and Co-Founder of its ESG and Decarbonization practice, presented an international perspective on the development of climate transparency. In his presentation, he addressed the role of independent verification and international approaches to climate disclosures, emphasizing the importance of external assurance of companies’ data and claims in building trust in climate-related information.
The discussion demonstrated that combating greenwashing is increasingly about more than the correct use of terminology. The focus is shifting toward the quality of the underlying management system: a company’s ability to substantiate an environmental or climate claim with data, demonstrate its calculation methodology, link it to specific actions and outcomes, and enable independent verification.
