Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadrifoliate | Hacker News Reader

A bit offtopic, but I am disappointed that the the initial "winners" of this seal [1] seem to be almost all companies that are terrible for the environment and society.

----------------------------------------

[1] https://www.sustainable-markets.org/terra-carta-seal/winners...

View on HN

> The following global corporations have been awarded the 2021 inaugural Terra Carta Seal in recognition of their commitment to, and momentum towards, the creation of genuinely sustainable markets. These firms have credible transition roadmaps in place, underpinned by globally recognised, scientific metrics for achieving net zero by 2050 or sooner.

1) Seems like they're all companies that have noble commitments.

2) They don't seem that bad (tech and banks mostly)

3) Bad companies have the biggest potential for growth i suppose.

> 2) They don't seem that bad (tech and banks mostly)

AkzoNobel, a Swedish chemical manufacturer.

Unilever, lol, fucking Unilever is earning a Seal for their "commitment".

This feels almost purely a greenwashing-PR-thing than any kind of proper achievement mark.

Anyone can have noble commitments, when those commitments come to fruition then they should be lauded. Right now it just leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth, it's bullshit stamped by a Prince, that's all.

Maybe I'm being a pessimist, but I wonder what percentage of their "commitment" was calculated in dollars donated as a tax-write off to the committee's pet green charity as compared to the percentage of Unilever actually changing any of their pollutive practices?

Sorry, but this is like what a marketing pamphlet from those very same companies might read. Such optimism and lack of any cynicism is weird!

I've seen actual astroturfing that sounds more pragmatic than this!

> I've seen actual astroturfing that sounds more pragmatic than this!

Its a meaningless seal for a vague commitment to being "green". There are very low expectations here.

Any improvement is good. And framing everything as needing to be green just forces the hand of every other company.

I could care less what this seal means these companies are doing. But even a commitment to be more green that is ignored is better than no commitment and no action. At best, this creates a cohort of companies committed to and acting in global best interests, and at worst, it moves the overton window more so every other company is expected to be more green postured, which will eventually lead to more political and social expectations.

Is that cynical and pragmatic enough ? :)

More money is spent on marketing products than on sustainability. The top wealthiest companies in the U.S. will shove money into offshore bank accounts and refuse to spend it on the U.S. The largest tech companies provide the least funding in education, and heavily target schools and students to gain significant profit.

Sustainability, like every other issue, is based on socioeconomic ability. Being "Green" is expensive as an individual. The best way we resolve that issue, same as many others, is a mass rewrite of education, funded by private companies. This will not happen so long as there is a surplus of skilled work. We can easily demonstrate the surplus by how little these companies invest into getting skilled workers.

> The top wealthiest companies in the U.S. will shove money into offshore bank accounts and refuse to spend it on the U.S.

"Shove money into offshore bank accounts" makes it sound like they're moving money from inside the U.S. to offshore in order to hide it. I don't think they're exporting money from the U.S. As I understand it, they're stockpiling foreign-earned money outside the U.S. and not importing it.

>This will not happen so long as there is a surplus of skilled work. We can easily demonstrate the surplus by how little these companies invest into getting skilled workers.

Interesting, isn't there a shortage of talent going on (suppossedly)?

I'd say, yes. The US is just consuming talent from the entire world and it works because tech jobs in the US have really competitive salaries. But this talent is missing elsewhere, so I don't think it's sustainable in the long run.

No. If there were these companies have so much money they could build a massive university in every state just for themselves and lose very little money. They don't, because they don't have to. Unfilled positions are "nice to have's", not a requirement of their work. They will not lose money over that position not being filled, not to the amount they believe matters.

Therefore, the wheel keeps on turning.

There is always a shortage of talent at the right price.

If they are terrible for the environment and they are making a serious, credible commitments on improving, shouldn't that make you happy?

If PepsiCo (one of the companies listed) ceased production of plastic bottles immediately I would be happy. That is a serious, credible commitment to improve.

They'd still be responsible for killing millions and sickening billions of people via sugar addiction.

I guess human bodies are exempt from being considered part of the natural world.

Is your position really that no one should be allowed to produce products that are unhealthy? This seems incredibly invasive.

no one mentioned banning and the OP is about recognition not enforcement

We don't have to ban them, but we definitely don't have to support and laud them either. Tolerate and shame, like we do with tobacco companies, seems like a reasonable approach.

And to disclose my own biases, I'm 100% on team "Full Sugar Soda" and will definitely choose no soda over sugar free soda every time.

We already do this with a bunch of criteria/ rules for food to be sold to humans and animals.

Lobbying and advertisers have just made us think that drinking a cup of sugar is an acceptable option.

> I guess human bodies are exempt from being considered part of the natural world.

Still this seems to be like moving the goalposts.

In the context of regulating or evaluating company behavior, yes, it would not make sense to consider human bodies as the planetary environment.

Don’t we generally define natural as not human made? Makes sense then that less humans improves the natural world.

Maybe some of us take some resposibility for what we want to eat or drink and dont need government intervention to control it.

Talking about serious, credible commitments isn't actual action accomplished with tangible results.

For me it feels like this: if your local bus drivers have been showing up to work drunk, for years, would you:

(a) welcome a new initiative to help them tackle their addiction issues, with a commitment to move forward together, as a team, one day a month outside of their ongoing bus driving duties; or

(b) get new drivers.

Both.

Thanks for pointing this out. Even if it’s not green washing, when the only diversity in your flagship sponsors in their ranking in the FTSE100 then something’s up.

I would be loathe to see sustainability as yet another form of regulatory capture.

Arçelik is a prime exception. The most notable thing they do is recycle & re-use almost all water in their factories, so that their annual fresh-water use is just 1000L.

The "winners" of this thing are probably all big donors to something else Charles does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com