Greenwashing – Sustainability, Resiliency and Risk Mitigation

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has positioned itself as one of the United States’ leading government regulators on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues and in 2023 has continued a pattern of active enforcement actions focusing on their perceived view of ESG misconduct.

The underpinning of these actions has its roots in various places, including those that occurred on March 4, 2021, when the SEC announced the creation of a “Climate and ESG Task Force” in its Division of Enforcement, to focus on ESG-related gaps and misstatements in disclosures by publicly-traded companies, mutual funds, and other investment vehicles.

One of the SEC’s main enforcement focuses is “greenwashing,” a term that describes when a publicly-traded company, mutual fund, or other public investment vehicle makes a misleading claim about its ESG policies or credentials. For instance, some mutual funds may market themselves as an “environmentally-friendly” energy fund but have a relatively small amount of investor funds invested in renewable energy sources. Critics of the current regulation regime have asserted that many investment vehicles mislead investors with terms like “green,” “carbon-neutral,” and “environmentally-friendly.” These broad terms, critics say, are not adequately defined and may convince investors to direct their money to funds that the investors believe align with ESG values when the funds themselves are not actually evaluating whether their investments are in line with such values.

In late March 2022, the SEC’s Division of Examinations used the term “greenwashing” in its 2022 Examination Priorities to describe certain activities that the SEC would be paying particular attention to in the coming months The SEC noted that it would focus on whether public investment vehicles are “overstating or misrepresenting the ESG factors considered or incorporated into portfolio selection (e.g., greenwashing), such as in their performance advertising and marketing.”

The SEC proposed new greenwashing-focused rules in 2022 that would strengthen the Division of Enforcement’s ability to fight against misleading ESG disclosures. In August 2022, after a public comment period, the SEC’s commissioners voted 3-to-1 to move forward with proposed climate disclosure ESG-focused rules. These rules focus on both publicly-traded companies and investment advisors and funds. Under these climate disclosure rules (expected to be made final in April, 2023), publicly-traded companies are required to include certain climate-related disclosures in their public filings. Further, these rules will require investment advisors and funds who associate their investments with ESG to provide specific disclosures about how they pursue ESG strategies in their investments.

While these rules are still pending and have not yet been finalized, the Division of Enforcement has continued its focus on greenwashing enforcement efforts without even having the benefit of these proposed rules.

The SEC has publicly announced various settlements in the banking space and in the manufacturing space involving tens of millions of dollars in agreed-upon penalties in multiple enforcement actions focused on greenwashing. These actions have focused on SEC investigations of internal policies governing mutual funds and investment strategies branded as ESG investments.

The ESG task force has also investigated and charged companies whom the SEC found were not adequately disclosing environmental-related risks. The SEC has, for instance, settled a charge with a mining company related to failure to disclose the financial risks of mercury contamination of a river located near a Brazilian mine.

Through these actions, the SEC has indicated that it will target companies whose policies do not adequately ensure that these investment products align with stated goals of investing in ESG-focused products. Further, the SEC is keeping a close eye on required disclosures by public companies as these disclosures relate to ESG risks and issues that companies may be required to communicate to investors. The SEC undertook these enforcement efforts under existing securities laws and regulations without final passage of the proposed ESG-focused climate disclosure rules mentioned above.

Clearly, the SEC is not waiting for final climate disclosure rules to hone in on greenwashing practices, and the proposed climate disclosure rules will only strengthen the SEC’s ability to engage in similar investigations and enforcement actions.

The Division of Examination’s 2023 Examination Priorities do not explicitly use the term “greenwashing,” but they indicate that the SEC will continue to focus on enforcement actions against companies that engage in this practice. The 2023 Priorities state that the SEC will examine “whether ESG products are appropriately labeled and whether recommendations of such products for retail investors are made in investors’ best interests.” This language indicates that greenwashing-focused enforcement is clearly still a priority for the SEC, especially when paired with the SEC’s proposed new rules requiring ESG climate disclosures.

The SEC’s focus on greenwashing means that organizations associating themselves or their investments with ESG objectives should assess whether their actions line up with their stated ESG efforts and whether their disclosure matches what their records show and whether they are measurable, verifiable and provable statistics and data. Regular auditing of ESG programs, company disclosure, ESG reporting and comprehensive ESG strategy planning could help avoid a costly SEC enforcement action.

Note, we have also published on the Federal Drug Administrations renewed focus on “Greenwashing” in an early post on our blog where we documented the renewed FDA focus in the area of cosmetics and other products and issued additional guidance on greenwashing in the context of utilization of words such as “natural”, “free (of)”, “eco-friendly”, “Cruelty Free”, “renewable” and “sustainable”.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Alek Smolij (the author), Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Joel Ephross, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

The plaintiffs’ class action bar is exceedingly innovative and in constant pursuit of “the next big then” insofar as potential liability is concerned for acts and omissions of Corporate America. Environmental, Social, and Governance – known as “ESG” – each of the verticals within ESG are surely are topics on the mind of leading plaintiffs’ class action litigators. As ESG-related issues evolve and become increasingly more important to corporate stakeholders, class action litigation against companies is inevitable and has already begun to take shape. This blog post reviews the current landscape of litigation risks, and underscores how good corporate compliance programs and corporate citizenship are prerequisites to minimizing risk.

The Class Action Context:

In 2022, the plaintiffs’ class action bar filed, litigated, and settled class actions at a breathtaking pace. The aggregate totals of the top ten class action settlements – in areas as diverse as mass torts, consumer fraud, antitrust, civil rights, securities fraud, privacy, and employment-related claims – reached the highest historical totals in the history of American jurisprudence. Class actions and government enforcement litigation spiked to over $63 billion in settlement totals. As analyzed in our Duane Morris Class Action Review https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2023/01/04/it-is-here-the-duane-morris-class-action-review-2023/, the totals included $50.32 billion for products liability and mass tort, $8.5 billion for consumer fraud, $3.7 billion for antitrust, $3.25 billion for securities fraud, and $1.3 billion for civil rights.

As “success begets success’ in this litigation space, the plaintiffs’ bar is loaded for bear in 2023, and focused on areas of opportunity for litigation targets. ESG-related areas are a prime area of risk.

The ESG Context

Corporate ESG programs is in a state of constant evolution. Early iterations were heavily focused on corporate social responsibility (or “CSR”), with companies sponsoring initiatives that were intended to benefit their communities. They entailed things like employee volunteering, youth training, and charitable contributions as well as internal programs like recycling and employee affinity groups. These efforts were not particularly controversial.

In recent years, ESG programs have become more extensive and more deeply integrated with companies’ core business strategies, including strategies for avoiding risks, such as those presented by employment discrimination claims, the impacts of climate change, supply chain accountability, and cybersecurity and privacy. Companies and studies have increasingly framed ESG programs as contributing to shareholder value.

As ESG programs become larger and more integrated into a company’s business, so do the risks of attracting attention from regulators and private litigants.

And The Lawsuits Begin From All Quarters:

While class action litigation can emanate from many sources, four areas in particular are of importance in the ESG space.

Shareholders: Lawsuits by shareholders regarding ESG matters are accelerating. Examples include claims that their stock holdings have lost value as a result of false disclosures about issues like sexual harassment allegations involving key executives, cybersecurity incidents, or environmental disasters. Even absent a stock drop, some shareholders have brought successful derivative suits focused on ESG issues. Of recent note, employees of corporations incorporated in Delaware who serve in officer roles may be sued for breach of the duty of oversight in the particular area over which they have responsibility, including oversight over workplace harassment policies. In its ruling https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2023/01/30/delaware-says-corporate-officers-are-now-subject-to-a-duty-of-oversight-in-the-workplace-harassment-context/ in In Re McDonald’s Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2021-CV-324 (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2023), the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that like directors, officers are subject to oversight claims. The ruling expands the scope of the rule established in the case of In Re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), which recognized the duty of oversight for directors. The decision will likely result in a flurry of litigation activity by the plaintiffs’ bar, as new cases will be filed alleging that officers in corporations who were responsible for overseeing human resource functions can be held liable for failing to properly oversee investigations of workplace misconduct such as sexual harassment.

Vendors and Business Partners: As companies face increasing demands to address ESG issues in their operations and throughout their supply chains, ESG requirements in commercial contracts are increasing in prevalence. Requirements imposed on vendors, suppliers, and partners – to ensure their operations do not introduce ESG risks (e.g., by using forced or child labor or employing unsustainable environmental practices) are becoming regular staples in a commercial context. In addition, as more companies report greenhouse gas emissions – and may soon be required by the SEC to report on them – they increasingly require companies in their supply chain to provide information about their own emissions. Furthermore, if the SEC’s proposed cybersecurity disclosure rules are enacted, companies also may require increased reporting regarding cybersecurity from vendors and others. These actions – and disclosures – provide fodder for “greenwashing” claims, where consumers claim that company statements about environmental or social aspects of their products are false and misleading. The theories in these class actions are expanding by encompassing allegations involving product statements as well as a company’s general statements about its commitment to sustainability.

State Consumer Protection and Employment Laws: The patchwork quilt of state laws create myriad causes of action for alleged false advertising and other misleading marketing statements. The plaintiffs’ bar also has invoked statutes like the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to bring claims against companies for alleged failures to stop alleged human rights violations in their supply chains. These claims typically allege that the existence of company policies and programs aimed at helping end human rights violations are themselves a basis for liability. In making human capital management disclosures a part of ESG efforts (including whether to disclose numeric metrics or targets based on race or gender), companies may find themselves in a difficult place with respect to potential liability stemming from stated commitments to diversity and inclusion. On the one hand, companies that fail to achieve numeric targets they articulate (e.g., a certain percent or increase in diversity among management) may subject themselves to claims of having overpromised when discussing their future plans. Conversely, employers that achieve such targets may face “reverse discrimination” claims alleging that they abandoned race-based or gender-neutral employment practices to hit numbers set forth in their public statements.

Government Enforcement Litigation: Federal, state and local government regulators have taken multiple actions against companies based on their alleged contributions to climate change or alleged illegal activities. For instance, in 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice investigated auto companies for possible antitrust violations for agreeing with California to adopt emissions standards more restrictive than those established by federal law. While the investigation did not reveal wrongdoing, it underscores the creativity that proponents and opponents of ESG efforts can employ.

Implications For Corporate America:

The creation, content, and implementation of ESG programs carries increasing litigation risks for corporations but it is unlikely that ESG progams will diminish is size or scale in the coming years given increased focus by Fortune 100s and 500s and increased regulation at the federal and state levels.

Sound planning, comprehensive legal compliance, and systematic auditing of ESG programs should be a key focus and process of all entities beginning or continuing their ESG journey. As more and more companies adopt some level of corporative ESG strategy planning, compliance and auditing are some of the key imperatives in this new world of exposure to diminish and limit one’s exposure.

Duane Morris has an active Class Action Team to help organizations respond to the ever increasing need to be proactive to these types of risks. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Gerald (Jerry) L. Maatman, Jennifer Riley or the attorney in the firm whom you are regularly in contact with. We also have ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Joel Ephross, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Tag: Greenwashing

The SEC and its continued focus and enforcement of “Greenwashing” by Alek Smolij

ESG and the Growing Interplay with Class Action Lawsuits