Big companies and non-profit groups have begun purging or rewriting references to climate change on their websites, mirroring similar action by US government departments in response to the policies of Donald Trump.
Financial Times analysis shows that statements on climate change from leading corporations including Walmart and Kraft Heinz have been deleted or rewritten over the past year at the same time as a Republican backlash against green action has intensified and companies have begun rolling back their net zero targets.
Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, has launched a sweeping attack on environmental policy since taking office, while his administration has started to remove or downgrade mentions of climate change across US government websites.
Among those companies that had previously boasted of their climate action, Walmart expunged a section in which it previously said it was “deeply committed to addressing climate change”.
In a statement on its website in the middle of last year, the retailer said: “Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. If we don’t take more aggressive action now, the damage will only worsen, and the consequences will be disastrous for this and future generations.”
In December, these references were removed and the text on the webpage significantly shortened and rewritten. The retailer, which did not respond to a request for comment, on its webpage continued to include that it was “focused on reducing emissions in our operations [and] engaging suppliers to reduce emissions in supply chains”.
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned companies were at risk of “committing brand self-sabotage by erasing and diluting references to climate on their websites”.
“We know . . . customers and employees worry about how climate change is upending their lives because it’s making the air harder to breathe, their water dirtier and products more expensive,” she said.
“Ultimately, tackling climate change is responsible business and reinforces the foundations on which economic prosperity is built.”
Other examples include Kraft Heinz, which rewrote its Net Zero and Science Based Targets webpage in January, removing a reference from the text to a target to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2030. Instead, the company wrote that it had “faced internal and external challenges in delivering our net zero targets” and said it was re-evaluating these.
In a statement, Kraft Heinz said the webpage was updated following its latest environmental, social and governance report, adding that it was “fully committed to our net zero ambition”.
On American Airlines’ climate change webpage a reference to how the “low-carbon transition is both urgent and under way” that appeared in July was removed in November before the election. American Airlines said the “website was refreshed with language from our latest sustainability report. As the website shows, our sustainability goals have not changed.”
US tech giant Meta, which did not respond to a request for comment, included a section on its sustainability webpage last summer about “leading the way on climate change” and “tak[ing] bold climate action”. These references have since been removed, although it still said it was working with partners to address climate change.
Ford removed a reference to “targeting climate change action” last summer from the top of its UK sustainability page where it published a new climate change report, while keeping mentions further down. Ford declined to comment.
Coca-Cola, meanwhile, watered down statements around tackling waste on its sustainability webpage after weakening its environmental targets last December. The company did not respond to a request for comment.
Non-US companies have also altered their websites. A chart looking at the usage of renewable energy at Nestlé manufacturing sites was removed from the consumer goods company’s climate change webpage, as have details of tree planting. Nestlé said the chart and information about tree planting still appeared on other parts of its website.
Ben Caldecott, director of the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group, warned that so-called greenhushing, where companies underplay their environmental efforts, “undermines transparency and accountability”.
Charities also told the FT they were rejigging their websites, with one US non-profit group that operates internationally saying they had scrubbed whole pages about climate change online, partly in a bid to help shore up US grants.
Trump has backed a funding freeze that shut down US humanitarian aid and development work around the world, including the work of the US Agency for International Development. This has sparked fears that non-profit groups will struggle to access US grants for climate development projects.
Others said climate change projects were being rebranded with other titles, playing up a focus on food or water for example.
A person familiar with the UN’s World Food Programme’s thinking said even before the USAID cuts there were already expectations that projects would need to be rebranded.
“Let’s not talk about them in terms of climate change, let’s talk about them as resilience, that basically using phrases like climate change is going to be just a red rag to a bull.”
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here.
Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Find out more about our science-based targets here
