CCRcorp Sites  

The CCRcorp Network unlocks access to a world of insights, research, guides and information in a range of specialty areas.

Our Sites

TheCorporateCounsel

TheCorporateCounsel.net

A basis for research and practical guidance focusing on federal securities laws, compliance & corporate governance.

DealLawyers

DealLawyers.com

An educational service that provides practical guidance on legal issues involving public and private mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity – and much more.

CompensationStandards

CompensationStandards.com

The “one stop” resource for information about responsible executive compensation practices & disclosure.

Section16.net

Section16.net

Widely recognized as the premier online research platform providing practical guidance on issues involving Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all of its related rules.

PracticalESG

PracticalESG.com

Keeping you in-the-know on environmental, social and governance developments

Apple is known for having a robust sustainability program and making serious sustainability claims. Back in 2023, we wrote about a flashy Apple ad that touted sustainability at the company. I predicted that this may land the company in legal hot water. Sure enough, it happened – although the lawsuit is a private class action lawsuit, not governmental enforcement. The case centers around the September 2023 line of Apple watches which the company claimed were “carbon neutral” – a claim based in part on offsetting. A recent article from Trellis describes the math behind the claim:

“Roughly 75 percent of the emissions reductions behind Apple’s claim about its watches come from changes to its production, such as its use of renewable electricity, processes that incorporate recycled materials for at least 30 percent of the components, fiber-based packaging and changes to shipping methods that avoid air transport. The rest of the claim, however, is made possible through carbon offset purchases. The class action suit alleges that the credits Apple buys from two nature-based projects, the Chyulu Hills forest protection scheme in Kenya and a reforestation initiative in China, are worthless because they ‘fail to provide genuine, additional carbon reductions.’”

Once again carbon offsetting proves problematic. It’s hard not to feel sympathetic for Apple here. Achieving a 75% reduction in emissions through operational efficiency and product design is incredible. Additionally, using carbon offsets for only the remaining 25% of unavoidable emissions is the right way to use carbon offsets. However, claims involving carbon offsets dubious and subject to legal scrutiny due to the state of the carbon offset market and unreliable nature of offset projects. This raises serious questions about the value of offsetting and whether companies should feel safe making claims based in any part on carbon offsetting.

Our members can learn more about greenwashing here.

If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here for daily updates delivered right to you.

Image Credit: misu – stock.adobe.com

Back to all blogs

The Editor

Zachary Barlow is a licensed attorney. He earned his JD from the University of Mississippi and has a bachelor’s in Public Policy Leadership. He practiced law at a mid-size firm and handled a wide variety of cases. During this time he assisted in overseeing compliance of a public entity and litigated contract disputes, gaining experience both in and outside of the courtroom. Zachary currently assists the PracticalESG.com editorial team by providing research and creating content on a spectrum of ESG… View Profile