SESAMm is pleased to announce the appointment of David Platt to its Advisory Board. David has spent his career at the intersection of M&A, corporate strategy, and risk intelligence - most recently as Senior Vice President, Chief Strategy Officer at Moody’s Corporation, where he contributed to the diversification of one of the world's leading financial data companies.

During his twelve years at Moody’s, David helped architect the firm’s diversification into data, analytics, and technology-driven risk assessment. He oversaw more than 75 transactions valued at $9 billion, including landmark acquisitions in climate risk, cybersecurity, and private company data. Before Moody’s, he held senior M&A roles at Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Credit Suisse First Boston, advising on complex transactions and corporate strategy for global clients.

“Over the course of my career, I’ve focused on helping organizations scale by expanding into new markets, strengthening their strategic foundations, and building platforms that help institutions better measure, manage, and understand risk,” said David Platt. "SESAMm has built an impressive platform at the intersection of AI and risk intelligence, and I’m excited to support the team as they shape their strategy and scale the business globally.”

David’s appointment comes as SESAMm continues to scale its AI-powered risk intelligence platform and expand its global presence. His experience driving profitable and strategic growth initiatives and scaling data and analytics platforms will help guide the company’s strategic direction.

"David has sat on both sides of the table, as a buyer of data and analytics capabilities, and as a trusted advisor to some of the world's largest financial institutions," said Sylvain Forté, CEO and Co-Founder of SESAMm. "That perspective will be invaluable as we shape SESAMm’s strategic direction and execute our next phase of growth."

David is a CFA charterholder and has served on the boards of BitSight Technologies and ICRA, an Indian credit rating agency. He holds an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Over the past decade, many organizations have improved their carbon footprints, from recyclable and biodegradable packaging and single-use plastic to planting trees and reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. However, some businesses and companies looking to boost their eco-friendly image without committing to serious changes and addressing environmental issues have been associated with false green marketing. We call this "Greenwashing."

Defining Concepts

What is Greenwashing?

Greenwashing is a practice used by businesses to represent themselves as more sustainable than they truly are. Greenpeace and the Environmental Protection Agency define greenwashing as making false and misleading claims about a product's environmental benefits or practices, services, technology, or company practices. Greenwashing typically involves companies spending more money on advertising and marketing than on implementing sustainable business practices that minimize environmental impact. These false green claims can deceive consumers into believing that a product or company is more environmentally friendly than it is, leading to increased sales and profits. As a result, false advertising, misleading initiatives, and groundless claims have increased green investors' exposure to risks emerging from potential lawsuits from activist groups, image deterioration, and heavy losses in assets invested.

In recent years, new concepts have emerged alongside greenwashing:

• Greenhushing refers to a company’s refusal to publicize ESG information. The company may fear pushback from stakeholders who would find its sustainability efforts lacking or from investors who believe ESG undermines returns.
• Greenwishing, or unintentional greenwashing, describes a practice where a company hopes to meet certain sustainability commitments but simply does not have the means to do so.

High-Profile Greenwashing Case Studies

When talking about greenwashing, the usual suspects are the oil and gas industry, the food and beverage sector, and other environmentally impactful industries. However, the financial industry has also been embroiled in its own greenwashing controversies.

DWS Greenwashing Analysis

DWS Group has been at the center of repeated greenwashing allegations. In April 2025, the firm was fined €25 million by German prosecutors for misleading ESG claims, building on years of scrutiny. It all started in 2021 with whistleblower claims that DWS overstated its ESG credentials, triggering investigations by both U.S. and German authorities. A police raid in June 2022 led to the CEO’s resignation, and in 2023, the SEC fined DWS $25 million for ESG misstatements. Lawsuits in Germany also allege false advertising around ESG. Greenpeace condemned DWS’s ESG bonus scheme as cosmetic rather than meaningful. Despite public commitments to sustainability, these controversies underscore a pattern of overstated ESG practices designed to attract investors.

BNY Mellon Greenwashing Analysis

BNY Mellon faced similar regulatory action. In May 2022, the SEC fined BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. $1.5 million for misleading statements about ESG integration in mutual funds. Although the funds were marketed as ESG-focused, the SEC found that BNY Mellon failed to apply ESG quality review as consistently as claimed, raising concerns about greenwashing in the financial sector.

The Challenges of Detecting Greenwashing

It’s challenging to produce an accurate assessment of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, which creates opportunities for companies to hide ineffective and fake green initiatives. According to Regtank, the main challenges to detecting greenwashing include:

• Lack of reporting standards – There’s no universal set of standards for ESG compliance.
• Lack of transparency – Companies often don’t disclose the specifics of their “green campaigns,” making it hard for investors and consumers to verify their claims.
• Limited consumer awareness – Misleading marketing can exploit consumers’ eco-consciousness and brand loyalty, reducing scrutiny of false green claims.
  

These gaps lead to inaccurate ESG data and scores, allowing greenwashers to avoid accountability. Ultimately, detecting greenwashing requires careful scrutiny of company claims and a deep understanding of their supply chains and operations.

How Artificial Intelligence Detects Greenwashing

As greenwashing practices become more common, activist investors, journalists, and the general public are using social media, news outlets, and blogs to highlight false claims. Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an invaluable tool in the early detection of greenwashing by analyzing vast amounts of public data.

At SESAMm, we use generative AI and LLMs to identify greenwashing risks across billions of web-based articles. Our data lake covers over 25 billion articles in more than 100 languages from four million news sources, blogs, social media platforms, and forums, analyzing data on five million public and private companies. Through our AI platform, we generate reliable, timely, and comprehensive insights to detect greenwashing, monitor ESG controversies, and identify related risks.

The Regulatory Landscape

The rise of greenwashing is not going unnoticed by regulators, as frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) directly target misleading sustainability claims and hollow marketing.

1. The CSRD significantly strengthens the requirements for companies to substantiate their sustainability commitments. Mandating standardized and detailed ESG disclosures directly addresses the practice of greenwashing, where companies exaggerate their environmental credentials in marketing without meaningful follow-through. Under the CSRD, companies can no longer rely on vague or selectively presented data—any gaps or inconsistencies in their sustainability claims will be exposed in public filings, making greenwashing much riskier. This means an end to cherry-picked data and a shift toward more comprehensive, comparable, and verifiable ESG performance for investors and stakeholders.
2. The CSDDD (if it stands) further reinforces these efforts by obligating companies to go beyond marketing statements and prove they’re actively managing environmental and human rights impacts throughout their supply chains. This directive closes loopholes that greenwashing often exploits, such as highlighting only direct operations while ignoring supplier practices. By requiring due diligence on environmental impacts across the value chain, the CSDDD aims to turn sustainability from a branding exercise into a legal and operational priority. If real supply chain actions don’t support a company’s green claims, it could face legal action and reputational damage.

Looking Ahead

Looking ahead, greenwashing will continue to face intense scrutiny from regulators, investors, and the public. With evolving regulatory frameworks like CSRD and CSDDD, the pressure is on for companies to ensure genuine environmental responsibility—not just green advertising. At SESAMm, we believe that the combination of regulatory rigor and advanced AI technologies will play a critical role in uncovering false green claims and supporting investors in navigating ESG risks with greater transparency and accountability.

SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights

Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.

The first and second parts of this series discussed the differences between public and private companies from the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) perspectives. In this part, we’re using IKEA as a prime example; we can explore how its private ownership impacts its sustainability practices and governance. This analysis aims to reveal how IKEA's strategies align with broader ESG goals, shedding light on the implications of private versus public company frameworks.

We chose IKEA as an example for this use case for two main reasons. Firstly, as a private company, it provides a suitable basis for comparison with other private companies in the same industry. Secondly, IKEA is known for promoting sustainable practices, such as using renewable energy, responsibly sourced materials, and minimizing waste. However, despite the company's claims about the eco-friendliness of its products, our goal is to investigate whether these claims and products are perceived as environmentally friendly. We also aim to identify any issues affecting any of its stakeholders beyond the environment.

ESG Industry Benchmark

In our study, we focused on a detailed comparative analysis of IKEA's Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) risk mentions over the past three years, particularly in the context of the consumer discretionary sector. Our findings indicate a lower prevalence of environmental controversies both for IKEA and the sector overall. However, regarding governance risks, the consumer discretionary sector appears to encounter these issues more frequently than IKEA does.

On the other hand, IKEA stands out with a more significant presence of social risks than the sector average. This includes a notable number of product safety concerns, exemplified by instances of product recalls due to choking hazards, laceration risks, and even products infested with bugs. The analysis also brought to light several instances of human rights breaches at IKEA, particularly concerning privacy issues, such as data leaks and illegal filming incidents involving staff and customers. Labor rights violations are another area of concern, with instances ranging from union-busting activities to allegations of religious and gender discrimination within the company. Additionally, human capital risks are conspicuous, with mentions of strikes driven by dissatisfaction over wages and layoffs, as well as health and safety issues. Risks in customer relations have also been documented, including incidents of overcharging customers and discriminatory practices against certain customer groups.

Detecting ESG Risks Through the Industry SDG Lens

In our comparative analysis of IKEA's controversies against the average adverse behaviors in its sector concerning the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we noticed both similarities and distinctions. A key finding is that Goal 1, "End poverty," features prominently for both IKEA and the sector, highlighting a common vulnerability to controversies under this goal.

These breaches predominantly pertain to issues around labor rights and human capital, aligning with the findings from our ESG controversy analysis. Additionally, a smaller yet significant portion of controversies is linked to internal control deficiencies within the company. This pattern suggests that both IKEA and its sector face similar challenges in addressing labor rights and human capital issues, contributing to breaches of Goal 1.
In examining the differences, Goal 3, "Health and well-being," stands out for IKEA, exceeding the sector norm. This is largely attributed to numerous product recalls, alongside health and safety concerns related to IKEA's workforce.
Moreover, in Goals 11 ("Sustainable Cities") and 12 ("Responsible Production and Consumption"), IKEA shows a higher-than-average proportion of controversies, mainly due to issues in human capital and customer relations. This highlights a specific focus on product safety and human capital challenges at IKEA, pointing to areas of heightened risk or difficulty compared to industry peers.
Additionally, our study reveals distinct variations in Goals 9 ("Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure") and 16 ("Peace, Justice, & Strong Institutions"), where IKEA shows a lower proportion of issues compared to the sector average. This suggests that, unlike its industry counterparts, IKEA has been more effective in mitigating risks in these areas.

Detecting ESG Risks Through the Industry SDG Lens

Our methodology analyzes the controversies detected for IKEA and maps them to identify which ones constitute breaches of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) principles.

Consistent with the identified ESG risks, human rights breaches at IKEA are notably more prominent than the sector average. This is primarily due to multiple instances of privacy, security, and dignity violations, as well as issues in diversity & inclusion. Additionally, labor rights issues at IKEA, while exceeding the industry average, are not markedly higher.
Our study also reveals that IKEA has a slightly higher proportion of breaches in the environmental pillar compared to its sector. These include incidents like gas leaks, allegations of greenwashing, and cases of illegal logging.

Conclusion

ESG controversies and breaches of SDG goals vary notably between public and private sectors. Public companies frequently encounter more visible and consistent ESG risks, while private companies, although subject to less scrutiny, experience significant impacts when controversies do occur. The case study of IKEA particularly sheds light on the unique challenges faced in product safety and human capital. This highlights the critical need for rigorous and proactive risk management strategies to maintain sustainable corporate practices tailored to the specific nature and scale of the entity in question.

Download the full report to discover how different sectors navigate regulatory pressures and sustainability challenges with real-world examples to guide your strategy.

Reach out to SESAMm

TextReveal’s web data analysis of over five million public and private companies is essential for keeping tabs on ESG investment risks. To learn more about how you can analyze web data or to request a demo, reach out to one of our representatives.