COP30 has just begun in Belém, Brazil. Every year, the Conference of the Parties (COP) serves as the world’s central stage for climate diplomacy, where governments, scientists, and civil society gather to decide how to respond to the global climate emergency. Over the decades, these meetings have shaped major milestones, from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. Yet behind the speeches and pledges, questions persist: how much progress is being made on the ground, and how inclusive are these negotiations in practice?

As countries meet again to assess their collective efforts, looking back at the most recent COPs offers a perspective on how politics, accountability, and competing interests continue to influence the global climate agenda.

What Is the COP?

The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the annual United Nations summit that brings together the 198 signatories to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Its purpose is to coordinate international action on climate change through negotiation, progress assessment, and new commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

COPs are usually held in November or December and last about two weeks. The first took place in 1995 in Berlin, and the tradition has continued ever since. COP27 was hosted by Egypt in 2022, COP28 by the United Arab Emirates in 2023, and COP29 by Azerbaijan in 2024. This year, COP30 marks Brazil’s turn to host the event in the Amazonian city of Belém.

Over the years, COPs have produced landmark outcomes, from the Kyoto Protocol (1997) to the Paris Agreement (2015). More recent debates have focused on climate finance, adaptation, and the global transition away from fossil fuels. Yet, as recent conferences show, progress often comes with friction, delays, and controversy.

The COP Controversies Over the Years

COP27 (2022) - Egypt

Held in Sharm el-Sheikh, COP27 centered on the question of climate justice. Developing nations demanded compensation for loss and damage caused by climate impacts that they did little to create. Therefore, the creation of a Loss and Damage Fund was a landmark step, though details on financing and governance were deferred.

Egypt’s hosting of the summit drew criticism over restrictions on civil society. Amnesty International reported hundreds of arrests before the event, including activists detained for online content. Tight surveillance and limited protest spaces highlighted how political control intersected with the climate agenda.

Meanwhile, energy security concerns following the war in Ukraine exposed inconsistencies in global climate policy. Some European nations resumed coal use or sought new gas projects in Africa, while methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure were found to be worse than estimated. These developments raised questions about whether short-term energy strategies were undermining long-term climate goals.

COP28 (2023) - United Arab Emirates

The 2023 summit in Dubai was among the most debated in COP history. The appointment of Sultan Al Jaber, CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, as COP president drew immediate criticism over conflicts of interest. Al Jaber’s comments, suggesting there was “no science” supporting a fossil fuel phase-out, only deepened the controversy.

Leaked letters from OPEC revealed coordinated lobbying to block references to phasing out fossil fuels in the final text. Despite this, over 100 countries advocated for clear language on ending fossil fuel use. The resulting “UAE Consensus” included the phrase “transitioning away from fossil fuels,” the first such mention in COP history. However, critics noted that the wording allowed broad interpretation and loopholes for continued production through “abatement” and carbon capture.

The summit also drew scrutiny for restrictions on activism. Human Rights Watch documented limits on protests, surveillance of delegates, and constraints on speech. Still, COP28 produced incremental steps on renewable energy commitments and adaptation finance, even as it highlighted the influence of the fossil fuel industry on global negotiations.

COP29 (2024)  - Azerbaijan

In Baku, COP29 took place under similar scrutiny. Azerbaijan’s record on press freedom and civil rights was a major concern, with several journalists and activists arrested in the months before the event. Human rights advocate Anar Mammadli and economist Gubad Ibadoghlu were among those detained on politically motivated charges.

The conference also saw diplomatic tensions flare when President Ilham Aliyev criticized Western countries in his opening speech, prompting France to boycott the event. Regional issues, including the aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, added to the complex political backdrop.

The negotiations were dominated by debates over climate finance. Wealthy countries announced a target of $300 billion annually by 2035, largely relying on private capital and multilateral banks. Developing nations argued that the proposal lacked direct grant funding and risked increasing debt burdens. Observers reported confusion and frustration over the agreement’s final approval, with some delegations absent when it was gaveled through.

COP29 concluded with calls for greater transparency, inclusivity, and consistency in how future summits are hosted and managed.

Patterns and Lessons

Across COP27, COP28, and COP29, several common threads emerge. Each conference underscored both the urgency of global climate action and the difficulties of collective decision-making. The creation of new financial mechanisms and the first explicit reference to moving away from fossil fuels were significant steps. Still, they came alongside persistent divisions over fairness, responsibility, and implementation.

A recurring criticism has been greenwashing: the gap between rhetoric and reality. Host countries often present themselves as champions of sustainability while remaining heavily dependent on fossil fuels. At the same time, the presence of record numbers of industry lobbyists, particularly from oil and gas companies, has raised concerns about the balance of influence in climate negotiations.

These issues point to a broader tension: how to ensure that the COP process remains a platform for genuine progress rather than symbolic gestures. Many observers argue that transparency, stronger accountability mechanisms, and better inclusion of civil society are essential to rebuilding trust in the process.

Conclusion

As COP30 unfolds in Brazil, the focus is again on implementation and credibility. The last three conferences demonstrated how progress can coexist with controversy, and how global ambition must be matched by local action and political will.

While the COP framework remains the cornerstone of international climate cooperation, its effectiveness depends on whether commitments are translated into tangible outcomes. The coming days in Belém will show whether lessons from past conferences can help turn dialogue into decisive progress.

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.

The chemicals industry, often perceived as the backbone of modern economies, is undergoing a notable shift. With the world's focus now fixed on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, this sector finds itself at the crossroads of risk and opportunity. In this “ESG Data Trends,” we dive deeper into the chemicals’ market ESG performance, studying the example of Ineos.

The chemicals industry: riding the ESG wave

Post-2020, the chemical market has seen an increase in web mentions. Several factors—from gas shortages rattling this energy-intensive market to escalating environmental concerns—have ushered in a new era of sustainability discussions. But which chemicals are stealing the limelight?
Chlorine, Ammonia, and Base Chemicals like Ethylene and Propylene account for over half of the chemical web mentions. And it's not just about their volume. The narrative is changing too. The industry is leaning towards eco-conscious production, championing innovations like recycled propylene, Renewable-Benzene, and Green ammonia.

What's interesting about this is the emphasis on ESG initiatives over ESG risks. It's a clear signal that the industry is taking action toward sustainability and is making tangible strides. When looking at the industry’s ESG risks mentions, we found that Arkema has the highest percentage of ESG Risks driven mainly by environmental incidents and impact on biodiversity due to a chemical plant explosion in 2017, followed by UOP LLC, which displays the highest proportion of Social related risks as a consequence of layoffs.

Conversely, across the industry, the volume of ESG initiatives indicates a significant commitment to sustainable related practices. Environmental-related practices are the most mentioned initiatives in the chemicals industry; precisely, two pillars stand out in ESG initiatives: climate change reduction and circular economy strategies. LyondellBasell displays the highest percentage of ESG initiatives mentions due to its climate change reduction and circular economy strategies, where the company is working towards greenhouse gas reductions and advancing plastic waste recycling. Despite having the highest environmental risk mentions, Arkema has the highest social-related initiatives with corporate social responsibility.

Case study: Ineos

The TextReveal Dashboard detected another chemicals company with an increasing number of mentions, the British multinational Ineos. After the announcement of Ineos Grenadier's off-roader in 2020, the number of mentions more than doubled, increasing Ineos' overall volume. Later on, the company’s mentions have been relatively increasing after cooling down from the announcement, with a significant increase in 2022 following M&A and collaboration announcements, sustainability actions, and controversies around its CEO, Jim Ratcliffe.

We also detected a geographical shift in mentions. Once dominant in the US, Ineos mentions dropped from 65% in 2015 to roughly 30% in 2022. Europe, on the other hand, has seen a spike from 25% to over 65%. Sentiment analysis offers another layer of insight.

While the sentiment has largely remained steady, there have been dips, especially during periods associated with fracking controversies and environmental incidents, including a toxic chemical spill. Digging deeper into Ineos’ ESG risks, there has been a decrease over the recent years; nonetheless, before 2019, we captured a relatively higher number of risks, mainly environmental–related controversies, coming from mentions about overexploitation of resources, namely fracking. Social-related risks display a significant proportion of data driven by social dialogue controversies as we capture multiple mentions of protests, particularly in 2017.

While Ineos ESG risks mentions represent 2.46% of its overall data share, its ESG initiatives mentions represent 5.91% of its web presence, signaling a more positive outlook for the firm, at least from a perception point of view. Furthermore, we detected that environmental–related initiatives are the main focus for Ineos, particularly climate change, while social initiatives arise, particularly in 2018, due to product safety mentions.

Data sources

To produce this analysis, we combined natural language processing with billions of textual web data related to the chemicals market. Using NLP-powered models gives us an edge as we can extract ESG, SDG, and financial insights that aren’t necessarily obvious or easy to detect. These insights help investors make better investment decisions. SESAMm leverages artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to help you decipher and understand timely sentiment, trends, and ESG metrics on a wide range of public and private companies.

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 request a demo, contact one of our representatives.

Sustainability trends have become ubiquitous in the business world, mainly due to the attention ESG is receiving. To state the obvious, this is a positive trend as it helps push companies to consider their impact on the environment, employees, and customers and ensure their governance practices are sound. However, it also incentivizes actors in the business world to try to game the system through marketing campaigns to improve their reputation.

Through the use of artificial intelligence and other technologies, we embarked on a mission to analyze the sentiment on the web and uncover to what extent companies are incurring reputational laundering techniques to deceive investors, customers, and other stakeholders but also to identify the ones that are actually performing actions to have a positive impact around them.

This analysis dives into the concept of greenwashing and reputational laundering. It reveals the nuanced interplay between genuine sustainability efforts and deceptive practices, offering a new lens to distinguish genuine from false corporate sustainability claims.

Beyond Greenwashing: Reputational Laundering

Let’s start with some definitions. Reputational laundering is deliberately hiding unethical behavior with highly visible positive actions. Greenwashing is just one component of reputational laundering. Another component is the social aspect of it, and it includes various forms of color washing such as purplewashing, pinkwashing, purpose washing, etc. So far, in 2023, greenwashing accounted for 55% of all the volume of reputational laundering mentions on the web. So, the remaining 45% represents color-washing.

TerraChoice defines greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental performance and positive communication about environmental performance."

Colorwashing, on the other hand, refers to a strategy used by organizations to create a positive public image by associating themselves with specific causes, ethics, or moral standpoints.

Beyond the conventional understanding of deliberate greenwashing, there’s a more nuanced concept and less discussed: unintentional greenwashing, where companies inadvertently convey misleading environmental claims. This can occur due to a lack of understanding of the true impact of their products or services, unverified claims, overlooking hidden consequences, unintentional confusion in marketing materials, or insufficient transparency. While these companies may not have malicious intent, their actions can inadvertently misrepresent their environmental efforts and mislead consumers about their commitment to sustainability.

Reputational laundering at a glance

Over the past eight years, reputational laundering mentions have increased steadily. However, from 2021 onwards, they’ve grown a staggering 3.3x. The mentions of reputational laundering are coming from different topics, from false advertising, and misleading practices to lawsuits regarding greenwashing. Furthermore, we have observed a growing number of references regarding the declining trust of the public in corporate pledges, such as those related to 'net-zero' climate goals.

This increase can be attributed to two main reasons: the actual increase in reputational laundering and, more interestingly, the growing awareness from stakeholders (i.e., Investors and eco-conscious consumer base).

According to a report published by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), climate change lawsuits have continuously surged over the past five years.
Consequently, we analyze mentions of lawsuits related to environmental breaches and detect a significant increase in 2021 – which continues to the present day.

Lawsuit mentions have increased by more than 3x since 2020. These litigations span a spectrum of environmental issues, extending well beyond planned obsolescence practices by major consumer goods manufacturers. We also observe the rise of youth-led climate change lawsuits, instances of oil spills, wildfires, pollution-related legal actions, and the pervasive issue of PFAS contamination.

Breakdown by type of washing

While greenwashing often dominates the conversation around reputational risks, it's crucial not to overlook the social dimension, which tends to receive less attention from the public. Since 2020, we've observed a significant uptick in mentions of greenwashing and its less-discussed counterpart, colorwashing.

Historically, up until 2020, the distribution of mentions leaned toward one-third greenwashing compared to two-thirds colorwashing. However, post-2021, this pattern has shifted. We've witnessed a rise in the frequency of greenwashing mentions, surpassing those of colorwashing and signaling an evolution in the focus of reputational laundering concerns.

During the COP27 conference at the end of 2022, a call was made to verify carbon and other environmental claims and show zero greenwashing tolerance. As a result, there has been a rise in scrutiny, and data now shows an increase in the number of allegations related to greenwashing. Here are a few examples:

June 2022: Head of Deutsche Bank’s DWS stepping after ‘greenwashing’ raids,
October 2023: Suncor accused of greenwashing
September 2023: Greenwashing cases against airlines in Europe, the US,

In analyzing advertisements, we found instances of reputational laundering through various means. Some companies engaged in social washing, while others used sportwashing to bolster their reputation. The mining and energy industries were particularly guilty of this practice. Meanwhile, the communication industry, including companies such as Netflix and Disney, was associated with black and whitewashing.

Inspecting the Regulatory Landscape

To analyze the regulatory environment of reputational laundering, we studied the effects of different legal frameworks and government organizations on greenwashing and other forms of reputational laundering. We measured the influence of legal frameworks and regulatory bodies on greenwashing by analyzing the quarterly growth of greenwashing mentions over the study period.

In this analysis, we define the concept of legal frameworks by capturing references related to the 'Green Claims' directive, Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, EU Taxonomy, Green Product Certification, Fair Labeling and Advertising Act, Non-Financial Reporting Directive, FTC Act, FTC Green Guides, etc.

Concepts of Regulation bodies are defined by references to governments and Supranational entities (i.e.,  US government, FTC, SEC, Chinese government, Japanese government, etc.) or regulatory agencies established to safeguard the environment (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), European Environment Agency (EAA), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), etc.)

Over the past three years, mentions of frameworks and laws have grown substantially, with increasing ESG scrutiny, new green claims guidelines, and a focus on sustainability and ESG reporting.

There has been a slight increase in the mentions of regulatory bodies over the years, mainly due to the growing interest in greenwashing, which has peaked during events like COP26 and COP27. Legal frameworks and regulatory bodies have played a significant role in the fight against greenwashing. Although there is no decrease in the mentions of this topic, the growth rate has reduced significantly. In fact, the quarter-on-quarter growth for greenwashing web mentions has been decreasing lately.

The trends reveal an interesting fact that there is a negative correlation between the growth in mentions of frameworks, laws, and regulatory bodies and the growth in mentions of greenwashing. Though the mentions of greenwashing are still increasing, the growth rate has significantly decreased from a 75% quarterly growth rate to 10% in the last year (except for spikes related to controversial events such as Greta Thunberg labeling COP26 as a “greenwash festival,” and not attending COP27).

Conclusion

As we navigate the landscape of corporate sustainability, it becomes evident that distinguishing genuine efforts from greenwashing is not just a matter of skepticism but a necessity. This exploration underscores the importance of vigilant analysis and the role of AI in unmasking deceptive practices. It calls for a collective commitment to transparency and accountability, empowering stakeholders to make informed decisions and advocating for a future where corporate responsibility aligns authentically with sustainable development.

At SESAMm, we used AI to study billions of articles and analyze greenwashing trends. Download this comprehensive ebook for an in-depth understanding of the evolving landscape of reputational laundering, notably greenwashing, and dive into its trends in the corporate world.

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.