Apple’s motion to dismiss a class-action suit over alleged greenwashing has attracted an unusual ally, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
Apple was sued in late February over the carbon neutral label it uses to market several models of its Series 9 Apple Watch. The complaint, which represents seven buyers, alleges that the carbon credits Apple uses to help make that claim — from forest projects in Kenya and China — don’t actually reduce carbon emissions. Apple should have done a better job to make sure they were worthwhile, the plaintiffs said.
EDF’s amicus brief, filed May 15, defends the practices that Apple uses to make its claims, describing the company’s practices in the 25-page filing as “eminently reasonable and consistent with industry practice.” It’s the first time that EDF has weighed in on a corporate legal challenge of this nature, said Elizabeth Sturcken, vice president of net-zero ambition and action.
“We’ve filed this amicus brief because Apple is an undeniable climate leader. Investors, employees and consumers are asking for companies to take climate action,” Sturcken said. “Companies need to be able to communicate this leadership. And more broadly, we need to see this leading climate action scale across the private sector, not get penalized.”
The environmental nonprofit acknowledges that concerns about the integrity of credits issued on the voluntary carbon market are warranted, but stricter methodologies by several industry groups are addressing those concerns. Besides, it argues, Apple pursues a “robust” strategy to cut its climate footprint before buying credits in the first place.
Specifically, Apple reduces the emissions associated with manufacturing the Apple Watch models in question by approximately 75 percent through the use of recycled materials, fiber-based packaging and changes to its shipping methods that favor lower-carbon alternatives. It buys verified carbon credits to cover the remaining 25 percent.
A duty to double-check
One central complaint the plaintiffs make in the class action suit is that Apple didn’t do enough to guarantee that the projects behind the Apple Watches are producing meaningful carbon reductions. One of the initiatives is under investigation, and the suit argues that Apple should have independently verified the credits being issued.
The ability to buy high-quality carbon credits is important for corporations that have set net-zero goals, and finding in favor of the plaintiffs could set a precedent that would “inject significant uncertainty into, and possibly paralyze, the voluntary carbon market,” EDF argues in the brief. “Because few companies have the resources or expertise to engage in comprehensive (and duplicative) investigation of every offset project, plaintiffs’ legal theory would chill corporate action to mitigate climate change.”
In the brief’s conclusion, EDF notes: “Requiring companies to independently verify every single offset project would disincentivize them from using their resources to support precisely the sort of emission-reduction projects society needs to address the climate crisis.”
Unusual ally
It’s relatively uncommon for environmental nonprofits to support corporations in a greenwashing case, said lawyer Daniel Cherrin, founder and president of North Coast Strategies, which specializes in reputation management.
“EDF isn’t defending Apple’s brand, they are defending a model of climate leadership rooted in transparency, decarbonization and credible use of offsets,” Cherrin said. “The voluntary carbon market isn’t perfect, but it’s working, and despite what many climate activists think, companies like Apple are using it to lead meaningful efforts to slow the impact of climate change.”
Apple declined to comment on the amicus brief, pointing Trellis to the statement it made when the lawsuit was filed that said it is proud of its carbon neutral products.
On May 19, the class action plaintiffs updated their complaint to demand a jury trial in the matter. A hearing on Apple’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled for Aug. 27, in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California.
This article was updated to add a quote from EDF’s Elizabeth Sturcken.
