Boasting nearly 3 billion monthly active users, a market capitalization headed towards $1 trillion, and revenues likely to top $100 billion this year, Facebook has the influence and money to pack a serious punch in the fight against climate change. However, thus far, it has dragged its feet when it comes to engaging with environmental issues beyond carbon and water accounting.

The current situation

In April 2021, Facebook announced that it had cut its emissions by 94% over three years with a further goal of reaching net-zero across its supply chain by 2030. Facebook’s move towards greening its own emissions follows bold climate targets from tech giants Microsoft, Amazon, and Google. Facebook has also committed to becoming water positive by 2030 by restoring more water to the environment than it uses in its operations and has worked to increase the water efficiency of its data centers.

However, other measures suggest Facebook pays much less attention to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues than its peers. GlobalData’s company filings analytics show that Facebook mentioned ESG 92 times in 2021, while Alphabet (Google’s parent company) mentioned ESG 1,101 times. Of course, talking about ESG is not the same as doing something about it. But a serious commitment to ESG would likely result in more mentions. The more-than-10-fold disparity is a strong indication that Facebook isn’t taking ESG as seriously as it should despite its climate-conscious rhetoric.

While Facebook has made strides towards reducing its environmental footprint, it has faltered when addressing the more nuanced ways in which its platform contributes to the climate crisis.

When push comes to shove

Facebook recently announced that it would begin to clamp down on the illegal sale of protected Amazon rainforests on its peer-to-peer ecommerce platform, Facebook Marketplace. However, the company has so far failed to release details of how it will tackle the problem. Instead, Facebook ignored requests to require advertisers to include the location on their ads for rainforest lands. This raises questions about how far the company will go to prevent illegal listings and the legitimacy of Facebook’s ESG promises more broadly.

This critique follows allegations from whistle-blower Frances Haugen that Facebook places profits before user safety. This recent controversy will do nothing to help Facebook’s ESG rating. One of the leading ratings services, MSCI, gave Facebook a B in ESG in November 2020, despite the company’s efforts to reduce emissions over recent years. Although Facebook has made progress towards mitigating its direct emissions, it is failing to show a commitment to other areas of ESG. This is especially true in areas that could interfere with its business strategy, as in the case of the negative psychological impact of the company’s social media platforms on users.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

View profiles in store

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData

Submit

UK USA Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d"Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates US Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Kosovo

Industry * Academia & Education Aerospace, Defense & Security Agriculture Asset Management Automotive Banking & Payments Chemicals Construction Consumer Foodservice Government, trade bodies and NGOs Health & Fitness Hospitals & Healthcare HR, Staffing & Recruitment Insurance Investment Banking Legal Services Management Consulting Marketing & Advertising Media & Publishing Medical Devices Mining Oil & Gas Packaging Pharmaceuticals Power & Utilities Private Equity Real Estate Retail Sport Technology Telecom Transportation & Logistics Travel, Tourism & Hospitality Venture Capital

Tick here to opt out of curated industry news, reports, and event updates from Verdict.

Submit and download

Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how we may use, process and share your personal data, including information of your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

Where Facebook is failing

In both examples, Facebook’s reluctance to alter its practices stands in contrast to other tech giants. Google, for instance, has been praised for preventing content creators from publishing or receiving advertising revenue from climate misinformation on YouTube.

The disparity between the two companies’ approaches to the indirect impact of media platforms on ESG suggests that Facebook needs to think beyond emissions and could do much more.

With annual revenue that rivals the GDP of a small country, Facebook needs to do more than jump on the bandwagon of emissions goals and water targets. Structural transformation across the company and its platforms is required to address all aspects of ESG adequately.