UN Environment Programme faces global backlash over failure to probe role in corporate greenwashing scandal
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is facing growing international condemnation for refusing to investigate its role in the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), which is being widely criticized as a platform for corporate greenwashing. A coalition of ten civil society organizations and rights-holder groups, representing affected communities across five continents, has gone public with a damning statement denouncing UNEP’s dismissal of a detailed formal complaint submitted in October 2024. The 39-page complaint had accused UNEP of abetting harmful corporate influence in environmental governance through its co-founding and promotion of TNFD—a taskforce whose members include some of the world’s most controversial companies.
TNFD is a private-sector initiative launched in 2021, tasked with creating a framework for corporations to report nature-related risks and dependencies. UNEP has supported the TNFD from its inception, serving on its stewardship council, providing seed funding, and endorsing its outputs through events, publications, and partnerships. However, environmental and human rights advocates argue that the taskforce is a vehicle for voluntary, opaque corporate reporting with no mechanisms for accountability or redress. Of the 40 corporate members that make up the TNFD, at least 45% face credible allegations of environmental harm, human rights violations, or financial misconduct. These include mining giant Anglo American, investment firm BlackRock, pulp and paper company Suzano, and global bank HSBC.
“UNEP’s decision to co-found and promote the TNFD taskforce likely didn’t arise from a single bad decision, but a thousand,” said Shona Hawkes, Senior Advisor on Forests and Bank Accountability at Rainforest Action Network. “Did no one at UNEP ask whether corporations facing lawsuits and community resistance should be leading the world’s framework for reporting on nature?”
The original complaint, submitted via UNEP’s Stakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM), outlined 11 major concerns, including UNEP’s failure to conduct due diligence on TNFD members, lack of consultation with Indigenous peoples and affected communities, and disregard for established environmental and human rights standards such as the Escazú Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. UNEP dismissed the complaint in February 2025 with a brief email and a link to a financial pamphlet aimed at banks. No formal assessment or response was provided, prompting complainants to compile a 20-page joint statement, submitted on June 6, calling for UNEP to overturn its dismissal and conduct a full investigation.
The complainants—who include BankTrack, Third World Network, Rainforest Action Network, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), and the Forests & Finance Coalition—argue that UNEP is violating its own grievance mechanism policy. According to the SRM guidelines, complaints should only be ruled ineligible if they clearly fall into narrow categories—such as duplicating existing cases or being submitted in bad faith—which the TNFD complaint does not. The complainants also found that UNEP failed to meet any of the seven UN-endorsed principles for effective grievance mechanisms: legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability, transparency, rights-compatibility, and continuous learning.
“UNEP’s response shows a shocking lack of understanding of both good governance and rights-based approaches,” said Danielle van Oijen, Programme Coordinator for Forests at Milieudefensie. “If any government today proposed that a group of 40 corporations should write their own regulations on nature, there would be uproar. That is exactly what UNEP has done by co-founding TNFD.”
Critics say TNFD’s framework, far from enhancing transparency, allows companies to report selectively, avoids requiring disclosure of harmful impacts, and fails to mandate engagement with affected communities. It does not require companies to report on whether they are sourcing from, or financing, environmentally sensitive or conflict-prone areas. Nor does it require any independent verification of data.
“TNFD enables companies to look good without doing good,” said Ola Janus, Banks and Nature Lead at BankTrack. “And UNEP is legitimizing this greenwashing effort while dismissing legitimate concerns from civil society. This is not the behavior expected of a UN body tasked with defending the global environment.”
The complaint also highlights that UNEP's public summary of the grievance omitted key details—including the names of eight of the ten complainant groups and the fact that gender-related harms were a central concern. According to the statement, “some complainant organizations are now considering that UNEP may constitute a direct threat to our work,” pointing to the agency’s pattern of aligning with powerful corporate actors while sidelining those most affected by environmental destruction.
Lim Li Ching, Coordinator of the Biodiversity Programme at Third World Network, stated, “Indigenous peoples, local communities, grassroots women and Afrodescendant communities have always led the fight to protect nature. UNEP’s refusal to investigate its role in the TNFD scandal puts it on the side of the corporations threatening these efforts.”
The significance of the TNFD’s influence extends beyond its members. In 2023, TNFD published its final disclosure recommendations, which are now being adopted or cited by financial regulators, institutional investors, and multinational corporations as the emerging global norm. This gives TNFD’s voluntary guidelines the weight of soft law—without democratic oversight or safeguards for communities.
“It is really concerning that UNEP is supporting the fox to guard the henhouse while dismissing complaints from civil society,” said Merel van der Mark of the Forests & Finance Coalition. “It sets a dangerous precedent for future environmental governance.”
UNEP has so far not responded publicly to the June statement, nor has it acknowledged any of the concerns raised by the complainants. The coalition is calling for an immediate and independent investigation into UNEP’s role in developing and promoting the TNFD, including the agency’s failure to scrutinize corporate partners, consult affected communities, or ensure adherence to UN values.
“This is not just about accountability for the past—it’s about protecting the future of global environmental governance from corporate capture,” said TarcÃsio Feitosa da Silva, a Brazilian environmental defender and 2006 Goldman Prize winner. “It’s not too late for UNEP to do the right thing.”
The June 2025 Complainant Statement and the original October 2024 complaint are now publicly available. As the credibility of corporate sustainability initiatives continues to face scrutiny, pressure is mounting on UNEP to repair the trust it risks losing by failing to act.
Comments