The Climate Of Misinformation: Why Business Must Now Defend The Truth

Forbes

7 days ago

This photo illustration created in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2023, shows a phone screen ... More showing a social media video marked as an "altered video," in front of a fact-checked image of news anchors where the claim about them was found to be false. In a Facebook video viewed by thousands, CNN's Wolf Blitzer appears to hawk a diabetes drug. In another, "CBS Mornings" host Gayle King seems to endorse weight loss products. But the clips are doctored — the latest in a rash of deepfakes that hijack images of trusted news personalities in spurious ads, undermining confidence in the news media. (Photo by Stefani REYNOLDS / AFP) (Photo by STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
When the world's top climate diplomats gathered in Bonn earlier this year to prepare for COP29, one issue cut through the noise, not just the usual challenges of finance and emissions, but something more intangible and potentially more corrosive: the rise of targeted misinformation and disinformation in the climate space.
In 2024, the World Economic Forum identified misinformation and disinformation as the world's top short-term risk. By 2025, that top spot had shifted to state-based armed conflict. This wasn't a change in direction, but rather an escalation. The two threats are deeply intertwined, especially in the context of climate change.
Credibility Is The New Climate Frontier
Disinformation doesn't just delay climate action; it destabilizes the institutions, policies, and coalitions needed to deliver it. Conflict, often fuelled by climate stressors like food insecurity or water scarcity, both feeds on and amplifies disinformation.
The result is a dangerous feedback loop: disinformation breeds polarization, which escalates into conflict, which further degrades the conditions needed for effective climate response. The longer this cycle persists, the harder it becomes to coordinate global action, or even agree on the nature of the crisis.
For businesses, these aren't abstract global dynamics. They translate directly into market volatility, regulatory unpredictability, and rising reputational risk. In an environment where truth is under siege, credibility has become a form of strategic infrastructure.
In an interview Charlotte Scaddan, Senior Adviser on Information Integrity at the United Nations, explained why this is needed now saying, 'Campaigns against climate action using false or misleading information have been well funded for decades by fossil fuel interests. But tactics have evolved with digital tools allowing for hyper-personalization marketing, micro targeting and influence strategies only made possible through digital technologies and the data collected on people's behaviors, preferences and contexts.'
As climate action moves from the margins to the mainstream, those seeking to derail progress have changed tactics. What used to be fringe denialism has evolved into a sophisticated, and increasingly profitable, campaign to discredit science, undermine regulation, and politicize sustainability.
Dr. Fredrik Bertley president and chief executive officer of COSI, the Center of Science and Industry (COSI) told me, 'You don't have to deny climate change anymore. You just have to say, 'It's not my fault, it's too expensive, it's China's fault.' That's climate denial 2.0.'
This shift poses a growing reputational and operational risk to companies. For public companies, the risks are clear: loss of investor confidence, consumer boycotts, regulatory scrutiny, and internal morale challenges. For private firms, the threat may be less visible but just as real. In an environment where trust is the new currency, misinformation can erode value in ways balance sheets struggle to capture.
It also presents a moral and strategic test for business leaders. Because in this new era, fighting climate change doesn't just mean cutting emissions, it means defending the truth.
Climate misinformation is not just an internet nuisance; it is a deliberate and often coordinated attempt to paralyze policy and stall investment. It manifests in many forms: misleading claims about the reliability of renewables, cultural backlash against clean energy mandates, and organized efforts to smear net zero targets as elitist or anti-freedom. Sean Buchan, intelligence unit coordinator at Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) said, 'They're no longer pushing outright denial. They're attacking climate action itself, particularly renewables, with emotionally charged, misleading arguments.'
The private sector is increasingly in the firing line. Companies with ESG mandates, carbon neutrality goals, or sustainability certifications are being pulled into politicized debates they didn't ask for. These attacks range from bad-faith accusations of greenwashing to campaigns attacking the need for climate disclosures.
One of the underlying dynamics enabling this surge in disinformation is the increasing fragmentation of information spaces. Scadden said, 'Algorithms reinforce individual biases, perceptions and preferences, and this information can be leveraged and exploited by anti-climate action interests.'
Scaddan cautions, 'Businesses may also not see how they may be contributing or funding climate disinformation through their advertising practices. As brands, they have a unique power and place in the information ecosystem.'
One thing brands can do is call for more transparency in ad placements to ensure that their ad spend is not inadvertently funding individuals or entities that are spreading false and misleading climate information and are not aligned with their corporate values. Buchan adds, 'Without transparency in the ad ecosystem, even pro-climate companies are financing the problem.'
What makes these threats uniquely difficult to manage is their elasticity. Narratives stretch across borders and markets, praised in one country and vilified in another. Social media and generative AI accelerate the spread. What once took months to build can now metastasize in hours.
A Coordinated Global Response Emerges
This evolving landscape has not gone unnoticed by the international community. In an unprecedented move, the United Nations, together with UNESCO, the UNFCCC, and the Brazilian COP30 Presidency, has launched the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change. Known informally as the 'Mutirão,' the initiative is the first formal attempt to address the integrity of climate information as a matter of global climate governance.
It's four-pillar approach, promoting transparency, building public resilience, holding actors accountable, and strengthening trust in science, reflects what many climate communicators have long argued: that trust and truth are preconditions for progress.
'There is now increasing recognition that we will not be able to achieve internationally agreed climate goals unless we address behaviours in information spaces that are being harnessed to undermine climate action,' Scaddan explains. Ana Toni, chief executive of this year's climate negotiations COP30, has been explicit about the stakes. If disinformation collapses public faith in cooperation, it doesn't just damage reputations, it breaks the foundations of climate governance.
The Business Case For Truth
For business leaders, the temptation might be to see this as a political issue. In reality, the business case for engaging in information integrity is not only reputational, it is a strategic and economic imperative.
Disinformation devalues ESG as an asset class. It casts doubt on the credibility of climate risk disclosures and it deters investment in clean technologies and infrastructure. It also allows laggards and bad actors to weaponize confusion against their more ambitious competitors. That itself needs to be addressed, as Buchan says, "Don't just correct the facts, expose the incentives.'
Businesses may have difficulty connecting disinformation campaigns, which may be seen as primarily a communications challenge, to risks related to their operations and revenue. Scaddan warns, 'One area that may be overlooked is how climate disinformation is often used as a wedge issue to exacerbate polarization and disrupt societies. This impacts democratic processes such as elections and has a range of implications for peaceful, stable economies, which directly impact consumers and business.'
What does leadership look like in this context? It means preparing not just climate transition plans but communications resilience strategies.
'Every organization needs proactive planning to ensure it can maintain relevance, effectiveness and trust during times of increased risk, crisis or disruption,' Scaddan says. That includes aligning sustainability messaging with lived experience and talking about energy security, jobs and health, not just carbon accounting or net zero. Dr. Bertley adds, 'We can't just keep talking about CO₂. It doesn't mean anything to most people. We need analogies that land, that resonate.'
As the world heads toward COP30 in Belém, one message is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: climate action depends on trust. And in this climate, defending the truth against misinformation may be the most important leadership test of all.