Are Charities Becoming Tools for Polluters’ Greenwashing?

by Posted on

Foodthink Says

“Humanity’s unsustainable production and consumption patterns are pushing the planet to the brink of disaster,” is the opening line used by the United Nations to introduce Zero Waste Day, observed annually on 30 March. For urban residents in China, the single-use plastic waste accumulating in daily life is largely tied to food consumption, particularly food delivery. In fact, the food delivery industry has single-handedly spawned a colossal “waste sector.” Beneath its rapid year-on-year growth lies a vast trail of single-use plastic waste, making it a significant driver of environmental pollution and a threat to consumer health.

Who is to hold corporations accountable for cutting pollution and safeguarding consumer health? Beyond government bodies, civil society organisations acting in the public interest can play a crucial role. Through research and advocacy, they can expose corporate pollution, urge firms to curb their environmental footprint, and hold them accountable for remediation. Yet Foodthink has noticed that among the environmental groups receiving funding from food delivery giant Meituan, some are specifically dedicated to reducing plastic waste. These organisations once levelled heavy criticism at the food delivery industry, publishing data-driven analyses that named specific companies. However, over the past two years, these voices have grown increasingly quiet.

This compels us to ask: when polluting companies begin funding environmental organisations, what does it mean for those groups? And what does it signify for the environmental issues we care about?

In episode 46 of the “Food Talk” podcast, we invited two seasoned environmental activists, Sun Shan and Ma Tianjie, to delve into these questions. Taking this as a starting point, we further explore the complex dynamics between the corporations that generate environmental and social problems, the NGOs striving to solve them, and their intricate relationships with government bodies, the media, and the public. This article is adapted from that episode.

●Click the image to listen to this episode.

This Episode’s Guest

Sun Shan

An ecological practitioner and co-founder of the Shanshui Conservation Center. She began farming in 2015 to experience firsthand the interconnectedness of land, agriculture, food, ecology, and self-sufficient (homesteading) living. Now based in Canada, she runs “Chi Garden,” an ecological farm and fermentation kitchen. She attended the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Colombia (2024) and the 15th COP in Montreal (2022).

 

This Episode’s Guest

Ma Tianjie

A freelance writer specialising in environmental issues. He has been engaged in environmental advocacy since 2004 and previously served as a director for an international environmental organisation. He has long focused on environmental governance in China, contributing analysis and commentary to various media outlets. His latest book, *In Search of Green China* (追寻绿色中国), was published this February.

 

 

This Episode’s Host

Tian Le

Founding editor at Foodthink and convener of the Beijing Organic Farmers Market. He stopped ordering takeaways due to an intolerance for single-use waste and the exploitation of delivery riders, yet he still wrestles with guilt and frustration over the environmental and social impacts of his everyday consumption.

 

 

I. Polluting Corporations: Why Fund Environmental Organisations?

Tianle: I’d like to begin by asking our two guests: as companies like Meituan begin to fund charitable initiatives, does this risk undermining the independence and operational approach of environmental organisations campaigning for waste reduction and against single-use plastics?Ma Tianjie: In my view, the Meituan case highlights just how complex the relationship has become between corporations, environmental NGOs, and environmental issues. It’s difficult to simply label this shift as either positive or negative. When I first entered the field over twenty years ago, the dynamic between environmental NGOs and polluting companies was much more straightforward. NGOs and the media would call out a polluter, the company would be pressured into making changes or issuing pledges, and the matter would be considered settled. Today, having been tested by various social movements, corporations have evolved how they tackle these issues. Rather than merely firefighting as issues emerge, they now think several steps ahead: setting up their own foundations or providing grants to existing ones, thereby directly engaging with environmental initiatives.Corporations seamlessly reposition themselves as part of the so-called solution.In this context, environmental organisations must maintain a critical perspective. They need to carefully scrutinise whether corporate-led solutions are genuinely advancing the cause or merely serving corporate interests.

● Click the image to access the Phase I announcement for ‘SEE Zero-Waste Planet — Qingshan Foundation’s Clean Nature Action’, funded by Meituan.
● The second phase of this Meituan-funded project explicitly prioritises ‘zero-waste community development’ and ‘plastic reduction initiatives’ as its core components, making its aim quite clear. Click to view the funding details.
Sun Shan: This trend is also evident internationally. Take the UN Biodiversity Summit as an example. Biodiversity used to be a fairly peripheral topic; in 2022, only 700 companies participated. By 2024, that figure had risen to 3,000, including a significant number from the food and farming sector, making it the most corporate-engaged edition in the summit’s history.Private sector engagement in ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) has deepened considerably in recent years. Companies are not only proactively investing in training and hosting forums, but also attempting to define their own ecological impact and set industry standards. Their operational methods have become quite sophisticated.Many NGO researchers have moved into corporate social responsibility departments, helping businesses address these issues with greater expertise.Tian Le: I think these companies are actually adopting a principle we environmentalists use: the precautionary principle. They may not fully grasp what their actual problems are, but rather than face criticism from the public, media, and environmental groups, they prefer to position themselves as problem-solvers and set their own agenda. We must approach this shifting dynamic between corporations and environmental NGOs with caution.Our concern is that when polluting companies fund the very NGOs that ought to be holding them to account, that funding could dilute the NGOs’ critical voice and oversight capacity, undermining their ability to drive more effective action on specific issues.

II. The APP Paper Controversy and Independent Environmental NGOs: Then and Now

Tian Le: Actually, a similar incident occurred more than twenty years ago. A multinational corporation called APP was exposed by environmental groups for its deforestation activities in Yunnan. At the time, the company also attempted to ‘greenwash’ itself by funding environmental organisations, but this met with widespread resistance. This case remains a highly classic example in China of the standoff between grassroots environmental groups and multinational corporations. Tian Jie, could you briefly outline what happened back then and how the environmental organisations responded? Ma Tianjie: Yes, it was a scandal around 2004. It began when APP planted a series of pulpwood forests in Yunnan. Greenpeace carried out field investigations and discovered that these plantations had actually been established on land cleared of primary forests. That same year, Greenpeace released an investigative report exposing APP’s deforestation practices. Subsequently, an investigation by the National Forestry Administration also confirmed that deforestation had taken place. Numerous environmental organisations following the case united to boycott APP. This included a grassroots body called the Zhejiang Restaurant Association, which called on all its members to boycott APP products. APP’s response was to sue the Zhejiang Restaurant Association for defamation. However, facing intense public pressure, they decided to drop the lawsuit just a day before the trial. Grassroots organisations subsequently continued to investigate APP’s illegal activities in Yunnan and Hainan, engaging in a years-long tug-of-war with the company and continually mounting pressure. The ultimate outcome was that APP made an international commitment to halt the destruction of natural forests.

● In 2004, environmental groups unfurled banners at a deforestation site to protest against APP Group’s illegal logging in Yunnan and the planting of fast-growing eucalyptus plantations. Image source: Greenpeace

Tianle: There was a brief episode back then: just as environmental groups were criticising Golden Tree Paper for its deforestation, the company suddenly donated a sum of money to a major national environmental organisation in China to fund their annual conference.

Ma Tianjie: Exactly. It was a public relations strategy: if you claim I am not environmentally friendly, I will donate to environmental groups, join green initiatives, and cultivate a greener corporate image. However, this sponsorship sparked immense controversy within that organisation; many members believed they should not have accepted the funds.

Tianle: Ms Liao Xiaoyi, founder of ‘Global Village’—a prominent local environmental organisation in China at the time—was serving as a council member of that alliance. She published an open letter resigning from the post, citing her objection to accepting such sponsorship. It is evident that twenty years ago, environmental groups here could unite to hold polluting companies to account. Confronted with corporate attempts to buy them off, people held firm to their principles; at least someone would speak up, drawing support and praise from peers. Yet in recent years, it appears the profession has lost interest in such matters, with hardly anyone discussing how to handle funding from polluting enterprises. How do you believe this shift came about?

● In November 2004, the Zhejiang Province Caterers Association called on hotels across the province to boycott paper products from the Golden Tree Group (APP) and its associated items. The Golden Tree Group subsequently filed a lawsuit against the association, alleging defamation. The association then received joint support from twelve environmental organisations. Source: Paper Industry Network

III. The Dilemma Facing NGOs

Sun Shan: There is another reason why the boycott by civil society groups was relatively successful in the APP case Tianjie just mentioned. APP is a multinational corporation, and its deforestation practices across various countries have been thoroughly documented on the international stage. Domestic environmental organisations in China have built upon that groundwork to oppose the company’s polluting activities. But turning back to the Meituan example, currently, whether it is civil institutions or regulatory bodies in China, there is a glaring lack of analysis, oversight, and supervision regarding a company’s footprint across multiple dimensions. For instance, we lack a database to trace where companies fall short on social, environmental, and labour rights. In 2004, China’s grassroots environmental movement was burgeoning. We saw the emergence of several leading figures and a number of noteworthy public campaigns. Yet twenty years on, the growth of environmental organisations and the rise in environmental awareness among the general public bear little relation to the sheer scale of China’s economic expansion. Meanwhile, civil society remains structurally stunted. Although the capacity of civil institutions has improved, it simply cannot keep pace with the scale of our economic growth, escalating pollution, and other mounting social issues. Non-profit organisations lack not only vital funding but also the fertile ground required for civil society to mature, leaving us without the necessary capacity to address social problems that are growing increasingly complex and concealed. Meituan is itself entangled in numerous labour and pollution issues, yet we have not given these matters sufficient discussion. In fact, people even feel compelled to rationalise accepting its funding. To my mind, this is a rather disheartening state of affairs.

●Issues surrounding food delivery platforms regarding labour conditions, food safety, and environmental impact have already drawn widespread public attention, with film directors even turning their cameras to these subjects. Yet to date, Meituan’s algorithmic systems, operational mechanisms, and the social consequences they trigger remain a “black box” to the general public, and are not yet fully understood. Image source: Feature film *Another Hopeful Day*

Tianle:  Yes. While economic growth has been rapid, funding and support for genuine environmental organisations have not increased proportionally.

Ma Tianjie:  Exactly. I’d like to add another point: these situations aren’t just a two-sided matter between corporations and civil society organisations. Regulators should be part of the equation, yet as the “elephant in the room,” they’ve effectively gone missing from the discussion. What role is the regulatory system actually playing? I think that question needs to be examined too. A clear trend at the moment is that companies are wielding increasing influence over rule-making within regulatory frameworks, particularly in international negotiations, where industry associations and corporate coalitions are highly active. They have a keen nose for shifts in regulation. The moment they sense the rules of the game might change, they step in early to steer new frameworks in a direction that benefits their business models. They engage with considerable professionalism, promoting “evidence-based decision-making” while opposing the “precautionary principle.” In practice, this means arguing that if the evidence isn’t yet conclusive, regulators shouldn’t rush to impose bans but should instead wait for a few more years of study.

Tianle:  This dynamic plays out in domestic policy-making as well. Governments aren’t entirely independent when drafting regulatory policies. Corporate influence is growing, while the voice of environmental groups and other bodies representing the public interest is weakening. Take the food and agriculture sector, for instance. Corporations are directly involved in setting many food safety standards. They can lobby governments to amend regulations, tilting policy in their favour. On the side of consumers and smallholder farmers, however, there is simply no counterweight capable of matching corporate influence. Standards pushed by large enterprises often sideline small farmers. For organisations championing their cause, intervening in policy formulation is fraught with difficulty: there’s little funding, and the research and lobbying process is incredibly time-consuming. Consequently, we see corporate public relations and agenda-setting capabilities growing stronger. This includes using media channels to steer public opinion, packaging favourable narratives as “science” or “common sense” so they are gradually accepted by the public. Meanwhile, grassroots environmental and charitable forces are increasingly marginalised. Too often, they are left to pick up the pieces only after the rules are set and policies have taken effect. The balance of power has become profoundly skewed, and the rules of the game are steadily tilting in favour of large corporations.

● For instance, in 2023, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) published a draft for public consultation of the *Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety in the Market Sale of Edible Agricultural Products*. The definition of edible agricultural products excluded the term ‘dried’, meaning farmers could not sell their own dried produce directly without first obtaining a complex and costly food production licence. In response, Foodthink partnered with farmers, sellers, cooperatives, scholars, non-governmental organisations and consumers to submit a set of amendment proposals to SAMR. The authority ultimately accepted our recommendations in the final regulation. Click the image to learn more about this process.

IV. How NGOs ‘Dance with Wolves’

Ma Tianjie: As we just discussed, over the past two decades the ecology of the entire sector has shifted dramatically, particularly in corporate form and structure. Take Meituan, for example: the impact of its practices is not a case of a single, isolated pollution incident. Rather, its algorithms and underlying logic exert a systemic effect on the environment, making it considerably harder to define corporate responsibility. Meanwhile, companies are actively positioning themselves as part of the solution, partnering with environmental organisations to shape the agenda around ecological issues. When NGOs “dance with the wolf,” they must carefully consider who is setting the pace and who truly holds the reins. First, independent environmental groups should subject corporate initiatives to critical scrutiny, and then establish clear boundaries and rules for their own engagement. Some international organisations with extensive experience in corporate campaigning have institutionalised such guardrails. For instance, they may be willing to share a venue, participate in the same platform or initiative, or engage in dialogue, but they will draw the line at accepting corporate funding. NGOs should also consider how their involvement can steer companies in a more constructive direction, and what deeper, systemic influence they can exert over corporate behaviour.

● Meituan routinely leans on figures to underscore its social contribution—particularly in creating jobs for delivery riders, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and enhancing consumer services—while carefully sidestepping the negative environmental and social footprints it leaves behind. Source: Meituan Q2 2020 Financial Report

Tianle: I even have a concern: if things continue like this, will polluting companies and certain environmental NGOs end up colluding? As an environmental organisation, our original goal is for pollution to be completely eradicated. Ideally, we should be “out of a job”. But the reality is that some companies continue to create pollution and rake in massive profits, while diverting a tiny fraction of those profits to fund environmental groups to carry out superficial green initiatives, such as litter picking or recycling drives. This way, the companies maintain a positive public image, and the NGOs can keep their operations running with that funding. But the problem is that when environmental groups are busy collecting bottles, they have no time to ask where those bottles came from in the first place, or why waste is piling up. The result is a strange vicious cycle: the pollution isn’t truly solved, the companies carry on business as usual, and the NGOs end up acting as nothing more than tools for corporate greenwashing.

Sun Shan: Yes, it’s actually quite alarming. It’s even more glaring at international negotiation venues. Outside the conference halls, corporations and industry associations are setting up booths and hosting events. The whole scene feels like a carnival, drenched in corporate eco-promotion. But how much of that “green” is actually greenwashing, window-dressing, or outright fakery? Too many NGOs use these platforms to lend credibility to these companies, effectively polishing their green image. Meanwhile, genuinely “deep green” environmental groups—such as smaller organisations backing Indigenous land rights struggles and environmental justice campaigns—are completely marginalised and have virtually no voice in these spaces.

Survival is certainly no easy task for civil society organisations, but regardless of how the external landscape shifts, we still need to periodically turn back and ask ourselves: What values are we truly upholding? Whose side are we really on? Standing with victims, smallholder farmers, landless communities, and Indigenous peoples is certainly harder now, because solidarity among the marginalised is inherently difficult. But if NGOs aren’t standing with the vulnerable, who else should they stand with? I believe the fundamental stance of any NGO must be to stand with the vulnerable, with Mother Earth, and with the interests of the planet. Yet today, that line has grown dangerously blurred. Corporations are now talking about biodiversity and pitching their own “solutions”. Is this progress or a step backward? NGOs need to scrutinise these claims—distinguishing what’s genuine from what’s not, what’s merely performative, and what actually tackles the root causes. But this crucial work of discernment is still too rarely discussed within the sector. It needs to become the most openly and frankly debated issue on our agenda.

Tianle: You just mentioned greenwashing, faux-eco claims, and outright fakery. In reality, there are countless false solutions circulating right now. We often say you cannot expect to solve a problem using the very same logic that created it. Foodthink actually uses a specific tag for this category of initiatives: “false solutions”. Take Meituan, for instance. They boast that by introducing a “no cutlery required” option on their platform, they reduce waste generation by a certain amount annually. But the reality is that Meituan’s order volume grows every year, and the absolute quantity of waste produced surges in tandem. Compared to this massive influx of new waste, the disposable cutlery saved is negligible. Furthermore, in real-world scenarios, even when users opt out, merchants will still send cutlery anyway—either fearing negative reviews or simply lacking the time to check those preferences. That is a false solution in practice. So, how should consumers and the public learn to discern these?

● In its 2023 corporate social responsibility report, Meituan claimed that “over 400 million food delivery users selected the ‘no cutlery’ option”. Yet in practice, numerous consumers report that they still receive cutlery despite making this selection. Image source: Meituan 2023 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
Ma Tianjie:  Leaving consumers to judge for themselves is practically impossible. Even experts sometimes struggle to disentangle what’s genuine from what’s false, to discern the nuances and scale of the issue, let alone the general public. This makes the role of intermediaries—media outlets, non-profit organisations, and information platforms—critically important. Companies like ByteDance have already assumed a central role in how information flows. Driven by AI and algorithms, information dissemination has become more efficient and far-reaching, but also increasingly susceptible to manipulation. These companies’ algorithms ultimately dictate what the public sees and what information influences them. In such an environment, it is incredibly difficult to separate fact from fiction and provide genuinely accurate information.Tianle:  This is precisely why professionals in the environmental sector and journalism need to be clear about their mandate. News is, at its core, a product of public interest. If we take on the responsibility of safeguarding that interest, we must uphold our professionalism, independence, and integrity, ensuring that what we disseminate is both accurate and comprehensive.

Sun Shan:  It’s undoubtedly a tough challenge. I know of journalists who, unable to publish full reports in mainstream outlets, now run their own podcasts or write for independent platforms, doing everything they can to get the facts out. You may not be an influencer, and your audience might be small, but if you hold onto the truth, you owe it to yourself to speak up.

Tianle: The harsh reality, however, is that a great deal of contemporary media coverage has effectively morphed into public relations material. We’ve recently observed that perhaps over 70% of so-called “in-depth reports” on agriculture and food are actually commissioned content paid for by corporate PR departments. Companies bankroll these pieces to craft narratives that highlight their positive contributions and polish their public image, while sidestepping their core issues. The firewall between editorial and advertising departments has all but collapsed. Serious journalists are routinely expected to write sponsored content, and are even tasked with making it read like investigative news. That said, some outlets continue to hold the line. For instance, Renwu magazine published an investigative piece that laid bare the predicament and minutiae of delivery riders trapped by algorithms, profoundly shaping public and policymaker perceptions of the issue. Not long ago, Southern Weekly released an investigation into carbon credits, exposing the sheer absurdity of “selling air” and the rampant fraud within carbon trading markets. Yet, reports of this calibre are becoming increasingly rare.

In the first half of this episode, the two guests and the host discussed at length the challenges faced by non-profit organisations when corporations step into environmental and social issues. So, how might we envision, advocate for, and actively build a better society? Be sure to watch this space for Foodthink’s update next week, where the three will delve into a range of successful case studies from both home and abroad. Stay tuned.
Concept & Planning: TianlePodcast Production: Xiao Putao

Transcript: Maomao

Editing: Yuyang, Tianle

Published by Foodthink