In 2021 I submitted an ethics complaint at RELX/Elsevier, along with an associated report that was drafted with the input of a sustainability journal editor. The climate science revealed significant disconnect between the company's sustainability pledges and statements and the fossil fuel expanding aspects of the business. I requested the company address this word-deed misalignment so it would not misrepresent the business, its customers, or the climate science. As HR was informed, I never heard from a knowledgable and independent investigator. Instead, communications restrictions were placed on me that hindered my ability to inform colleagues about RELX's misrepresentations. Rather than acknowledging that the company was obligated to cease making false and misleading claims, management falsely maintained that the issue being raised was simply option-based claims about what actions RELX should take to address the climate crisis; the tactic of management claiming to not understanding the nature of the ethics complaint continued for years, and I repeatedly raised this additional ethics concern with my manager. Additionally, interactions with Corporate Responsibility representatives generated no clarity about how much larger the projected loss of life would need to be in order for RELX to cease activities supporting global fossil fuel expansion efforts; this generated concerns that RELX is failing its duty to perform and act on human rights due diligence processes, a minimum requirement of its UN Global Compact membership.

I formed an employee advocacy group that included editors at The Lancet, The Lancet Planetary Health, and One Earth. We submitted a new report to leadership in September 2021 observing that RELX is practicing "climate denial" and that its actions demonstrated that it was unmoved by the prospect of the world overshooting the 1.5°C warming target. We requested that RELX present a timeline for dissolving activities supporting fossil fuel expansion, resolve its word-deed misalignments, and that Cell Press' management team answer various pressing questions. These requests went unanswered. RELX was misrepresenting the actions of its fossil fuel industry customers, and falsely claiming paper, travel, and waste are RELX's largest largest negative impacts; yet RELX Compliance and Ethics officers concluded RELX was not making any false or misleading claims. They refused to provide any evidence to substantiate such a conclusion, and pointed to the company's climate action program to provide clarity; the employee heading that inititative repeatedly refused over an extended period to provide any research that would render RELX's claims to not be false or misleading. She instead expressed her disappointment that employees didn't choose to focus on the company's positive impacts. She was unwilling to provide any evidence to support company messaging that oil major customers are transitioning, are "heavily motivated" to do so, or that there's room in the carbon budget for the expansion plans that RELX supports. Both she and RELX Compliance were also unable or unwilling to disclose what RELX's ethics code actually prohibits.

Due to concerns about far-reaching public health impacts, I was compelled to make the media aware of RELX's actions, something management would make clear they suspected me of and disapproved of. In March 2022, RELX Compliance remains dismissive of additional ethics concerns and is unwilling to clarify why the ethics code prohibition on false or misleading statements is not being applied "to marketing statements or our environmental pledges." Following this, the next report focused on RELX's greenwashing practices. This resulted in a new communications restriction. Employees were pressured by management to end their independent advocacy, refrain from describing the company as generating "misinformation," and to maintain a positive attitude about RELX's business decisions. As I'd report to the editor-in-chief ofThe Lancet, the fact that oil majors are inhibiting an energy transition was dismissed as ‘a difference of opinion.’ Leadership expressed no interest in addressing the management and greenwashing issues raised, despite the report noting RELX's intimidation tactics and an unwillingness to define what its ethics code prohibits. HR was asked to help employees understand the nature of the company's use of an inconsistent moral framework, but no information was provided. A manager informed me that she was serving the function of protecting me from being retaliated against; I would report this to RELX Compliance as being an aspect of the company maintaining an unhealthy work environment.  

Another group report was drafted in September 2022. It contained the insights of researchers and customers. It concluded company support for fossil fuel expansion generates complicity in "crimes against humanity." The editor-in-chief ofThe Lancet made it known that he was directly pressured to remove his name from the report. Management blocked its distribution, partially under the false premises that the company's only policy is that it cares about environmental issues, that fossil fuel expansion being served is needed to avoid poverty, and that the company does not promote fossil fuel development. Elsevier had just joined the OSDU Forum, an industry group dedicated to fossil fuel expansion. Management reasserted dissatisfaction with the 'narrative' that the evidence being presented generated. The longstanding employee request that RELX stop generating false and misleading claims was again reframed as a request that the company move faster to address climate change. An editor at One Earth was warned that management was citing him as backing up the company's claims; this was an editor who'd contributed to multiple employee reports and whose journal publishes insights that contradict some of RELX's messaging.

On October 12, 2022, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Scientist for Global Responsibility (SGR) launched a petition. They accused the company of greenwashing by "making vocal pledges to climate-friendly compacts like the UN Race to Zero program and the UN Global Compact" while "perpetuating and enabling a fossil fuel economy" and serving "the expansion of oil and gas extraction."

At that time, various company managers continued to refuse to provide any evidence that would suggest there’s room in the carbon budget for RELX’s actions to be considered consistent with its sustainability-oriented messaging and pledges. On October 13, 2022, I sent an email to all the CEOs at RELX. I reminded them that scientists “concluded many years ago that most known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground,” and that I was being “singled out” for my role in an employee group that is highlighting RELX “products and services that directly facilitate fossil fuel expansion.” I reminded them that such actions neglect policies to “cease activity with adverse climate change-related human rights impacts which may be directly linked to our operations, products or services; Obtain free, prior, and informed consent from potentially impacted people prior to taking actions likely to have climate-related human rights impacts; Be committed to the prevention of pollution.” I reported that “Ethics, Compliance, [Corporate Responsibility], and others in leadership regarding concerns brought by employees at dozens of our journals—including editors at premium brand journals such as the Lancet, the Lancet Planetary Health, and One Earth—continues to be that company CEOs have concluded accurately that facilitating fossil fuel expansion does not violate our pledges.” I invited them to elaborate on how they reached their conclusions, share which publics were consulted prior to engaging in these activities, and explain how facilitating expansion has been determined to be within the bounds of a 'precautionary approach' to environmental challenges, constitutes an 'acceptable level of risk,' and is in line with various other sustainability commitments and objectives.

I noted that RELX evolving “such that at some point in the future we’ll be operating consistently with what the science says is necessary right now, does not appear to live up to our statements or ethical standards—and neglects that the existing timeframe is a near-future in which these crucial goals are no longer achievable.” I suggested that “we should also aim for the removal of restrictions on disclosing this activity to stakeholders, especially current and prospective employees who come from diverse backgrounds. Workers should be given the opportunity to refrain from contributing to any organization that does not harmonize with their values; any informed individual who sees the claim, among many others, that we are ‘in line with the scale of action deemed necessary by science’ are being compelled to hold false beliefs about the business. Further, those familiar with RELX’s latest pledge, that we will not facilitate fossil fuel expansion after June 15, 2023 (UN Race to Zero), are being led to think that this will indeed be the case.” In response, a company manager again forbid the sharing of the latest employee report, one that pointed out RELX's Race to Zero responsibility to stop supporting new oil and gas projects. The entire advocacy group was subsequently subject to new communications restrictions regarding the ethical issues being raised.

On October 14, I reported that management was pressuring employees to disengage from their advocacy group. I also stated that "the inaccurate claims I’m hearing strain any credibility that there is any purpose to these [meetings] except to try to get me to get behind the company’s 'narrative'... and simply accept these greenwashing practices, something that is counter to the company’s stated ethics."

At the end of October, new ethics concerns were brought to Compliance and Ethics officers regarding management's misrepresentations and intimidation; these were dismissed on the false grounds that they'd already been addressed. In raising issues through another ethics reporting channel, I was told it simply wasn't palatable for RELX to admit its misalignment with its messaging, and I should focus on the latest round of communications restrictions that had been placed on me and other advocates. I followed up with observations that RELX’s response to employee concerns has been to “expand these [greenwashing] practices” and is “violating many pledges,” such as a failure to remove from the market “products with potentially adverse climate change-related human rights impacts…[and are] associated with threats of serious or irreversible damage.” I reported RELX’s failure to “engage in stakeholder consultations with potentially impacted populations,” and has failed to obtain “prior, and informed consent from those potentially impacted by actions likely to have climate-related human rights impacts.” I reported management’s refusal to “correct a misleading statement made to the entire Cell Press community that dismissed the calls of climate scientists regarding the severe impacts of new fossil fuel projects.”

I also explained that employee concerns have been “dismissed as being separate from the company’s ‘narrative'" and that "leadership is inaccurately communicating that the science is calling for the immediate end to the use of fossil fuels rather than an end to starting new projects.” I reported I’d been told “there’s an ‘allowance’ before fossil fuel-expanding activities need to cease,” that RELX “does not even promote fossil fuel extraction,” and other positions that are not “reflective of the reality of our business, policies, or science.” I reported that I was informed RELX only supports “fossil fuel companies that have net zero pledges" but that such pledges "have been entirely discredited in the journals we publish.” Additionally, I noted that RELX “has made statements that indicate support for fossil fuel expansion is not taking place, with [Race to Zero] pinpointing June of [2023] as the cutoff for any such activity.”

I also noted that I was absorbing “insults and baseless claims,” with employee efforts to have RELX “credibly address the word-deed misalignment” being dismissed as “disingenuous.” I reported that employees “continue to stand by [the reports],” which include “the scientific community regarding the company’s actions and self-assessments as being undeniably wrong.” I also stated that “employees at different levels have expressed apprehension about making that same decision [to speak up] due to concerns about retaliation.” All of these management practices at RELX raised no  flags as to being antithetical to RELX's ethical commitments and resulted in no known corrective actions to make employees feel safe to speak up.

As the company continued to support "the worldwide rush to explore for and produce as much oil and natural gas as possible," management had internally asserted that there's isn't consensus that fossil fuel expansion is objectionable and that there aren't alternatives. The company was in various forms implying its actions were consistent with global sustainability efforts and claiming that its primary negative impacts come from paper, travel, waste, and energy use. It was simultaneously generating severe misconceptions about its fossil fuel industry customers, supporting the idea that they have credible transition plans and are "energy companies" moving off of fossil fuels. The company had shifted from marketing their journals as tools for hydrocarbon expansion, to now having missions aligned with the net zero target; yet some journals were still actively seeking content that removes barriers to fossil fuel expansion. Such content was appearing in far more journals than claimed by management—which insisted there are only a handful of journals that simply "talk about" fossil fuels. At this time, RELX messaging included the  claim that fossil fuel expansion in the form of LNG (natural gas) is a building block for change in decarbonizing the worldwide economy. RELX was also amplifying Shell's call for expanding natural gas resources—defined as "clean"—for the purpose of achieving net zero. Other company messaging noted that “changing the emotional perception of fossil fuels” could help correct “underinvestment in fossil fuel E&P [exploration and production].”

Human rights advocates explain the complaint that resulted in the UN’s warnings to Saudi Aramco and businesses facilitating its fossil fuel expansion - and that "contributing to climate breakdown through fossil fuel expansionism could be a breach of international human rights law."

“Businesses, in order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, have to do something called human rights due diligence…Where there has been impacts on peoples human rights...then they have to try and do something to remedy that problem."

"This human rights due diligence process is now becoming binding hard law in the EU under the corporate sustainability due diligence directive.” 

“Corporates ought to be identifying climate change as one of the things that they’re involved with.” OSDU Forum member Saudi Aramco’s business plans “will see it increasingly contribute to climate human rights harms.”