Questions

Unanswered questions

The following are some examples of questions sent by individuals and groups at the company to leaders and groups of managers across Elsevier and RELX in emails, Meet-Ups, Town Halls, reports, and webinars from 2020-2023. None of these generated answers.
‍

"I’m just lost for words in terms of just how blatant the greenwashing is...They're lying to employees. They're lying to shareholders."

—Dr. Lewis Collins, Editor-in-Chief of One Earth, in a Cell Press call on March 14, 2023.

"A corporate greenwashing initiative."

—Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet, on Elsevier's Internal Climate Board, from which he resigned. Quoted with his permission in an employee report on greenwashing and deceptive management practices at the company.

The following is a statement that was first shared by an Elsevier employee with the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund; it was subsequently sent to RELX Employee Relations on May 3, 2023. No response addressing these concerns was issued:
‍

Retaliatory Management Practices and Suppression of Employee Reports Regarding Climate Denial at Elsevier, 2021-2023

SUMMARY
In 2021, employees at our company and from some of our premier environmental and health publications made Senior Leadership and members of the Board of Directors aware of the fact that the company was misleading stakeholders about certain aspects of the business—as well as the dire implications of business activity facilitating new fossil fuel exploration and development. The company was observed to be neglecting environmental and human rights commitments and promoting statements, pledges, and goals while simultaneously driving actions that the science indicated were needed to have stopped for those statements to be accurate and goals to be realistically met. It is my understanding that leadership responded by neglecting its ethics reporting procedures, by removing or altering marketing materials associated with some of the business activity in question that is still taking place, refusing over the course of 2 years to provide evidence to support all the company’s claims or refute our observations of word-deed misalignment, and criticizing the group for a failure to adhere to the company’s “narrative.” In my experience, the company acted to isolate me—the point person for the employee group; it placed me in meetings with leaders who didn’t care to address the issues being raised, repeatedly attempted to reframe the complaint as one regarding the pace of change, continued to make false and misleading claims about our business, our policies, and the climate science, misrepresented these conversations in order to help justify a 'Final Written Warning', suggested I may be better off working elsewhere, and engaged in what the company defines as prohibited forms of retaliation and harassment (isolating and disparaging an employee, ignoring concerns, failing to address reported code violations, and generating a hostile and intimidating work environment).

‍In April 2021, I filed an ethics complaint based on word-deed misalignment regarding false and misleading claims being made by our company, some originating from policies for which the CEOs are responsible for assuring adherence. It was based on Elsevier and RELX statements and pledges that indicate the company is minimizing our climate impacts in line with the scale of action deemed necessary by science, with aims to achieve an energy transition that holds warming to 1.5°C—goals that require a steep reduction in greenhouse gas emissions this decade and no new fossil fuel projects. Despite these and other pledges, the company appears to be continuing to assist the fossil fuel industry in the global exploration and development of new hydrocarbon resources through some of Elsevier’s products and services.

Reporting procedures, meant to involve the reporter being contacted by an investigator deemed to have “independence, subject matter expertise [and] lack of conflict of interest,” were not observed by me. No one claiming to be such an investigator or with these qualifications has ever contacted me, given “an estimated timeframe to complete the investigation,” reached out so that I would be “notified that the investigation is complete,” (RELX Reporting Concerns Policy), nor assured me that I will “not be retaliated against or victimised because [I] reported a genuine concern to the Company.” (RELX Ethical Leader Toolkit).

Two marketing-oriented calls with RELX Corporate Responsibility representatives and Anne Kitson (SVP & MD Premium Brands, Elsevier) produced the impression, as reported to my manager, that they were unaware of aspects of the business and the climate science covered in my complaint, and generated no information to refute the observations of word-deed misalignment. They instead drew focus to and generated restrictions on activity that had previously been permitted and does not appear to be forbidden to other employees: the use of company IP on internal documents and the internal sharing of paywalled climate research.

I then organized a group of 60 employees who demonstrated interest in being involved in contributing to a report on word-deed misalignment, arranging 3 meetings to discuss observed issues, sharing with everyone a draft of a report in August, requesting and incorporating feed back, and then sharing a final version with the group in September to ensure all were on board with being associated with its observations. We submitted the report (Responsible Growth Report, or RGR) in September 2021, highlighting “substantial barriers in place that refute the company’s claim that we’re properly adhering to [our] policies” and concluding that our company is practicing “climate denial.” This report was backed by editors from over 20 premium brand journals including the Lancet, the Lancet Planetary Health, and One Earth. My manager told me that she would “reinforce the point that this [report] comes from a group and also see how [Anne Kitson] would like to approach it.” Despite the report indicating that “ignoring employee concerns is a prohibited form of retaliation,” she did not follow up with me and the group received no response to the questions or requests submitted in the report.

I made genuine attempts to understand the company’s position that there is no business activity that renders any statements or policies to be false or misleading: In asking RELX’s Global Environment Manager—who had declared that the company is policy-compliant—what it is that our policies prohibit, he offered no reply. In requesting information to refute observations of word-deed misalignment, neither RELX’s Chief Ethics Officer nor the Chief Compliance Officer would offer any. In seeking clarification about how the company concluded it is abiding by the environmental policies we set, the RELX Director of Corporate Responsibility discontinued communication. In being referred to Elsevier’s Global Head Sustainability, I communicated that “it’s not our intention to minimize work being done across the business. We think the company already does a lot to highlight that work. However, we do think current progress—such as pledges and travel reductions—should be viewed in the context that the company is comfortable continuing business activity that aims to make the 1.5 degree target impossible to hit…Do you think those at the RELX level are misinterpreting the science or our policies?” No reply was given. On December 2, 2021, I reported to our Chief Ethics Officer that there had yet to be communications “that addressed the substance of the reports,” but I received no follow-up. In a May 2022 email to Elsevier’s EVP & Chief Human Resources Officer, I noted inconsistencies and confusion about how the company is choosing to define terms in our policies; I shared that it would be constructive to “understand how the company is choosing to qualify and define various words, communications, and actions, and I’d be curious to know about the proper ways to do this.” I received no reply.

After the group (Responsible Growth Report Committee, or RGRC) submitted a Spring 2022 report raising concerns of deceptive management practices, Anne Kitson reached out to many members of the RGRC to falsely claim that “many different leadership team members have already engaged with Kip on the points he is raising, including some in considerable detail”—a patently untrue claim that disturbingly called into question my honesty and integrity—and encouraged members to disengage from our group. This action had serious consequences on my psychological well-being, as discussed infra.

On May 9, 2022, I contacted Elsevier’s Global Head Sustainability, flagging “non-transparent dialogue focused on deflection. These types of stakeholder management tools make it hard to build the trust at Elsevier which I think you rightly regard as important for accelerating climate action.” I asked to be provided with the research that Elsevier’s CEO is using to justify the company’s sustainability claims. The reply did not address any of these things, so I again asked that she “please share the research being referenced by the company that has led the CEOs to conclude that the business units are in fact adhering to these policies.” She responded over three months later without providing any research. I requested again that this information please be provided, but none has ever been.

During this time, the company acted to isolate me from the RGRC in a series of calls in which I observed new ethics code violations:
‍

o   In a May 9, 2022, call with Laura Hassink, the Managing Director of STMJ, and Anne Kitson, I reminded them that the topic being raised by employees is extensive word-deed misalignment, something Anne explicitly stated she did not want to discuss. They made false and misleading claims about the science (new fossil fuel projects are required for energy needs), the fossil fuel industry (it’s not inhibiting a transition), and our policies (our policy is to transition), implying ignorance of information that had previously been provided. When I asked in the call what research indicates to the company that continuing to help the fossil fuel industry expand its production is compatible with net zero goals, Anne said it’s in our journals; my followup email requested that Anne please share the research she was referring to but this did not result in any materials being sent.

As I related to the RGRC, they criticized our reports for being “independent of [the company’s] narrative.” I was told we should have a “glass-half-full outlook. I noted I’ve been happy to work with anyone and the reports were provided to Sustain to help that group’s efforts, but there’s been continuous deflection and disengagement when addressing parts of the company where there seem to be revenue considerations. I emphasized it’s counterproductive to have these misleading statements/policies on the books, and that there isn’t any sense that the company wants to collaborate on addressing this…I followed up by sending them last year’s reports and indicated my surprise that there’s a lack of awareness of these pledges given that they’re fairly essential to any reading of these reports, as well as to any debates that are being claimed to have taken place within leadership.”

Having been told there was an appetite in the company to sit down with us for honest discussions, Anne and Laura said that they’d circle back in a month or two, but they never did.

o   After the company forbid the RGRC from completing our next report presenting the insights of climate scientists about Elsevier’s word-deed misalignment, Compliance placed new communications restrictions on RGRC members that included a prohibition on using company emails to communicate with external stakeholders about any of these issues and a requirement to obtain consent of employees prior to sending them any materials that reveal our findings. The suppression of our report was followed by a September 19, 2022, call—just me with my manager and Anne Kitson. I explained to Anne for the fourth time that the issue being raised is word-deed misalignment, something she wouldn’t fully commit to understanding, and continued attempts to reframe the issue as being one about our pace of progress. She said the report was blocked due to a “narrative” that suggests we are not aligned with some of our statements, but shared nothing to credibly refute our findings. She instead made what appear to be more false and misleading claims about our policies (our statements simply say that we're concerned about environmental issues), business (we have only seven journals that discuss fossil fuels) and the science (additional fossil fuel projects are required to prevent poverty). As I reported to the RGRC: “I corrected that sentiment, again—that it’s not correct to say the science is saying we need to stop using fossil fuels immediately; it’s saying we need to stop new fossil fuel extraction projects.”

o   I requested of Anne Kitson that the RGRC please be provided with the research being used to substantiate the company’s claims prior to my engaging in any further calls. However, the Managing Director of STMJ, Elsevier’s Global Head Sustainability, and Elsevier’s CCO scheduled a call with me without providing such evidence. I told them repeatedly of this request. I was then asked by the CCO to meet only with him; despite no research being provided to me, it was a request that I felt uncomfortable declining. In a call on October 7, 2022, Elsevier’s CCO falsely claimed we have stopped “as of today” generating products and services that are misaligned with what science says is needed to meet our warming and net zero goals and falsely claimed we’re no longer supporting new fossil fuel infrastructure projects. Yet, later in the call, he said he did not know if we publish papers that advise the fossil fuel industry regarding where to find new resources. The CCO, who is also the co-chair of an external climate board that the company claims are guiding our efforts, dismissed the need to address greenwashing because doing so won’t change our impact on the climate; I noted that this behavior should be addressed because these communications violate our ethics code.
‍

When another call was scheduled by the Managing Director of STMJ and Elsevier’s CCO without providing any requested research, I emailed both of them to say that “it’s unclear why I am being singled out for such discussions and when the company will choose to address the word-deed misalignment and management practices being highlighted by many other stakeholders as inhibiting our climate actions.” I continued:
‍

‍As you know, we have long been calling attention to company policies that state we have been acting in a way that is ‘in line with the scale of action deemed necessary by science’ in support of global efforts to achieve net zero emissions before 2050 and limit warming to be well below 2 degrees Celsius. With scientists having concluded many years ago that most known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic heating, the company offering products and services that directly facilitate fossil fuel expansion means we’re neglecting these and other policies…However, the determination of Ethics, Compliance, CR, and others in leadership regarding concerns brought by employees at dozens of our journals—including editors at premium brand journals such as the Lancet, theLancet Planetary Health, and One Earth—continues to be that company CEOs have concluded accurately that facilitating fossil fuel expansion does not violate our pledges. Other claims from leadership have been that we only have an environmental policy “to transition,” that we don’t promote fossil fuel extraction, and that employee concerns are misleading for being outside the company’s ‘narrative’—none of which are valid or productive.

I’ve copied the CEOs in case they wish 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 went on to suggest actions the company could consider, such as due diligence processes to better ensure we “don’t violate our environmental, ethical, humanitarian, and other policies.” None of the CEOs shared thoughts or information to justify existing claims.

I reported to my manager on October 14, 2022, that I was “being singled out for these [calls] when plenty of other colleagues are concerned about the company’s behavior.” I continued: “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” (a word Anne keeps using) and simply accept these greenwashing practices, something that is counter to the company’s stated ethics and my own...In my first meeting with Anne this year, she claimed we’re meeting our pledges as we just have a policy “to transition,” forcing me to simply resend the exact same materials to them after the meeting. For the next, as you saw, she pivoted to say she doesn’t feel we promote fossil fuel extraction—which no one else in the company is claiming—forcing me to run down a list of things of which she was already aware. I’ve now repeated to her on 4 separate occasions that, while I personally find parts of the business to be unethical, our approach has been to show how the company is misrepresenting itself, and the company—according to our messaging—is committed to addressing this.” Regarding the CCO meeting I reported that he “claims that we’re in compliance with our policies because anything we’re doing that isn’t compliant is being done to fulfill contractual obligations—and that the company ought to do what it has committed to doing (in terms of those business activities, of course). That any company could say it’s aligned with the science so long as any fossil fuel development is contractually required is, of course, absurd.”

That month, some of these new observations of false and misleading statements made by leadership; the failure to address observations of word-deed misalignment made by “experts at our company and the larger scientific community”; and retaliation, harassment, and psychological safety concerns were brought to the attention of the RELX Chief Ethics Officer; the new concerns were determined to not warrant any engagement. Following this, in my yearly review, I reported to my manager that statements being made are not “reflective of the reality of our business, policies, or science” and that the ethics code “explicitly forbids making false statements about the company.” I also communicated that “employees at different levels have expressed apprehension about making that same decision [to speak up] due to concerns about retaliation.” On discussing this, the focus was placed on my manager’s displeasure that the yearly review centered too much on these topics.

On December 19, 2022, I made an inquiry to RELX’s Chief Compliance Officer: “With the company admitting (internally to some) that it has no intention to honor our latest pledge [Race to Zero]—to end our facilitation of fossil fuel expansion by June 15—we’re continuing to deceive customers, investors, current employees, and have been prohibited from disclosing this activity to prospective employees. While it’s the company’s right to do this, stakeholders like me are wondering why and how false claims are determined to be exempt from our ethical commitments around how we achieve our business goals.” With no response offered, I asked my manager on January 5, 2023, to please ask Compliance to answer two questions that may clarify for the RGRC how and why the company allows certain communications and pledges to be exempt from the ethics code’s restrictions:
‍

o The company’s publicly claiming through our Race to Zero membership that by mid-June it will refrain from facilitating fossil fuel expansion, while internally leadership has conceded it will not do this. Why is this deception considered compatible with the ethics code and the Do the Right Thing principles?

‍o Due to the company’s continued facilitation of fossil fuel expansion, there are zero known credible climate scientists who agree with leadership’s claim it is responding to the crisis “at the scale deemed necessary by science.” Leadership has conceded we’re continuing to maintain fossil fuel-expanding commercial activities—despite the objections of the research communities we serve—but simultaneously claiming the business’ climate commitment is “science led”. Why is this deception considered compatible with the ethics code and the Do the Right Thing principles?
‍

Despite later asking HR to also assist, no answers have been provided.

On January 20, 2023, following a request that the company withdraw from the Race to Zero pledge rather than deceive stakeholders, I was issued a Final Written Warning by the VP HR Health Markets & North America, justified in part by the claim that leadership has “attempted to productively engage” with me. In asking to understand what communications “mischaracterized” the company’s efforts, as the Warning states, no examples were offered. In a March 6, 2023 meeting with my manager about this, she said the wording of the Warning—something threatening me with termination—is intentionally vague so it can mean different things to different people and that I shouldn’t expect further clarity. She indicated that the use of different tactics to avoid addressing the topic of word-deed misalignment is not relevant, and said the corporate reality is that not everyone I engage with is going to be“authentic.” She said that it may be true that the company is lying, but that’s a separate issue from the Warning Letter, and that if I’m at a company where I don’t think they’re doing the right thing, then it’s a question of whether it’s a place I want to work. I reported to her, as I had on previous occasions, how upsetting to me the company’s tactics have been.

‍On March 13, 2023, I reached out to the VP HR Health Markets & North America in response to the Warning and the request that I revisit conversations I’ve had to understand the company’s positions. I expressed concerns about the continuation of conflicting and inaccurate claims about the business and science being made by leaders in these conversations, and offered many examples. A week later, I sent her an email providing additional false and misleading claims, and reported the failure of the company to respond to suspected code violations and psychological safety concerns over the past few years. I received no reply. I followed up a month later about the status of the inquiry due to an announcement that she was leaving the company, indicating that employees are still seeing deceptive communications, and have received no reply.

‍PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY
Throughout the past few years, I have repeatedly communicated concerns about psychological safety in our work environment, not just for myself but for others, to which there has not been any engagement from the company: Holding retaliation concerns due to the company’s failure to follow its reporting procedures, the RGRC asked in our Fall 2021 report that Cell Press’ Senior Management Team clarify their understanding of our non-retaliation policy. No response was offered. The concern about the use of retaliation and intimidation was shared in the Spring 2022 report and this received no engagement. In a subsequent call with leadership, I pointed out that the company has repeatedly declined to speak to our policy that it forbids retaliation against employees for raising concerns and that this has people feeling unsafe and targeted. They opted to not address this.

A testimonial that included an editor’s request that the company “stop attacking Kip” was being considered for our Fall 2022 report until we were required not to finish or distribute it. Concerns about psychological safety of employees were then brought to the attention of our Chief Ethics Officer in Fall 2022 through a colleague in Compliance, but she also declined to engage. I have had multiple editors at health and environmental journals tell me they would speak up more but for fear of professional repercussions and, although I have made it a practice to never ask anyone for a reason, I have also had fear of retaliation be cited as the reason for leaving the RGRC. I have repeatedly spoken to my manager, who has told me she can’t “protect” me indefinitely, about the harmful effects that the apparent lying and gaslighting have had on me—especially considering that these tactics are being used to maintain products and services that the climate science associates with deep climate traumas and massive losses of life.

In taking advantage of various mental health services, including one provided by the company, the only viable solution that has been reached to alleviate the mental and physical toll this experience has generated—one suggested by the company—is to reconsider working for Elsevier. My departure from a company to which I have dedicated the past 9+ years of my life should not be the solution to this matter.

The above testimonial has resulted from my having taken extensive time to follow the company’s ethics code guidelines to “speak out for what is right,” to ask questions “if you are not sure how the Code applies,” and to report “any violations or suspected violations that you believe may have occurred.”

‍CONCLUSION
‍As of the date of this document, it is apparent to me that leaders at Elsevier and RELX continue to falsely claim that the IEA and IPCC’s “appropriate scenarios” for a just transition allow for new oil and gas exploration and development—activity that removes realistic pathways to global net zero and the possibility of staying under 1.5°C warming. Leaders point to a scientific “debate” around fossil fuels, but leave out the fact that the debate around new projects has ended. Elsevier remains willing to launch titles that cover fossil fuel exploration and publish extensive technical and geographic guidance for development of new fossil fuel projects across the globe—and in substantially more journals than the few energy titles the company claims have been ‘transitioned.’ Elsevier’s Global Head Sustainability has indicated that papers informing expansion are justified by Elsevier’s commitment to “freedom of expression” and “editorial independence,” and the Managing Director of STMJ has indicated that if we do not publish these types of papers, they will go somewhere else. But this does not address the fact that these products also render an array of company sustainability and human rights pledges—including a stated commitment to a rapid global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—to be either deeply misleading or objectively false. As a concerned employee recently noted for Sustain in March, “My understanding is Elsevier pledged to end support for fossil fuel exploration and expansion in 2021. So I don't understand how we are still launching new titles dedicated to ‘Fossil Fuels - Reserves and Exploration.’”

At RELX’s 2023 AGM in April, RELX’s CFO appears to have misled our investors by indicating that the company has already ‘repurposed’ products and services that are still, in fact, informing new fossil fuel projects. Despite being informed by me in 2021 that our public pledges and goals can only be met “by ceasing investments in new fields” and “stopping production of new reserves,” the CFO neglected to disclose that the broad fossil fuel expansion we still serve—across many more than the 6 journals he focused on—is incompatible with a safe transition.

As both an employee and a shareholder, I find the company’s prolonged and apparent knowing deceptions of workers and investors to be worthy of much wider scrutiny from all stakeholders, especially those suffering “adverse climate change-related human rights impacts…linked to [our] operations, products or services” with whom the company has pledged to engage with in “meaningful consultation.” Since observations of climate denial were raised by employees in 2021, we’ve neglected our commitment to “discontinuing activities with potentially adverse climate change-related human rights impacts,” as the list of “potentially affected stakeholders” we’ve neglected to consult with has continued to grow.

‍Kip Lyall
Cell Press / Cambridge, MA
Wednesday May 3, 2023

Several Statements and Pledges that Elsevier and RELX uphold:
RELX Global Environment Policy; RELX Climate Change Statement; UN Race to Zero; We Are Still In Declaration; The Media Climate Pact; The Climate Pledge; UN Sustainable Development Goals; Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights*; UN Global Compact*

*These collectively establish that we should obtain approval from potentially impacted stakeholders and ascertain acceptability to the public before any products deemed to have potential climate-related human rights impacts are placed on the market. We’ve pledged to discontinue “activities with potentially adverse climate change-related human rights impacts,” to “avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through [our] activities and relationships,” and pledge that lack of scientific certainty is no reason to postpone measures where there are “threats of serious or irreversible damage.”
‍

RELX Environment Manager (2021)

Email following a call that was arranged as part of a dialogue pertaining to an ethics complaint: It seems if taken at face value our policies paint a picture of a company that would not be doing a lot of the things we’ve highlighted. If you don’t regard RELX to explicitly be violating them, do you find any aspects of our stated policies to be misleading in any way?...how large would the cost to lives need to be for RELX to regard the activity as impactful?

Follow-up to the above email: In your judgement, what would [a customer] need to do to cross our threshold of not doing enough to demonstrate a responsible approach to managing environmental impact? What is it our policies prohibit?

RELX Corporate Affairs (2022)

Invitation to collaborate: I think we share your interest in being realistic, and management has thus far been resistant to explaining how it regards the highlighted business activity as offering a realistic pathway to a world that limits warming to 1.5-2 degrees. We welcome insights on this from someone in your position at the company and would be happy to further the discussion.

Senior Elsevier Directors (May 2022)
‍
Follow-up email after a call with managers: I noted that new fossil fuel projects Elsevier is helping accelerate don’t appear conducive to achieving net zero and limiting warming to 1.5-2 degrees. In asking which research we’re looking at when we say we’re science-led in adhering to our climate commitments, you pointed to the science in our titles. Could you please share to which research papers you’re referring—or could you please let me know if that inquiry should be directed towards Peter or someone else? I think knowing this perspective will go a long way in helping to further the discussion and inform any collaborative efforts.
‍
Elsevier CEO (April 2002)
‍
Email: What would go a long way in clearing up some confusion for myself and others is clarification regarding how it is you’re interpreting our environmental policies and climate pledges. With our business goals that entail serving the expansion of the production plans of fossil fuel companies that, if realized, will push the world into a future of extreme heating, how is it that you’re interpreting our pledges to respond credibly to the scale and urgency of the crisis?; how is it that you’re interpreting our pledges to respond credibly to the scale and urgency of the crisis?; to recognize the impact of consumer use of our products and services?; to support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges?; to emphasizing prevention of harm?; to take immediate action where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage?; to ensure no function is conflicting with company sustainability commitments and objectives? It would be helpful to know how it is you don’t consider there to be word-deed misalignment with these and other pledges. Thanks in advance for your time.
‍
RELX CFO (May 2022)
‍
Email: We hope you see addressing these concerns as an opportunity to differentiate ourselves as climate leaders, gain a competitive edge, raise investor confidence, safeguard our reputations, and secure our mission to benefit society. We’d be grateful if you’d be able to provide some insight into what you may be envisioning as appropriate adjustments to the business considering the commitments that we’ve made and the realities of the latest climate science.

Environmental and Corporate Responsibility officers (2021)
‍
Question in a sustainability panel: Observers have noted one reason none of the SDGs are on track is that companies engage with the SDGs by pointing to existing business activities that can be framed as aligning with SDGs, but it does not compel companies such as ours to discontinue activities that make SDG achievement unattainable. How can the SDGs be achieved given this flaw in the framework?

Global Director Sustainability, Elsevier (September 2021)
‍
Email: Do you think those at the RELX level are misinterpreting the science or our policies?

Managing Director STM Journals, Elsevier (May 2022)

Correction request: As you know, not everyone is aware of the latest climate science and the environmental and health hazards associated with the uncovering of additional, unburnable fossil fuels.This makes misstatements around these issues particularly harmful, as they generate a false consciousness in stakeholders regarding what the company currently regards as environmentally responsible behavior and what’s required to properly address this crisis. Given the confusion generated at Cell Press’ Town Hall from the regrettable framing of the need to act on the scientific consensus (halting new fossil fuel projects) as being a call to end the use of fossil fuels, do you think it appropriate to issue a clarifying communication to Cell Press colleagues that corrects this error?

Managing Director STM Journals, Elsevier (October 2022)

‍As we noted in the Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 reports, the company has concluded that our business activities related to the fossil fuel industry—which include the facilitation of new fossil fuel projects—do not render company policy statements to be false or misleading…These company statements are covered in our reports and include the affirmation that our company is responding to the climate crisis at the scale deemed necessary by science to achieve global net zero and warming goals, consideration the impacts of products and services. We also contend in our UNGC self-assessment that we’re ensuring no function is conflicting with sustainability commitments and objectives. In advance of another call with stakeholders in management, I’d like to read and understand, with the help of the RGRC, the research that’s being cited to reach these conclusions.

Managing Director STM Journals, Elsevier (November 2022)

‍Who are the scientists who think the company’s statements and policy claims are being accurately followed and that the continuation of commercial commitments that facilitate fossil fuel expansion in 2022 and beyond render our actions “science led and comprehensive”? Where is the room in the carbon budget?

Elsevier STMJ Meet-Up question; answer promised for the next meeting: One of Elsevier’s top priorities in 2022 is to build trust by partnering with the communities we serve to help them meet their long-term objectives. The Company is currently partnering with communities that are working to solve the climate crisis; we are also helping a fossil fuel industry that is preventing an energy transition as we try to increase their production goals—activity that renders some of our environmental statements false.Given this, how can the Company expect to generate trust?

Global Director Sustainability, Elsevier (May 2022)

Email: Given that the CEOs are responsible for ensuring adherence to our pledges, could you please send us links to the research that [our CEO] is relying on that has led her to conclude that the company is not providing any goods or services we know will cause harm or that have potentially adverse climate change related human rights impacts?

RELX Global Head of Corporate Responsibility
RELX Compliance (December 2022)

Email: While our messaging indicates that the company’s climate actions are“science led” and in line with the scale of action deemed necessary by science, we’ve been unable to find a climate scientist who agrees. Could you help explain why and to what extent these types of marketing statements are exempt from the company’s restrictions on making misleading statements about the company?

Follow up: With the company admitting (internally to some) that it has no intention to honor our latest pledge—to end our facilitation of fossil fuel expansion by June 15—we’re continuing to deceive customers, investors, current employees, and have been prohibited from disclosing this activity to prospective employees. While it’s the company’s right to do this, stakeholders like me are wondering why and how false claims are determined to be exempt from our ethical commitments around how we achieve our business goals.
‍

‍

Managing Director and Senior Vice President, Cell Press and The Lancet (April 2022)
‍
While I’m glad there’s focus on the growth of sustainability research and other beneficial areas, scientists are telling us that there isn’t a pathway to a sustainable future with the realization of the fossil fuel industry’s current production aims—goals that Elsevier is now working to help them exceed. Could you please speak to that? Can you also please share how that ongoing activity can be regarded as being aligned with the language of our environmental pledges?...Do you think addressing these management practices needs to be a part of our climate efforts?

Global Communications, Elsevier (2023)

Email responding to the company’s reply to a Correspondence in the Lancet about Company support for fossil fuels expansion: To what extent have our shareholders approved such [carbon offset] expenses or a shift to be “science led”?...What avenues do you think stakeholders have to influence the company to be better guided by our principles?

Sent to REPAC via HR: RELX has indicated that government affairs is supposed to ensure it's not in conflict with sustainability commitments and objectives. Is that accurate?

Elsevier STMJ meet-up; follow-up promised: Could you speak a bit more as to why the role of REPAC is not being more closely scrutinized? REPAC has historically supported candidates/politicians whose positions are hostile to RELX corporate values. It creates cognitive dissonance whenRELX says one thing about its values and then supports candidates who oppose those values.

Questions in a 2021 report on word-deed misalignment submitted by employees sent to Cell Press Senior Management (SMT) and others in leadership:
‍
In light of the latest climate science research, do you find any of Elsevier/RELX’s business activity to be unethical and/orin violation of our environmental, health, human rights, and other policies? Do you find any of our stated policies to be inaccurate or misleading?

Should we in any way be disclosing Elsevier’s involvement in fossil fuel production and what we regard as acceptable negative environmental impacts to our customers—particularly ones whose research touches on these issues? What about to current and prospective employees? Is the company adequately providing information to investors and the general public that is sufficient to accurately evaluate our involvement in climate change-related human rights harms?

New Arctic oil exploration and extraction “requires specific R&D” and is inconsistent with a 1.5°C target. Given our policies, should Elsevier/RELX be providing that R&D and publishing research that assesses and promotes new offshore oil and gas projects in the Arctic?

Is SMT able to provide evidence that the company has the informed consent of potentially effected people regarding Elsevier/RELX activities that are likely to have climate-related human rights impacts?

When Elsevier shut down our war industry exhibitions, CEO Sir Crispin Davis said that “our presence here is incompatible with the aims of the science and medical communities.” Are any of Elsevier/RELX’s current activities also incompatible?

In 2020, systemic inequality prompted Cell Press to “ask what more we can do to fight prejudice and promote social justice,” seeking to find“what we can do to be stronger allies, stronger anti-racists.” As OneEarth has testified, the effects of climate change “are not distributed equally. They disproportionately affect marginalized communities: the poor, the vulnerable, and the disadvantaged. In a world where systemic racism is endemic to global inequality, this generally means that minority ethnicities suffer the most.” Is there opportunity for antiracist action by Cell Press as it pertains to some of Elsevier/RELX’s activities, partners, and customers discussed in these reports?

REPAC received policy questions from Cell Press employees over a year ago, and then again via HR in February. We have yet to receive answers to them, despite the Code of Ethics indicating that ignoring employee concerns is a prohibited form of retaliation. Could SMT please assist in having REPAC provide us with answers to these questions?

For those questioning the company’s commitment to our policies, could SMT please speak to their understanding of the company’s pledge to “refrain from discriminatory or disciplinary action against workers who make bona fide reports to management or, as appropriate, to the competent public authorities, on practices that contravene[our] policies”?

Submitted to RELX Compliance in January 2023, and to HR in March 2023: The company’s publicly claiming through our Race to Zero membership that by mid-June it will refrain from facilitating fossil fuel expansion, while internally leadership has conceded it will not do this. Why is this deception considered compatible with the ethics code and the Do the Right Thing principles?

Due to the company’s continued facilitation of fossil fuel expansion, there are zero known credible climate scientists who agree with leadership’s claim it is responding to the crisis “at the scale deemed necessary by science.” Leadership has conceded we’re continuing to maintain fossil fuel-expanding commercial activities—despite the objections of the research communities we serve—but simultaneously claiming the business’ climate commitment is “science led”. Why is this deception considered compatible with the ethics code and the Do the Right Thing principles?
‍
Cell Press Senior Manager (2022)

Email: If anyone can tell me what it is that our policies actually prohibit, that’d be great—I’ve asked various people at different times, and no one seems to know.

Cell Press Senior Manager (2023)

Email: I ask what our policies mean or prohibit, they won’t say. I ask them what has been communicated that misrepresents the company, they won’t say, even though I might be fired for repeating whatever that is...When you get a chance, could you please find out who was supposed to be the investigator of my ethics complaint from a few years ago—I still haven’t been contacted by them.

‍

Heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique.
Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat.
Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Unanswered questions

"I’m just lost for words in terms of just how blatant the greenwashing is...They're lying to employees. They're lying to shareholders."

"A corporate greenwashing initiative."

Retaliatory Management Practices and Suppression of Employee Reports Regarding Climate Denial at Elsevier, 2021-2023

Heading

Heading

About this website

Website links