What is the problem?
COP conferences bring together governments, international organisations, businesses and civil society to negotiate responses to climate change. Hosting these conferences requires significant financial and logistical support, and private sector sponsorship has become an established part of the process. While sponsorship can help deliver large-scale international events, it also raises questions about whether companies whose core business contributes to climate change should be associated with the world’s leading climate negotiations.
This concern is closely linked to greenwashing. Greenwashing refers to the practice of presenting a company or activity as more environmentally responsible than it is. Through COP sponsorships, companies may strengthen their environmental reputation while continuing business practices that are inconsistent with global climate goals.
Although the UNFCCC Secretariat’s Guidelines for Partnership set out guiding principles of integrity, accountability and transparency, and require that the objectives of any partnership advance the aims of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, these principles govern the Secretariat’s own collaborations rather than the wider universe of COP sponsors, and they operate on a discretionary, case-by-case basis rather than through systematic screening. The accompanying due-diligence annex screens prospective partners chiefly for reputational risk and for illicit conduct such as corruption, organized crime or sanctions violations, yet it is silent on anti-climate lobbying, sets no measurable environmental-performance thresholds, and leaves greenwashing wholly unaddressed. A fossil fuel producer that has signed the UN Global Compact and publishes a corporate social responsibility report could therefore satisfy the eligibility criteria while continuing to expand production or to finance lobbying against climate regulation. As a result, there is no comprehensive integrity framework that systematically assesses sponsors for climate lobbying, environmental performance, greenwashing risks or consistency with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
Examples
Greenwashing concerns have become increasingly visible at recent COP conferences.At COP27, Coca-Cola’s sponsorship attracted criticism because the company has repeatedly been identified as one of the world’s largest producers of branded plastic waste. Environmental organisations argued that the partnership allowed the company to strengthen its environmental reputation despite its record on plastic pollution.
At COP28, attention shifted to the close links between the COP Presidency and the UAE’s fossil fuel sector. Critics questioned whether these relationships risked improving the public image of industries that continue expanding fossil fuel production.
| Company | Climate Claim | Why was it criticised? |
| Coca-Cola (COP27) | Sustainability commitments | World’s largest plastic polluter |
| ADNOC (COP28) | Net-zero by 2045 target | Expansion of oil and gas production |
| SOCAR (COP29 discussions) | Energy transition investments | Continued fossil fuel expansion |
| Nestlé (COP30) | “Sustainable” and climate-smart agriculture | High-emission food and livestock supply chain, links to deforestation, and promotion of “false solutions” such as climate-smart agriculture and offsets |
Ahead of COP29, civil society organisations called for greater transparency in sponsor selection and stronger integrity checks for commercial partners. They argued that without clear assessment criteria, companies may benefit from association with the COP process without demonstrating alignment with climate objectives.
What should be done?
COP sponsorship arrangements should rest on a single, standing set of integrity standards that applies consistently across presidencies rather than being redefined by each host government. Companies seeking to sponsor or partner with a COP should be assessed not only on the value of their financial contribution but on their environmental performance, their climate lobbying activities and the consistency of their core business with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, with clear grounds for excluding, or applying heightened scrutiny to, entities engaged in fossil fuel expansion or in advocacy against climate regulation.
The criteria used to evaluate sponsors should be published before each conference, together with the sponsorship agreements themselves and the integrity assessments on which the selection decisions were based, so that the reasoning behind each arrangement is open to public scrutiny. Sponsors should be disclosed in full through an accessible online register, and that register should extend to the beneficial ownership of each sponsoring entity and to any conflicts of interest between sponsors and the conference agenda or presidency. Finally, an independent review mechanism, operating at arm’s length from the host presidency, should be available to examine cases where a sponsor may present significant greenwashing or integrity risks, and civil society should be able to bring such concerns forward and receive a reasoned response.
What does Transparency International Türkiye recommend?
Transparency International Türkiye’s COP Integrity Principles recommend integrity due diligence for sponsors, partners and major contractors before they are formally associated with the conference. This should include assessments of climate lobbying activities, environmental performance, greenwashing risks and consistency with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The Principles also recommend public disclosure of sponsorship arrangements and financial contributions, together with independent oversight to ensure that commercial partnerships are consistent with the integrity of the UN climate process.
