The global economy remains heavily dependent on new material extraction to meet demand for energy, technology, and infrastructure. Only about seven percent of material inputs are recycled, meaning that most raw materials still come from new mines, wells, and industrial developments—many operated by multinational corporations.
A recent study published in Global Environmental Change analyzed thousands of cases of environmental conflict to better understand where corporate activity intersects with social and ecological challenges. These conflicts occur when communities, companies, and governments disagree over the use or protection of natural resources—often in response to industrial projects that affect land, ecosystems, or livelihoods.
The results suggest that multinational firms are more frequently involved in these disputes, despite widespread participation in voluntary sustainability programs, raising questions about how accurately corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting reflects on-the-ground outcomes.
Study finds 104 corporations linked to one-fifth of global conflicts
Researchers from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona analyzed data from the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice, the world’s largest database of environmental conflicts. They found that 104 multinational corporations accounted for about 20 percent of all documented cases, most operating in mining, large-scale agriculture, or energy production.
While many of these firms participate in initiatives such as the UN Global Compact, their projects were more often associated with significant community, health, and environmental impacts than those involving domestic companies. Conflicts linked to foreign corporations also showed fewer positive outcomes, such as successful remediation or compensation.
ESG self-reporting under scrutiny
The findings add to ongoing discussions about the accuracy of voluntary ESG reporting and self-disclosed sustainability data. Two-thirds of the corporations most often involved in conflicts are members of at least one major sustainability program, yet their operations continue to generate local opposition.
According to the authors, this points to a gap between corporate reporting frameworks and independent, ground-level evidence, highlighting the need for more transparent, data-driven accountability mechanisms.
Implications for laboratory sustainability programs
Laboratories depend heavily on multinational suppliers for instruments, reagents, plastics, and consumables. As research institutions strengthen sustainability goals, this study reinforces the importance of verifying supplier data and ensuring that environmental claims reflect measurable progress.
Lab managers can improve procurement oversight by using third-party certifications, life-cycle assessments, and independent sustainability metrics when evaluating suppliers. These tools help identify credible partners and reduce the risk of relying on incomplete or self-reported ESG information.
Building transparency in laboratory supply chains
By prioritizing traceability and data integrity, laboratory leaders can help ensure that their operations and purchasing decisions align with genuine sustainability commitments. Incorporating verified supplier data supports transparency across the research ecosystem—advancing environmental responsibility beyond the laboratory itself.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
