Kevin Hague of Forest & Bird is giving the Climate Leaders Coalition the benefit of the doubt on greenwashing. But he has a message for all businesses: we’re watching you.

Watching the heads of 60 of the country’s largest companies promise to take action on climate change last week gives me hope that we might yet avert climate disaster.

Not just because between them those companies are responsible for half New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions, meaning they can, if they put their minds to it, make a real difference.

It’s also the fact that they are prepared to stand up as a group and say this problem is serious, it’s urgent and we need to act.

Cynics are wary of greenwashing, and I can understand why. The time to take action was 30 years ago – it’s not as if knowledge that human activity is warming the planet is new.

And it’s not like corporate New Zealand has had a good record to date; New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions have soared over the past 30 years (in 2016, our net emissions in were 54% higher than they were in 1990) at the very time when internationally, we were making promises to cut them.

Nevertheless, we are where we are today, and the problem is now so great that it requires every single one of us – including chief executives – to do whatever we can to keep the impacts of climate change to a minimum.

So to see the heads of 60 companies like Air New Zealand, Fonterra, KiwiRail, Westpac and Z Energy sign the Climate Leaders’ Declaration is welcome.

Now all they have to do is put it into practice.

The declaration says that signatories support the Paris Agreement on climate change, will measure and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions, and will reduce them in line with keeping global warming to no more than two degrees.

On this I disagree with them. We need to do better than that. Clear evidence is emerging that the impacts on humans and on nature are vastly higher at 2C of warming (think sea-level rise possibly as high as six metres) than they are at 1.5Cof warming.

Both targets are in the Paris Agreement. The 2C target is the one that gets the most attention, but the 1.5C so-called “aspirational” limit, introduced at the instance of small-island nations who are facing the largest and most urgent climate impacts, is the one that really matters.

The world is already 1.1C warmer than it was before the start of the Industrial Revolution. This summer we’ve seen what even that amount of warming can do, with heatwaves and intense storms hitting the country, and species like little blue penguins dying and albatross chicks failing to hatch.

The impacts of climate change increase exponentially as global average temperatures rise. We don’t have enough research in this country to tell us exactly what the effects on native species are likely to be, but international science tells us that it’s likely to be twice as bad with 2C of warming than it is at 1.5C of warming.

The International Panel on Climate Change is due to release a report soon on the 1.5deg target, but leaked reports suggest that we could reach 1.5C of warming by 2040.

Which means we have only a few years – probably as little as eight to 10 – to make deep, sustained emissions cuts.

Which brings us back to the Climate Leaders Coalition and their declaration. Making a public stand on climate change is a good start. Promising to cut greenhouse gas emissions is better (notwithstanding what I have said about the 2C target).

But none of it means anything if they don’t actually do the hard yards and cut their emissions. Seriously, and on a scale that actually protects us and nature from the worst impacts of climate change.

So today I’m going to make my own pledge, an Environmental Leader’s Declaration:

1. Climate change is the single biggest threat that humans and nature face.
2. I support the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping warming to no more than 1.5C.
3. My team and I will support and work with any chief executive seriously committed to taking action on climate change.
4. We will call out companies that fail to deliver on their promises.

And to companies that have not yet signed the up to the Climate Leaders’ Coalition, I say: “citizens and consumers deserve to know who is taking serious action on climate change, and who is not: we’re watching you, too.”

Pearson Education’s role in evaluating the quality of education research conducted by New Zealand academics raises concerns over its for-profit programme in the Global South, not to mention that time they tried to sue Rangitoto College.

Tertiary education organisations in New Zealand are lining up for their share of $1 billion from central government over the next six years. This significant pool of money is known as the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF). Money from the PBRF is allocated to tertiary providers competitively, based on research excellence in the tertiary education sector. Research excellence is determined by a quality evaluation of academic staff performance at New Zealand tertiary providers, and is undertaken by panels of leading researcher from 13 fields. This week, out of curiosity, I had a look at the list of panellists. In the field of Education, there is a startling inclusion: a representative from Pearson Education.

Who are Pearson Education? They sell education around the world, and business is booming. Profits for 2018 are projected to be between £520m and £560m, or hovering around the NZ billion-dollar mark, give or take a few tens of million. Pearson Education sells courseware, assessment, teaching and learning services, and is an emerging player in the provision of low-fee for-profit education in the Global South. They have staggering market penetration. Pop into your kid’s school or early childhood centre and you’ll find Pearson material in every classroom. As a former deputy principal I own several Pearson resources myself. So what’s the issue with having someone from Pearson Education evaluate the quality of education research conducted by New Zealand academics? Two things come to my mind: 1) Pearson’s for-profit programme in the Global South; and 2) that time they tried to sue Rangitoto College.

The central concern for both of these issues is to do with Pearson Education’s profit motive. In countries with public education systems, Pearson’s success has involved privatising components of the sector. A reporter for the New York Times once wrote that an “American child could go to a public school run by Pearson, studying from books produced by Pearson, while his or her progress is evaluated by Pearson standardized tests. The only public participant in the show would be the taxpayer.” Pearson Education are so involved in the public education sector in the UK that in 2012 public concerns were being raised about the level of influence the multinational had on national education policy.

What about their activities in the considerably less transparent educational context of countries in the Global South? Providing education through Low Fee Private Schools within low-income countries is a significant area of financial growth for education firms, such as Pearson, located in the Global North. The issue is complex, as several authors highlight in a book chapter on the rise of private education in low-income countries. However the upshot for a company like Pearson is that money is routed out of a low-income country, rather than in to its national education sector. There have been multiple problems with Low Fee Private Schools, leading the UN Human Rights Council to call for higher levels of regulation, and further investment into public education systems.

Closer to home, Pearson Education attempted to sue Rangitoto College over concerns at dropping sales figures. The case was dismissed, but it was an alarming test by the multinational on Pearson’s ability to extract further income from public schools in New Zealand. So is there any potential for a conflict of interest here?

Panellists evaluating research quality will be assessing education researchers’ work on issues within New Zealand and around the world. Some of this research is highly critical of standardised testing, the privatisation of education services, and of low-fee for-profit education in low-income countries. Pearson Education provides education services within New Zealand and around the world, a significant source of their revenue stream is through standardised assessments and privatised education services, and they are a growing player in low-fee for-profit education in low-income countries. There is certainly cause for concern on the face of it.

The outcome of panel decisions informs the allocation of a portion of $1 billion dollars to promote further education research over the coming six years. There is no suggestion that Pearson has behaved improperly. However, the question becomes: should a representative from a for-profit education corporation be involved in a process with the purpose of allocating public funding to education research?

The representative from Pearson Education is also an Honorary Senior Research Associate at the prestigious University College London Institute of Education. Perhaps promoting her inclusion on the panel through this affiliation reduces the significant concern over potential conflict of interests. Perhaps not. It is a concern which those education researchers being evaluated might be interested to address.

Daniel Couch is a former deputy principal and currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Auckland. His research examines the intersection between education, armed conflict, and state building.

The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.