Avoid These Brands on the Dirty Money List

Companies impact the environment in many ways, for better or for worse. Of course, businesses use materials and energy to create the products and services they deliver. 

‍

But beyond what they sell, companies affect policy. Policy is a powerful tool for climate progress. The ways companies choose to fund lobbying, advocacy, and political campaigns can make or break efforts to pass policies that protect the environment, accelerate emissions reductions, and increase industry accountability.

‍

We wanted to find out which of the biggest U.S. consumer companies are obstructing government climate action through their money and influence.

‍

Commons’ debut Dirty Money list includes the 18 consumer brands holding back government climate action for the sake of profits.

‍

This April, for Earth Month, the Commons community is voting with our dollars. We’re collectively diverting tens of thousands of dollars away from the biggest, direct-to-consumer brands on the Dirty Money list to demand they stop funding climate obstructors and start funding organizations and candidates driving planet-friendly policies.

‍

See our methodology below or skip to the list.

‍

{{cta-join2}}

‍

Criteria and methodology

‍

The goal of Commons’ Dirty Money list is to help consumers move their dollars away from brands obstructing climate policy.

‍

We started with the largest U.S. companies in the S&P 500 and Russell 1000. This includes big U.S. retailers, clothing companies, food companies, and more. We excluded airlines, gasoline companies, and other inherently high-emission industries where obstruction is already well-documented.

‍

We researched and scored over one hundred brands based on the following criteria to create the Dirty Money list.

‍

1. Transparency and disclosure

‍

Does the company disclose its lobbying, campaign finance, and advocacy organization ties? 

‍

As with all our rating criteria, we can only rate brands based on public information.

‍

We use the CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure to score each brand’s transparency about its policy-related activities and the processes governing them. 

‍

2. Lobbying

‍

Does the company have ties to organizations or lobbyists obstructing progress on climate policy or those advancing it? 

‍

Contributions to Advocacy Organizations 

‍

Advocacy organizations promote public policy interests through campaigns and lobbying. Some advocacy organizations are funded and influenced by businesses or donors united by shared goals or a common industry.

‍

Companies pay these organizations tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in dues each year. These organizations then use a portion of those funds to lobby for specific policy objectives on behalf of their donors and members.

‍

To determine if a company’s advocacy ties are climate-obstructing, we researched which organizations a company is a member of or contributes to. We tracked which companies have ties to climate-obstructive organizations, as well as which have ties to pro-climate organizations.

‍

The organizations we identified as climate-obstructive all receive failing grades on InfluenceMap and have consumer brand members: U.S. Chamber of Commerce (and chapters), Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, Personal Care Products Council, and American Chemistry Council.

‍

While these organizations may publicly state support for net zero targets, they demonstrate a track record of opposition to pro-climate policy. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has advocated for weakened tax credits for clean energy.

‍

Experts have cited Protect Our Winters and Ceres Policy Members as leaders advancing climate policy interests with bipartisan and corporate support. These organizations have successfully advocated for policies that canceled current and future oil drilling in Alaskan wildlife reserves, galvanized voters to support local renewable energy candidates, and more.

‍

Lobbyist Ties to the Fossil Fuel Industry

‍

If a company employs lobbyists who profit off of the fossil fuel industry, that’s a big red flag. Fossil fuel companies out-spend every other industry when it comes to lobbying. Lobbyists who serve the fossil fuel industry impede government action to reduce emissions and have a huge conflict of interest if they serve both fossil fuel companies and environmental groups.

‍

Lobbyists are essential for shaping policy. But companies should work with lobbyists that don’t have financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, and make it clear to their lobbying partners that fossil fuel ties are a dealbreaker.

‍

F-Minus provides a list of state lobbying activity, as well as fossil fuel companies and organizations, which formed the basis of our analysis on fossil fuel industry ties. 

‍

3. Political Campaign Donations

‍

Do the company’s corporate campaign contributions flow to congressional candidates with climate-obstructive or supporting voting records? 

‍

Contributions to Candidates and Political Action Committees (PACs) 

‍

Corporations cannot donate directly to candidate campaigns from their treasury, but they can set up a separate Political Action Committee and solicit contributions. They can then use the donated funds to directly support candidate campaigns for office or support Political Action Committees (PACs).

‍

If a company wants to use its treasury funds to influence campaigns, it can donate to Super PACs, which are special committees that independently advocate for or against candidates. If you’ve ever seen a political ad that says “This was paid for by [Super PAC]," then you’ve likely seen those donations in action.

‍

The League of Conservation Voters tracks how members of Congress vote on climate policy and assigns them a score based on how often they support or obstruct progress. Using this data, we summarized how much money each consumer brand donated to incumbent congressional candidates with a track record of obstructing climate policy, and the Political Action Committees supporting them.

We also analyzed how many more dollars a company gave to climate-obstructive candidates and PACs versus pro-climate candidates and PACs. On average, the companies we evaluated gave more than half of their campaign donations to climate-obstructive candidates. Even if a company gives $1 to climate-obstructive candidates for every $1 they give to pro-climate actors, that’s one dollar too many, considering the urgency with which we need government climate action.

‍

‍

Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe’s, CVS, Marriott, and Amazon all gave over $1 million in climate-obstructive campaign donations from 2018-2024. Home Depot far outspent the rest at over $16 million.

‍

The Dirty Money List

‍

Based on our analysis above, Commons’ debut Dirty Money list includes 18 brands holding back government climate action for the sake of profits. 

‍

For Earth Month, we’ve called on the Commons community to vote with their dollars, avoiding spending at some of the biggest consumer brands on the list. In order to track our community’s impact, we focused on brands that consumers purchase from directly and regularly.

‍

When we refuse to buy from Dirty Money companies, we send a powerful signal that we want them to change and won’t buy from them again until they do.

‍

Here are the Dirty Money brands we’re avoiding in April:

‍

‍

Home Depot contributed a whopping $16.2 million to climate-obstructive campaign candidates and PACs from 2018-2024, making it the top offender in campaign finance. For every dollar it contributed to pro-climate candidates or committees, it donated 49% more to climate-obstructive ones. It’s a member of multiple harmful trade associations and doesn’t publicly fund any pro-climate organizations. Home Depot’s lobbying partners have ties to the fossil fuel industry. Home Depot also owns the Company Store.

‍

Instead of Home Depot, try a locally owned hardware store or a tool library.

‍

‍

Lowe’s has given over $1.5 million to climate-obstructive campaign candidates and PACs. For every dollar it contributed to pro-climate candidates or committees, it donated 42% more to climate-obstructive ones. It donates tens of thousands of dollars annually to harmful advocacy organizations and there’s no public evidence that Lowe’s funds pro-climate advocacy organizations.

‍

Instead of Lowe’s, try a locally owned hardware store or a tool library.

‍

‍

Walmart has donated over $2 million to climate-obstructive campaign candidates and PACs. For every dollar it contributed to pro-climate candidates or committees, it donated 54% more to climate-obstructive ones. It’s a member of at least two harmful trade associations and doesn’t publicly fund any pro-climate advocacy organizations.

‍

Walmart also owns Sam’s Club.

‍

As a big box store, Walmart has replaced the need for many small, local businesses. This means that Walmart is the only option for many necessities in many areas. If you can shop online, here are some of our recommended alternatives.

‍

‍

CVS is a member of at least two harmful advocacy organizations. It’s given over $2.3 million to climate-obstructive campaign candidates, and for every dollar it contributed to pro-climate candidates or committees, it donated 28% more to climate-obstructive ones. CVS doesn’t publicly fund any pro-climate efforts.

‍

A lot of people rely on CVS for its pharmacy, making it a literal lifeline. It can be hard to avoid, but there are some alternatives for medications and convenience store purchases.

‍

Amazon is the poster child for convenience culture, actively fueling overconsumption at an unsustainable pace. Although Amazon contributes 2% more to pro-climate candidates and committees than climate-obstructive ones, it has still contributed over $3 million to climate-obstructive candidates and PACs. Amazon’s lobbying partners have ties to the fossil fuel industry. It’s a member of multiple harmful trade associations but is a significant funder of the We Mean Business Coalition, an organization that promotes corporate climate action.

‍

Amazon also owns Whole Foods, Zappos, Audible, and Woot. 

‍

Amazon has replaced the need for many small, local businesses. This means that in many areas, it’s the only option for many necessities. Here are some of our recommended alternatives.

‍

‍

Marriott has given over $2.3 million to climate-obstructive campaign candidates and committees. For every dollar it contributed to pro-climate candidates or committees, it donated 168% more to climate-obstructive ones. Marriott is a member of at least one climate-obstructive advocacy organization and doesn’t publicly fund pro-climate advocacy organizations.

‍

Marriott owns dozens of hotel chains, including Ritz-Carlton, Westin, Four Points, Courtyard, and Residence Inn. Here’s the full list.

‍

‍

Target has given over $700,000 to climate-obstructive campaign candidates committees. For every dollar it contributed to pro-climate candidates or committees, it donated 12% more to climate-obstructive ones. Target is a member of at least one climate-obstructive advocacy organization and doesn’t publicly fund pro-climate advocacy organizations.

‍

As a big box store, Target has replaced the need for many small, local businesses. This means that it’s the only option for many necessities in many areas. If you’re able to shop online, here are some of our recommended alternatives.

‍

There are some Dirty Money companies that we’re not actively avoiding in April because we can’t track our direct influence on them or because our consumer-level influence on them is not as powerful. Here are the Dirty Money brands not included in the list above: Procter & Gamble Co., Ford Motor Co., Tractor Supply Co., Constellation Brands Inc., Tyson Foods Inc., Sysco Corp., Coca-Cola Co.

‍

Join the Challenge

‍

Want to vote with your dollar? Join Commons’ collective challenge in April as we collectively divert tens of thousands of dollars away from the biggest, direct-to-consumer brands on the Dirty Money list to demand they stop funding climate obstructors and start funding organizations and candidates driving planet-friendly policies.