Delhaize, and blacklisted. Mega Image Patrons,

Reading time: 2 minutes

The environmental organization Friends of the Earth (“Friends of the Earth”) demands that Ahold Delhaize, the company that owns the Mega Image convenience store chain in Romania, raise its climate ambitions. Environmentalists say the retailer must take responsibility for its suppliers ‘and customers’ greenhouse gas emissions. There may even be a lawsuit with the retail giant.

At the Ahold Delhaize General Shareholders’ Meeting on Wednesday, the Dutch subsidiary Friends of the Earth (Milieudefensie) will call on the company to make more efforts for the climate, reports the Dutch newspaper FD. The retailer wants to halve its carbon emissions from stores, offices and transportation by 2030, but “only” aspires to a 15% reduction in the supply chain.

The climate organization believes that behind the snoring statements, the retailer is doing too little and wants it to take responsibility for the emissions of its suppliers and customers – which account for 95% of total emissions. However, this is not clear: Ahold Delhaize should map the emissions of all products and suppliers and impose additional requirements. According to experts, this is a huge task, especially in the current context of commodity shortages and cost inflation.

“We have tightened our targets for emissions from our own operations last year. At the end of this year, we will come up with an additional plan for our indirect emissions “, the company defends itself.

According to Milieudefensie environmentalists quoted by RetailDetail, Ahold Delhaize is on a “blacklist” of 29 companies that do too little to meet the Paris climate targets. These companies have until April 15 to submit amended climate change plans, after which they can take legal action.

Last year, Friends of the Earth was a resounding success in a lawsuit against petrochemical giant Shell: the judge ruled that oil companies should reduce their emissions by 45% by 2045 – including even customers’ emissions at the pump. According to Shell, which had lost the case in the first instance, this requirement is unachievable and unreasonable – that is why the company appealed.