Who will pay the ecological and social costs for climate justice?
Dursun Yıldız
Water Policy Expert
October 22, 2026
As corporate capitalism expands its hegemony across many sectors, questions regarding climate-water justice and sustainability accounting are also mounting.
Imperial states and transnational corporations are responsible for a significant share of the emissions driving climate change. In the balance sheets of the companies responsible for these emissions, the ecological and social costs of production appear to be externalized. Consequently, as we approach COP 31, the following questions come to the fore:
Are net-zero commitments, carbon credits, and integrated reports merely “greenwashed” camouflage tactics used by hegemonic capital to externalize ecological and social costs?
Are these initiatives functioning as mechanisms for “green absolution”—sustaining fossil-fuel-based capital, misleading the public, and legitimizing a new regime of “green” capital accumulation?
Externalities must be internalized.
The answers to these questions can be found by examining the concept of “sustainability accounting” within the accounting systems of the advanced transnational corporations that dominate the neoliberal order. In a framework of genuine sustainability accounting, ecological and social cost externalities must be internalized. Corporations responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions and environmental destruction attempt to mask the negative impacts they have created, seeking to gloss over the situation by offering only partial, limited aid to underdeveloped nations for climate adaptation. An accounting system that excludes ecological and social costs from economic decisions can measure economic growth, but it cannot accurately measure true well-being or sustainable development.
Ecological and social costs do not truly disappear; excluding them from economic accounting merely renders them invisible. These hidden costs are ultimately borne by nature, society, and future generations.
True sustainability requires that, alongside the financial benefits generated by economic activities, decision-making, pricing, and accounting systems internalize ecological and social costs. However, sustainability cannot be achieved solely by assigning a monetary value to these costs; it also requires preserving natural capital, respecting ecological boundaries, achieving social justice, and safeguarding the rights of future generations.
Corporate Decarbonization Targets
Some major corporations—particularly in the United States—have postponed “Net Zero” targets, withdrawn from climate initiatives, or scaled back public statements on climate issues, fueling the perception that companies are retreating from the fight against climate change. As of 2026, companies are re-evaluating their decarbonization strategies and adjusting their implementation approaches.
While it would be inaccurate to claim that companies are abandoning decarbonization en masse, current progress is clearly insufficient to meet global climate goals.
What should be on the agenda at COP31?
In a speech delivered in Yerevan on October 16, UN Secretary-General Guterres described subsidies for fossil fuels as “subsidizing suicide.” According to UN estimates, public incentives that harm nature and the climate amount to about $2.6 trillion annually. For every dollar spent protecting or restoring nature, about $ 30 goes toward activities that degrade it. COP 31 is approaching with these and similar findings, and it is expected to differ from its predecessors.
What will distinguish COP 31 from previous conferences is adopting actionable decisions aimed at eliminating the root causes of the climate injustice we are witnessing today.
Beyond grand commitments, to what extent will the decisions reached address the root causes of the problem and offer genuine solutions?
The intensifying global impacts of climate change, alongside pressures stemming from climate- and water-related injustices, have begun to shape the agendas of international conferences. Growing criticism of the neoliberal system’s “green economy” hegemony has made it imperative for many such international forums to address the transition “from theory to practice.”
If, at COP31, the concept of “social and ecological cost accounting for a sustainable world”—under the broader theme of “Transitioning to Sustainable Practice”—is not addressed in a way that yields a satisfactory outcome, this summit, too, will be viewed as yet another instance of global “greenwashing.”
A “satisfactory outcome” must target the root causes of existing structural problems, rather than merely attempting to partially rectify their consequences. In this context, the rhetoric of “provide more funding”—frequently heard in climate finance debates—remains insufficient, both conceptually and in terms of the amounts proposed. Much of the previously pledged financing has been provided primarily through loans, with only a limited share allocated as grants. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that these conventional debates do not serve as a distraction, preventing substantive discussion of the underlying structural issues.
Expectations for COP31
Proposed solutions emerging from the summit must not become new, “green” profit-generating avenues for the neoliberal order; instead, they should evolve into genuine solutions and effective mechanisms that enable social oversight of commitments.
The COP31 agenda should include the integration of ecological and social costs into corporate accounting frameworks. Furthermore, unpaid costs—framed as “ecological debt” and “social debt”—must remain on the agenda, encompassing the principle of intergenerational justice. In reality, ecological and social costs do not simply disappear; excluding them from economic accounting renders them invisible. Nature, society, and future generations bear these hidden costs.
Recently, companies have been re-evaluating their decarbonization strategies; moving away from broad, ambitious commitments, they are increasingly shifting toward measurable emission-reduction projects for which the economic returns can be calculated.
For COP31, the central issue must be how far corporations translate their stated goals into genuine, verifiable, and lasting emissions reductions. Consequently, the COP31 agenda should strongly emphasize not only new corporate commitments but also the implementation, financing, and independent monitoring of existing ones.
However, the “polluter pays” principle should not be interpreted as granting a right to pollute under any circumstances. The priority must be preventing irreversible ecological damage. In short, while internalizing ecological and social externalities is necessary for true sustainability, it is not sufficient on its own.
Reflecting rapid global change and widening inequalities, COP31 participants must shift the prevailing paradigm by acknowledging the shortcomings of current approaches and practices. COP31—and other international conferences—should not be limited to showcasing technical projects designed by corporations to “fix” the damage they themselves have caused, nor should they become forums for negotiating the terms of such harm. Instead, they must serve as transformative summits that critically examine past decisions and the system itself. Efforts to legitimize the status quo through empty promises to “address the system’s flaws” must be abandoned. Furthermore, these summits must move beyond the mere “virtual” representation of civil society; they require the genuine, substantive participation of universities, local communities, and critical thinkers. Otherwise, the criticism that these summits merely provide a platform to establish a hegemonic legitimacy for those who pollute the world will continue to hold weight.
