Skip to content
Sign in
Climate & Environment · Asia Pacific

Workers want employer climate action but question progress, report finds

The Curtin Centre for Applied Ethics report says Australian workers support employer action on climate change but doubt that companies are making progress on their commitments. Only 14 per cent believe their own employer is making good progress, while 79 per cent of workers surveyed assume greenwashing is common.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 3 independent reports from 4 outlets · Article text read from 2 of 3 reports · 1 article captured only in partHow it's made

View timeline · 9 entries
4 outletsLatest reporting 4 min read
Coverage: Center OnlyL 0 · C 4 · R 0
Updat3 graphic: Australia
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • The Curtin Centre for Applied Ethics report found support among Australian workers for corporate climate action alongside scepticism about company commitments (per curtin.edu.au, The Sydney Morning Herald).
  • Only 14 per cent of workers surveyed believe their own employer is making good progress on climate commitments (per curtin.edu.au).
  • The survey found that 79 per cent of workers assume greenwashing is common (per The Sydney Morning Herald).
  • Around 44 per cent of workers trusted companies’ self-reported climate claims or voluntary commitments (per curtin.edu.au).
  • The survey covered 2,048 workers across Australia, and most believed the country’s largest companies have a responsibility to address climate change (per The Sydney Morning Herald, curtin.edu.au).
  • Among technicians, trades workers and machinery operators, 59 per cent had worked in temperature extremes and 45 per cent in places with smoke, fumes and dust (per The Sydney Morning Herald).
  • Among frontline workers, 58 per cent were dissatisfied with the federal government’s climate response and 58 per cent felt they had no meaningful say in the political system (per The Sydney Morning Herald).

The brief

A Curtin Centre for Applied Ethics report finds that Australian workers broadly support corporate action on climate change but remain unconvinced that employers are delivering on their commitments. Just 14 per cent of respondents believe their own employer is making good progress, while 79 per cent assume greenwashing is common.

The report, titled “Employee Expectations of Corporate Climate Action,” surveyed 2,048 workers across Australia. Most respondents said the country’s biggest companies have a responsibility to address climate change.

The findings suggest that support for action and scepticism about corporate performance coexist: employees are not generally questioning whether businesses should act, but whether meaningful progress is taking place. Trust in companies’ own accounts is limited. Around 44 per cent of workers trusted self-reported claims or voluntary commitments.

The Curtin report also found strong demand for independent verification and accountability. Professor Langlois said the question of whether companies should act had already been settled for most Australians. Professor Mavisakalyan said climate performance increasingly affects workplace decisions.

The survey describes unequal exposure to workplace conditions associated with climate impacts. Among technicians, trades workers and machinery operators, 59 per cent had worked in temperature extremes, while 45 per cent had worked in places with smoke, fumes and dust. For managers and professionals, the respective shares were 25 per cent and 20 per cent.

These figures put frontline workers’ reported exposure well above that of managers and professionals in both categories. Among frontline workers, 58 per cent were dissatisfied with the federal government’s climate response, and an equal share felt they had no meaningful say in the political system.

Separately, the report says 41 per cent of surveyed workers expect climate change to have a major impact on their cost of living. These findings connect workplace climate concerns with both household expenses and views about political influence.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s account emphasizes differences in occupational exposure and frontline workers’ dissatisfaction with the federal government. Curtin’s report foregrounds employer credibility, including low confidence in progress and demand for independent checks.

HRM Asia’s headline also characterizes the findings as support for corporate action paired with limited trust in employers’ progress. Together, those emphases point to two related concerns: exposure to climate-related workplace conditions and confidence that companies’ stated commitments amount to progress.

The report is the first in a series from the Curtin Centre for Applied Ethics examining business issues. Its findings identify workers’ expectations and reported experiences; they do not establish how individual companies’ climate performance compares with their commitments.

Why it matters

  • Technicians, trades workers and machinery operators report greater exposure to temperature extremes (59 per cent) and smoke, fumes and dust (45 per cent) than managers and professionals, at 25 and 20 per cent respectively.
  • Workers’ confidence in employer climate claims is low: only 14 per cent think their own employer is making good progress, and around 44 per cent trust self-reported claims or voluntary commitments.
  • The reported stakes extend to household costs: 41 per cent expect climate change to have a major impact on their cost of living.
  • Among frontline workers, 58 per cent are dissatisfied with the federal government’s climate response, while the same share say they have no meaningful political voice.

What to watch next

  • Whether employers provide independent verification or accountability for their climate commitments, a demand identified in the Curtin report.
  • Whether companies make progress that changes workers’ assessment of their climate commitments.
  • How the Curtin Centre for Applied Ethics’ planned series on business issues examines related concerns.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
4 source articles · 4 unique outlets · 3 distinct reports
Outlet political mix: Center Only· 4 Center
Where the outlets are based: Asia 75% · Global 25%
Outlet political mix
Center Only
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
4 outlets
0 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
4 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among Center-rated outlets (4 of 4 rated sources); comparatively few Left or Right-rated outlets have published on the event.
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in Asia (3 of 4 geographically-identified sources).
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

2 framing differences · 2 uncorroborated claims
The reports repeat the same account with different emphasis; its central claims are not independently confirmed in the reporting Updat3 read.Compared across 2 reports whose article text Updat3 read; 1 other outlet was checked by headline only.
Framing / emphasis differences
Sources emphasise different angles, actors or consequences of the same reporting.
  • The Curtin report’s account highlights low confidence in employer progress and demand for independent verification; The Sydney Morning Herald gives more attention to occupational exposure, frontline workers’ political views and cost-of-living concerns.
  • HRM Asia’s headline frames the findings as support for corporate action alongside limited trust in employers’ progress.
Updat3: These are differences of emphasis, not disputes about what is reported. They do not show that the reported claims are true.
One-sided or uncorroborated claims
Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.
  • Professor Langlois said the question of whether companies should act had already been settled for most Australians.
  • Professor Mavisakalyan said climate performance increasingly affects workplace decisions.
Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. Countries adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. Countries adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set emissions targets for developed countries.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  3. Australia enacted the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, establishing reporting on large facilities’ emissions and energy use.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  4. Countries adopted the Paris Agreement, setting a goal to hold warming well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  5. Australia ratified the Paris Agreement.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  6. In June 2022, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission published Information Sheet 271 on “How to avoid greenwashing when offering or promoting sustainability-related products.”
    Background · from our historical context
  7. In March 2023, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reported that its review of businesses’ environmental claims found potentially misleading claims in 57 per cent of the 247 businesses it examined.
    Background · from our historical context
  8. Australia’s mandatory climate-reporting framework was established by the *Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024*, which received royal assent on 17 September 2024.
    Background · from our historical context
  9. In December 2024, the Australian Accounting Standards Board issued AASB S2, the country’s climate-related disclosure standard, drawing on standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board.
    Background · from our historical context

How we got here

Australia’s mandatory climate-reporting framework was established by the *Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024*, which received royal assent on 17 September 2024. In December 2024, the Australian Accounting Standards Board issued AASB S2, the country’s climate-related disclosure standard, drawing on standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board. These rules gave investors and regulators a formal basis for scrutinising corporate climate statements, while the Australian Consumer Law and the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* provided wider protections against misleading claims. Before mandatory reporting, Australian regulators had already focused on environmental marketing. In March 2023, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reported that its review of businesses’ environmental claims found potentially misleading claims in 57 per cent of the 247 businesses it examined. In June 2022, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission published Information Sheet 271 on “How to avoid greenwashing when offering or promoting sustainability-related products.”

The international framework for corporate climate action began with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Rio Earth Summit that June. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol set binding emissions targets for developed countries, and Australia ratified it in 2007. In 2015, the Paris Agreement established the goal of holding global warming well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C; Australia ratified the agreement on 9 November 2016. The *National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007* created a national system for reporting large facilities’ emissions and energy use. The *Clean Energy Act 2011* established a carbon-pricing mechanism that began in July 2012; Parliament repealed it in 2014.

Original sources

3 of 4 articles · Asia · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.