Dr. Márcia Balisciano
RELX Group plc
1-3 Strand
London, WC2N 5JR 

Dr. Balisciano,  

Thanks for your October 25th email. We are disappointed that it did not address observations of misleading messaging or contain answers to the four inquiries that we provided to RELX’s CEOs. These points attempt to speak to business activities that UN investigators have raised with other businesses involved in helping fossil fuel companies expand their activities, “contributing to climate change-related human rights impacts, contrary to their own human rights responsibilities” while engaging in “greenwashing [that] subverts the Paris Agreement in multiple ways.”  

Given the human rights impacts associated with these activities, we’re offering an extension through November 30, 2023, to having the points we raised answered. Please also note that we are handing this effort over to the Climate Rights Coalition, which is coordinating with petition signatories and other groups to launch a UN-guided Grievance Mechanism to better address RELX’s business decisions. Please direct any further communications or replies to Kip Lyall (kip.lyall@climaterightscoalition.com, CC'd here) so that they can carry this dialogue forward as the initial portion of the Grievance Mechanism process.  

Sincerely,
Kristina Dahl and Stuart Parkinson


Questions from UCS and SGR's previous communication:

1.    How does RELX/Elsevier justify marketing its commitments to the Paris Agreement, net zero, and a safe energy transition while still facilitating fossil fuel expansion past the point the scientific community has declared it’s safe to do so?

 2.    By the end of 2023, will the company withdraw from the market products and services that facilitate new fossil fuel projects, and cancel any contracts and partnerships with individuals, companies, and organizations engaged in the exploration and development of new fossil fuels that grant them access to tools, information, and resources used to aid those efforts? Additionally, will the company remove and cease generating messaging which misleads the public about the company’s fossil fuel industry customers and partners?

3.    Elsevier has previously cited ethical considerations to constrain commercial activities. Given company pledges, should the company’s stated commitment to “editorial independence” and “freedom of academic communication” be constrained by any ethical considerations regarding the dissemination of content that negatively impacts human health and the wellbeing of the planet?  

4.    If the signatories of this petition and other stakeholders choose to enter into a grievance mechanism, does the company agree to follow its UNGP pledge to “participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms that can remediate climate and environmental concerns raised by affected persons” and to “participate in good faith, and not undermine, proceedings before legal or non-legal tribunals that promote accountability for climate harms,” with “all those seeking to access or interact with grievance mechanisms…able to do so without fear of reprisal”?