by Graham Readfearn, via DeSmogBlog
During the ad, Kermit displayed his innate talent for not blinking which, it has to be said, is due essentially to his congenital lack of eyelids.
But had Kermit blinked, he would have missed the small print at the bottom of the ad which showed that at the time, this “green” vehicle had a fuel consumption slightly worse than the US average.
But that seems to be the rule when it comes to claims of climate-friendliness made by some of the world’s biggest brands.
Check the small print, and the responsible green hue soon fades to something resembling bullsh*t-brown (or whatever color denotes hypocrisy). At least that’s the conclusion after reading Australian author and researcher Guy Pearse’s latest book. Pearse spent close to four years immersing himself in some 3000 TV commercials and viewing about 4000 print and web adverts, all of which make claims of climate friendliness (I disclose here that I had a small paid role as a fact-checker on the book).
After checking the brand’s actual contribution to climate change (or their lack of transparency) in more than 700 company reports, Pearse finds in Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams that the green revolution is being either grossly overblown or faked.
Some 24 industry sectors, a host of “eco-celebs” and most of the world’s top brands are covered in the book and very few emerge unscathed.
Among the brands examined are Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, Bank of America, Barclays, Apple, Starbucks, GM, Yum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), Boeing, Virgin, GM, Toyota, FedEx, UPS, DHL, Tesco, Walmart, News Corp, CBS and many more. The book’s inside sleeve displays a tic-a-tape of green slogans.
Pearse, a research fellow at the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, finds that brands pull a series of common tricks when they make claims that they’re cutting their emissions. For example, take Wyndham hotels, who don’t count the emissions from the 7000 franchised properties which bear their name.
Or Panasonic, which ignores the emissions from the raw materials needed to make all their electronic gadgets (a common omission). Then there’s the regular trick of having a target to cut emissions which is based on carbon intensity (such as CO2 per sq metre of floor space or per product) but ignoring the fact those savings are rubbed out many times over as companies expand.
Other companies claim concern for the climate while failing to disclose their carbon footprints. Sometimes Pearse simply reveals rank hypocrisy, such as Royal Bank of Canada buying offsets for a carbon-neutral Olympics torch relay while also financing tar sands and coal projects.
The book is sure to leave many climate conscious consumers feeling like they’ve been had (no doubt the climate would express some dismay too, if it could). But should consumers feel hopeless? Pearse told DeSmogBlog:
I don’t think people should feel hopeless about the greener product, but they need to distinguish between the individual product and the climate-friendliness of the larger brand. It’s hard to argue that a brand is that concerned about climate change if the overall footprint of its products is still growing while it’s busy conveying the opposite impression. We also need to be realistic about the number of people buying the green product, and the cumulative impact, if we stay on the path we’re on.
Pearse also reserves some criticism for environmental groups who allow their brands or their projects to be aligned with emissions-intensive businesses, including major coal and oil companies or their financiers (think Earth Hour).
Some environmental groups shoulder much more responsibility than others. There’s nothing wrong with environmental groups seeking out corporate champions. However, when these groups routinely mis-represent companies whose products have a growing carbon footprint as ‘climate savers’ and the like, they’ve really become a part of the greenwashing problem—lending credibility to the notion that big brands are going green when they’re not. That winds up feeding complacency and a misplaced faith in a revolution that’s not actually happening.
So after spending hundreds of hours looking at green claims in adverts, does Pearse have any “favourites”?
For sheer entertainment value, my favourite green ad is probably Audi’s Green Police Superbowl commercial. The green billboards are also right up there – from Coke’s one in Manila with its 3,600 carbon-absorbing tea plants to Ricoh’s 3 renewable billboards in London, New York and Sydney – all of them helping to greenwash growing carbon footprints. Some of the fashion industry brands are pretty memorable too — from the Global Warming Ready campaign by Diesel to the ‘Look hot while discussing global warming’ poster by Levi’s.
One of the most striking elements in the book is how Pearse reveals time and time again, how major corporations will heavily market even the smallest of environmental achievements, while ignoring their direct interests in fossil fuels. So who does Pearse pick as the worst of these greenwashers?
Shell probably wins as the most prolific and shameless case. Even as they seek to expand oil and gas production by a sixth in 5 years there seems no limit to the fantasies woven into their climate-friendly advertising pitch: from billboards with smokestacks emitting flowers to CO2 molecules being chased with butterfly nets, to the ‘Let’s grow our own fuel. Let’s Go’ posters, to their sponsorship of solar vehicles in the Eco-Marathon. It’s as relentless as it is disconnected from Shell’s core business.
As Kermit pointed out, it appears it is easy being green – or at least, it’s easy being greenwashed.
Graham Readfearn is an independent journalist based in Queensland, Australia, with 15 years experience as a reporter and writer on newspapers, magazines, radio and online. This piece was originally published at DeSmogBlog and was reprinted with permission.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Thanks to Guy Pearse. We need more investigations like this one. Chevron is my favorite:
http://matadornetwork.com/change/chevrons-greenwashing-ad-campaign/
The timber companies pioneered this approach back in the early 60′s, before there was much of an environmental movement. While liquidating our Western old growth forests, they published ads insisting that they were growing trees faster than they were cutting them. Western forests have still not recovered, as they have lost 25% of their timber volume since World War II.
The same PR firms that worked for the timber companies now service corporations in all sectors. The lesson learned from timber was that you could get away with baldfaced lies, since the media, where you advertise, is certainly not going to call you on it.
The American people are a sleeping giant. Many of us are tired of being lied to.
Thanks for pointing out this book. I agree that greenwashing is way too common, and is undermining the efforts of the few good companies that really get it and are demonstrating leadership.
That should be “Royal Bank of Canada”. The Bank of Canada is Canada’s central bank.
Remember, folks, Mitt wants to kill Big Bird AND Kermit, regardless of the type of car they ride in.
If corporations are, indeed, people, can we use capital punishment soon?
It is likely pretty difficult to claim green-washing for net zero mobility solutions starting with walking to cycling and much more advanced methods and systems necessary to meet the needs and expectations of the developed world.
In fact the build-out emissions as described in a recent excellent report by Ken Caldeira for aggressive mitigation efforts such as large-scale wind and solar deployments may be minimal or non-existent when it comes to large-scale net zero mobility deployments since existing transportation methods are extremely inefficient concurrently wasting huge amounts of materials not only on vehicle production and operation but also on infrastructure at much larger scales.
This may be easily demonstrated by detailed observation of the half billion cyclists currently existing in China likely requiring only modest advances to make their lives much easier.
Great article…..keep up the good work.
What’s wrong with using carbon intensity? It’s a useful measure that allows comparisions between big organisations and small ones.
It’s like using a country’s per capita emissions rather than their total. If total emissions mattered China could halve its emissions overnight be dividing into two countries.
______________
Greenwashing exaggerates the environmental benefits of initiatives, while dollarwashing minimises them. Agencies that don’t want to be seen as ‘progressive’ or ‘green’ tout energy efficiency or renewable energy initiatives for their economic benefits like saving money or creating jobs with barely a whisper about the environmental benefits.
Discussed here – http://bit.ly/TaDrBG
Sad really — the potential of this marketing movement (which may have already passed) would be to raise consciousness and plant seeds of commitment among consumers. Then it could have been mobilized to increase public demands for climate action by governments — real policies. This was the step that was never realized, leaving us with nothing but what looks like greenwashing. Might not be too late for companies to take the additional step, but it is hard to penetrate the enthusiast in the marketing and sustainability groups to get to those who are willing to take on the political risks.
I am so pleased that Guy Pearse has published this book. There appears to be a bloc in society where everyone believes that the only way to mitigate climate change is through the commodification of green goods where huge corporations can continue to emit enormous amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants whilst hiding under the image of being ‘green’ in some way that is completely irrelevant to their businesses environmental degradation. It is completely irrational to believe that we can make infinite money and goods out of a finite environment. These greenwashing schemes are simply ways of addressing bad environmental publicity. Greenwashing enables big corporations to address issues of environmental degradation in ways that keeps their profit flowing. Therefore corporates have created products and methods that enable them to better their own image and make money at the same time. There has become a hegemonic bloc in the way current societies are thinking. Somehow whole societies believe that the only way to combat climate change is through further commodification and ‘greening’ of companies. However, this type of commodification just enables businesses to go about their ‘business as usual’ without really changing the core structure of their business that is actually contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Greenwashing, put simply, distracts the average consumer away from greater environmental degradation issues that a company might be associated with, so that the consumer can continue consuming as per usual. In this way, businesses can keep their profits increasing, and can continue running their business and factories in a way that suits them, but not the environment. Greenwashing actively reduces society’s ability to force companies to make real changes that CAN contribute to reductions in GHG emissions.