Tag Archives: Greenwashing

Corporate Responsibility or Gratuitous Greenwashing?

Let the countdown begin: it’s 3 days to the grand opening of the new California Academy of Sciences museum, a state of the art spectacle of architecture and sustainability. It’s truly an impressive achievement. Visit the website and you’ll see for yourself: a 2.5 acre “living roof” that’s home to 1.7 million native plants; insulation made from recycled denim; and a solar canopy containing 60,000 voltaic photo cells. These are just a few highlights. The main exhibit, “Altered State: Climate Change in California,” takes up the majority of the museum’s main floor and includes numerous interactive displays, such as the bones of both an endangered blue whale and a T-Rex. 


As reported by the San Francisco Bay Guardian, journalists who were given a sneak peak of the tour were informed by Carol Tang, director of visitor interpretive programs, that the economy and entire way of life in California “will all be affected by climate change,” adding, “the T. rex reminds us that mass extinctions have happened and we’re in a mass extinction right now.”

But alas, not is all well in the world of popular science education. In the build-up to the event, the Academy has been trumpeting the architectural and scientific achievements of the new building and feature exhibits. For environmentalists, however, it’s a program underwritten by a patron with questionable intentions.  It seems that “when visitors show up for the opening weekend’s festivities, they’ll be told they have Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to thank for the museum’s opening, which includes free admission on the first day.” According to the media release posted on the utility’s website, “[e]mpowering Californians with the tools and information to reduce their impact on climate change is critical to protecting California’s natural heritage. We’re honored by the opportunity to support the California Academy of Sciences as they take on the important mission of inspiring future leaders to create a more sustainable California.” Sounds like an act of nobility and corporate virtue. The news item advises that PG&E invested $1.5 million for the rights to co-sponsor, benefiting in return with post plenty of corporate signage, prominent mention in academy press releases, subtle plugs to journalists by museum staffers, and a spot on the five-person panel of academy leaders that addressed the assembled scribes at the pre-opening media tour.

These kinds of public-private partnerships in the arts are not new, as the cultural historian Neil Harris argues in his 1990 book Cultural Excursions: Marketing Appetites and Cultural Tastes in Modern America. Harris claims “the search for an enlightened American art patronage is as old as the republic itself,” and shows several instances where art and corporate power intersect. He also has a fascinating chapter on the link between museums and issue advocacy, which would no doubt fit in relation to the global warming education initiative involved here. The point is that big business has long lined up behind the arts and for various reasons — some of them noble and benevolent, and others quite deliberately self-serving. For the activist group Green Guerillas Against Greenwashing, PG&E falls squarely into the latter category. Noting the utility company’s ongoing efforts to block current legislation (The Clean Energy Act) and its legacy of lobbying against high environmental standards for utilities companies, the group finds the organization’s sudden support for public education about global warming a little too hot to handle. For PG&E and proponents of corporate social responsibility, the utility company’s sponsorship of this initiative demonstrates not an attempt to deceive or manipulate, but to link science and climate change education and to show that there are times when industry can mobilize its significant capital advantages to demonstrate environmental leadership.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Social Responsibility, Greenwashing

It’s not easy being green

The public health implications of greenwashing, one of the most debated issues in environmental communication these days, is given short shrift in the public and scholarly debate. Greenwashing is a public relations tactic that involves “unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue” by organizations with questionable ecological track records (SourceWatch). Illustrative examples abound, including a Royal Dutch Shell ad campaign showing a rainbow of colourful flowers emitting from smoke stacks which claim that Shell’s greenhouse gas emissions are being recycled and used to grow flowers in actual greenhouses (the campaign was recently given the hook when the Dutch Advertising Authority, responding to complaints by the environmental NGO Friends of the Earth, determined the ads made grossly misleading claims about the company’s environmental policy).

Another good example is the bp “energy independence” campaign, launched in 2004 to appeal to both rising public concern about environmental sustainability and national security. The Coca-Cola Company last year earned the dubious honour of winning the Polaris Institute‘s inaugural Greenwashing Award for working harder than any other multinational corporation “to present itself as socially and environmentally responsible while continuing to harm environments and communities through the production and distribution of its products.”

Top marks for greenwashing have to go to the Ford Motor Company’s re-appropriation of every kid’s favourite Muppet, Kermit the Frog, portrayed in all his cool glory, mountain biking, kayaking and hiking through the rugged wilderness singing his trademark tune “it’s not easy being green,” then stumbling upon an Escape Hybrid and realizing it’s easier than he thought. Props to the ad team for creativity, but the notion of one of the Big 3 passing itself off as a responsible steward of the environment is a little rich.

In all of these cases, the media and public debate about greenwashing tilts heavily toward concerns about unethical communication, deception, spin doctoring, and other nefarious efforts by corporations to hoodwink citizen-consumers into purchasing their products, aligning their personal values with the values of the brand, or at least forestalling negative reactions (e.g. boycotts).

All true, of course. Yet curiously missing from the debate about greenwashing are wider implications for public health. And we don’t need to be talking about the big health issues associated with global climate change and the offensive activities of the auto and oil and gas sectors (although we should certainly do so). Even at the level of the mundane, the banal, in the minutiae of everyday life, greenwashing efforts are underway. When it comes to cleaning our homes the green way, there is a confusing array of labeling issues to contend with – from “non-toxic” glass cleaner to “biodegradable” detergent, “natural” grease remover  and “environmentally safe”  furniture polish. A recent news report in the Calgary Herald noted a survey of American big-box stores, which found that 99.9 per cent of products made false, misleading or unsubstantiated claims of eco-sustainability. TerraChoice, the firm that conducted the research, broke the results into six categories of “sins,” including the Sin of the Hidden Trade-off (a chlorine-free bathroom cleaner that contains other toxic materials), the Sin of Vagueness (a product that claims to be chemical-free when all living things, including humans, are made of chemicals), and the Sin of No Proof (products that claim not to have been tested on animals, but offer no evidence or certification). 

All of this poses significant dilemmas for monitoring and regulation of promotional communication. Advertising Standards Canada, the nonprofit industry organization which encourages voluntary adherence to codes of conduct but has little power to enforce compliance, issued a heads-up notice to advertisers that they might expect unwanted attention if they start greenwashing. I’m sure the multinationals are worried. This is a case that illustrates the paradoxical effects of PR – while rising environmental awareness and concern from citizens has helped to generate the creative energy that underlies eco-marketing and corporate greenwashing, it has also created new market opportunities for PR professionals to provide rhetorical service to corporate actors that have been the targets of activist campaigns, thus affording them new opportunities to enhance their images and reputations. TerraChoice, after all, is not an environmental NGO but a “science-based marketing firm that helps its clients convert genuine environmental leadership into winning strategy, communications and positioning.” 

Leave a comment

Filed under Everyday Life