Marketing for the Future | Steer Clear of Green Washing - The Dark Side of Purpose Marketing
Marketing for the Future
Steer Clear of Green Washing - The Dark Side of Purpose Marketing
A green sheen has adorned purpose marketing since the dawn of climate-crisis-consciousness. Let’s take a look at some of the most conspicuous examples.
In a time where the climate emergency creates an urgent and unprecedented need to rethink traditional growth models of businesses, it may appear as if any brand that doesn’t adapt accordingly is at risk of becoming obsolete. Brands are, of course, aware of this and regularly chime in with the climate conversation in a bid to stay relevant, whether they adopt climate-conscious policies or not. In doing so, plenty of companies employ deceptive ‘green PR strategies’ that convey the impression that their products, aims, and policies are environmentally friendly. This deception, aka. greenwashing can often be effective in convincing consumers of a ‘green quick fix’, providing the means for environmentally conscious consumers to continue participating in the system that they are criticising. Let’s take a look at some of the most blatant examples of this greenwashing machine.
Shell is one key example of a disconnect between a brand's messaging and its actions. Last year, CEO Ben van Beurden gave a lecture in which he instructed people to ‘eat seasonally and recycle more’ to cut emissions. In the same month, however, Shell withheld its support for a legally binding target to reduce the EU’s emissions to net-zero by 2050. More recently, Shell created a Twitter poll during the US election week asking ‘What are you willing to change to help reduce emissions?’ The options given were to offset your emissions, stop flying, buy an electric car, or choose renewable electricity, with most choosing the latter - an irony given that companies like Shell make it nearly impossible for this change to occur.
Although the backlash for the post was of enormous proportions, Shell’s attempts at greenwashing continue. In the campaign ‘The Great Travel Hack’, Shell challenged a group of influencers to travel a route by car with as few CO2 emissions as possible. In the Netherlands alone, the company is the largest polluter, with a scale of emissions so large they have recently been taken to court. Considering this, any campaigns aiming to portray a stance of environmental consciousness seem futile.
Joining the lineup is BP’s OG (original greenwashing) 2000 ad campaign with the theme ‘Beyond Petroleum’. With that title, the public would have been forgiven to believe the company was heading in the direction of a cleaner, renewable energy. And yet two decades later, we’re not much further ‘beyond’ petroleum. As it turned out, after all these adverts, BP put $3 billion into buying oil from the Alberta Tar Sands. The high profile ad campaign cost the firm $200 million, and the company spent a total of $7 million in researching the new brand, which included changing the logo to the cheerful green and yellow sunburst we know now. Here we see greenwashing taken in its very literal sense, the new logo intended to appeal to more environmentally conscious consumers. Because green is good. BP’s investment into alternative energy options has been minuscule in comparison to its sustained contributions to oil, and the numerous oil spill disasters the world has seen since its ‘Beyond Petroleum’ campaign.
Sadly, it’s not just the relatively obvious petrol brands that cash in on people’s idealism and employ greenwashing campaigns to deflect from their more than questionable business practices. The website of bottled water company Fiji, touts ‘long standing dedication to environmental sustainability’ with an abundance of copy espousing their green credentials in reducing plastic waste and offsetting carbon. These efforts are admirable for any company, but they don’t deflect from the fact that the very fundamentals of Fiji’s business rely on shipping a natural resource internationally on a massive scale. The highly instagrammable product is transported daily to all corners of the globe, wildly contradicting the brand’s seeming commitment to sustainability.
These are only three examples of the blatant greenwashing that many companies employ in a bid to convince consumers that they too follow the sustainable trend. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestle have recently been named the top plastic polluters for the third year in a row. Yet all three brands have Sustainability or Impact as one of the top choices on their website menu, proudly announcing the efforts they are taking to change. Whilst Coca-Cola has pledged to recycle a used bottle or can for every one sold, and increase the amount of recycled materials in its plastic bottles from 7% to 50%, the model of growth these brands adhere to is inimical to reversing their impact on the planet.
But, as Greenpeace pointed out, the focus should be on reducing, not recycling. Tune in to our next article to learn about a few companies that are taking this mission to heart!