I read an article today that dared ask the question "Is Greenwashing Good for you?" The author described Greenwashing as a corporate "bandwagon" of sorts. Something that many major company's Advertising and Public Relations Professionals participated in, including Home Depot, Walmart, Chevron, and Ford. So, everyone is doing it? Remember what our parents used to tell us when we were children, "Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it right."
The article agreed that this form of "disinformation" could be seen as "polishing up the public image of big polluters or convincing people that an environmental problem is being solved by industry when it isn't", then went on to argue that it could be seen as positive because, "huge corporate ad campaigns help cultivate a green-conscious public that doesn't stop at voting with their dollars but also votes its greenness at the ballot box, we have a better chance of moving sustainable policies forward."
http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/05/25/is-greenwashing-good-for-you
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the idea of environmentally conscious companies doing their part to contribute to the overall public awareness. Based on the definition this particular article gave for greenwashing (siting the Oxford English Dictionary as the source),"Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image", I would have to disagree with the idea that this type of dishonest advertising could really ever benefit society.
The "...Greenwashing...Good..." article referenced a national print ad for Shell Oil that made the claim, “We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers”. Hmmm... I am intrigued. I have to know more.
A quick Google search brought up thousands of documents siting this specific advertisement. I wasn't surprised to learn that the ad was quickly banned from the newspapers it was ran in. Advertising "watchdogs", such as the National Advertising Division (part of the Better Business Bureau) and the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK, said the ad and it's "environmental claims were likely to mislead readers".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21659526/
The response from Shell representatives was surprising. They stated the ad wasn't meant to mislead audiences about their waste or contribution to the environmental problems at hand, but instead a "creative and striking way of drawing attention to the problem of waste disposal."
Creative? I wonder if this was one of the "good" effects the other article was referring to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In this world of modern technology and information dissemination, it is very difficult to mislead the public for long periods of time. I believe that the argument claiming false advertising brings attention to real issues is accurate and logical. I also believe it is too easy for all of us to beat up on large corporations, when their responsibility isn't public awareness. They make shit, we buy it. We all spin sutuations in our lives to maximize personal utility. Why should MNC's be any different?
I think that MNC's should be held accountable for Greenwashing. It is not up to a MNC to claim itself as the sovereign defender of freedom, peace, human rights and nature. That role belongs to organizations such as the United Nations and govermental regulatory agencies (EPA, FDIC, SEC and others). Whenever a MNC like Shell comes up with an eco-friendly ad it should be taken with a grain of salt. A MNC has every reason to appear environmentally responsible to avoid the public's comtempt. Majority rule continues to be a problem. The public is far too gullible because it's easier to accept what you're told to believe than to have an informed position on anything. Most of the public will believe what they are told over and over again in the media (i.e. big oil is working on oil subtitutes).
Post a Comment