Green Is The New Black

Today, I would like to discuss the issue of greenwashing by crude oil companies. Crude oil isn't exactly a consumer product (although many of its derivatives end up in consumer goods) but there is an interesting case I thought of sharing so stay tuned. 

Greenwashing refers to the act of overstating or misrepresenting environmental claims (Carveth, 2011).  As more businesses go green, mainstream companies have increasingly “greenwashed” their brand to appear environmentally responsible as well (Cherry & Sneirson, 2012). In Chevron, Greenwashing, and the Myth of "Green Oil Companies", Cherry & Sneirson (2012) demonstrate that the oil industry is no exception.

Chevron released a series of advertisements titled "we agree" in 2010 (Cherry & Sneirson, 2012), claiming to concur with public sentiment that oil companies "should develop renewables, support communities, create jobs and protect the environment" (Ramon, 2010) and went on to show the company’s efforts in doing so. Critics have challenged Chevron’s claims, calling them hypocritical and nothing more than an act of greenwashing for many reasons (refer to pg 151). However, perhaps the most prominent is Chevron's defense of its Ecuadorean lawsuit, evading its responsibility to clean up the 18 billion gallons of toxic water and 17 million gallons of crude oil disposed of inappropriately by its subsidiary Texaco (Cherry & Sneirson, 2012).

Cherry & Sneirson (2012) go on to discuss ways to better regulate corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental stewardship in the corporate world, including the establishment of laws against false advertisement, better and more extensive certification and the importance of “watchdogs”.

Speaking of watchdogs, Greenpeace has recently called out Royal Dutch Shell for greenwashing. It is a unique case however, because instead of targeting Shell itself, Greenpeace has instead criticised Lego's move to advertise for Shell in its toys, which it believes to contradict Lego's commitment to establish itself as a more environmentally responsible brand (Vaughan, 2014). I find this example interesting because it reveals a specific strategy that oil companies may use to "greenwash" themselves - investing or tying up with "greener" consumer brands to portray themselves as being more environmentally or socially responsible than they really are. The issue is now complicated because one, Shell's greenwashing strategies are now more accessible to the masses and have the potential to influence more people, Lego's environmental efforts are also called into question and because consumer choice may now have a more direct impact on the actions of oil companies. 

Considering the trend of greenwashing among mainstream companies, it is unlikely that this case study will be the last of its kind. While Cherry & Sneirson (2012) have suggested possible legal framework to regulate CSR in the oil industry and beyond, many depend on consumers to call out large corporations on their dirt. Partnerships between Lego and Shell may affect consumer mindset and undermine such efforts. As such, I feel more needs to be done to educate and inform consumers about the true impact of their purchases. While sometimes in itself controversial, environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have made us question our true impact on the environment. I also agree with Cherry & Sneirson that more needs to be done with regard to certification of "green" products and companies. As for the law, I feel a more important focus lies in prosecuting companies for irresponsible activities in their operations.  

Let's end off with a video by Greenpeace regarding Lego's partnership with Shell:

If you would like to sign the petition to ask Lego to cut ties with Shell, click here! 


References: 
    Carveth, R. (2011). Communication, national and local. In K. Wehr (Ed.), Green culture: An A-to-Z guide. (pp. 174-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.4135/9781412975711.n27

   Cherry, M. A., & Sneirson, J. F. (2012). Chevron, Greenwashing, and the Myth of "Green Oil Companies". Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment, 3.

     Ramon, S. (2010, Oct 18). Chevron Launches New Global Advertising Campaign: 'We Agree'. Retrieved from http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/10182010_chevronlaunchesnewglobaladvertisingcampaignweagree.news on 21 Sep, 2014. 

     Vaughan, A. (2014, July 1). Greenpeace urges Lego to end Shell partnership. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/01/greenpeace-lego-shell-partnership-toys-oil-arctic on 21 Sep, 2014. 

Green Consumption - Redemption Time

So is green consumerism all bad?

I think it would be a bit extreme to say yes to that question. In fact, according to Williams (2007) large environmental groups such as Greenpeace are in favour of green consumerism. This is because for many years before eco-friendly living became popular, most people had ignored the "Carter-era environmental message of sacrifice" (Willaims, 2007). Now that the environment is in the spotlight, many NGOs see this as an opportunity to get the masses to be involved in environmental issues. 

Interestingly, a market research conducted on shoppers at a store in the USA revealed this: people knew that their choice to purchase eco-friendly products were not going to reverse climate change (Williams, 2007). However, the interviewees shared that they did it as a "practice of mindfulness" (Williams, 2007). They saw it as a start to further action on the issue. 

Green consumerism is not bad on its own. The problem arises when people see it as the be-all-end-all solution to climate change. While green consumerism makes us rethink our consumption patterns, it does not on its own, address larger issues of over-consumption. As discussed in the previous post, green consumerism may propel people to think it is okay to consume at current rates or higher, as long as they purchase "green" products. Concerns over "greenwashing" have also been raised, which is another major issue I will discuss subsequently. 

The significance of green consumerism, however, lies in its ability to reach out to the masses. It shows consumers that they can be part of the change towards a more sustainable world, that tackling climate change is not a distant problem dealt with by states and gargantuan organisations. It puts the problem of climate change right in our faces, in the clothes we wear and the food we eat. It is based on the idea that consumers have the power to make a change through their choices, because at the end of the day industries respond to this demand.

Granted, buying that $245 organic cotton Levi's isn't going to bring us out of climate change and other problems of environmental degradation, but it is a positive first step. Instead of sitting around talking about climate change and waiting for "the gah-men (government)" to do something about it, we can all make a change in our small little ways. Because honestly, how many of us can even say we consumed a shred of organic veggie in the last one year?

References:

  Williams, A. (2007, July 1). Buying into the green movement. The New York Times. Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/fashion/01green.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Green Consumption - Too Good To Be True?

Consumption has witnessed an explosive growth over the last 50 years or so, as with almost everything related to mankind. Forget about all the other functions you learnt in Math, the only important curve in modern times is the exponential one: 

Source

It is clear: we need a solution to the unsustainable levels of consumption we have created. Yet being the narcissistic homo sapiens race, compromising on our own satisfaction is often seen as a last resort. If we can engage in "green consumerism", why consume less? And in theory this sounds quite good: 

"Roll out from under the sumptuous hemp-fiber sheets on your bed in the morning and pull on a pair of $245 organic cotton Levi’s and an Armani biodegradable knit shirt.

Stroll from the bedroom in your eco-McMansion, with its photovoltaic solar panels, into the kitchen remodeled with reclaimed lumber. Enter the three-car garage lighted by energy-sipping fluorescent bulbs and slip behind the wheel of your $104,000 Lexus hybrid." (Williams, 2007) 

Treading a little lighter while keeping satisfaction levels high, what's there not to love? 

Two articles, "Buying Into the Green Movement" by the New York Times and "Green Consumerism Is No Solution" by Huffington Post tell us why "green consumption" may be too good to be true:

Firstly, both authors explain that green consumption over-simplifies environmental problems to a matter of making better shopping choices. It creates a false notion that the consumption of "greener" products equates to sustainable consumption, ignoring that the "cumulative effect of our consumption remains enormous and hazardous" (Williams, 2007). Wilk (2013) goes on to mention that new eco-friendly products on the shelves only offer consumers more choices, which is likely to offset any possible benefits of purchasing said products. 

In addition, Wilk (2013) also mentions that purchasing eco-friendly and in a broader context, "ethical" products, is often merely a form tokenism, which we engage in in hopes that this act of "passive activism" may cause greater changes in the environmental scene. 

There is a consensus that the root of the problem is not so much what we are consuming as it is HOW MUCH we are consuming. As such, green consumption does not really solve our problems. Williams cites examples given by environmentalists where no consumption is simply better than the supposedly "greener" choice (e.g. consuming fruits in season instead of importing them from abroad, even if they are organically grown). Wilk, on the other hand, believes that more direct action has to be taken, including "dramatic public events that bring shame on high consumers" (Wilk, 2013).

Indeed, green products casts a false illusion that we can get away with our obnoxious consumption habits by replacing the products we buy with greener ones. Now that I think of it, I have used the excuse that a product was organic/eco-friendly to buy more of it than I needed a couple of times. Definitely not reducing my ecological footprint. We are not going to save the world by buying tons (literally) of organic products. It is perhaps time to ponder if "green consumption" actually exists, or if it is just another oxymoron we created to distract ourselves from the real problem of environmental degradation. 

So...is green consumption all bad? I will present the other side of the argument in a follow-up post.

(To be continued...)

References:
       Wilk, R. (2013, June 14). Green consumerism is no solution. Huffington Post. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/green-consumerism-is-no-solution_b_3437457.html

  Williams, A. (2007, July 1). Buying into the green movement. The New York Times. Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/fashion/01green.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&