Bad ads get better (maybe), Nokia wins dubious green award, and it’s all gone wrong for Shell
Stabilising greenwash, if not the climate
The UK Advertising Standards Authority’s Environmental Claims Survey 2008, published in October, makes surprising reading. The watchdog says that of the 195 random ads it looked at across different media, only 6% breached the British code of advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing. Interesting. If the ASA is to be believed, corporate greenwash may be stabilising in the UK.
The agency says in the report: “In 2006, the ASA received 117 complaints about 83 ads making environmental claims. During 2007 we received 561 complaints about 410 ads and, by the end of June, the ASA had received 218 complaints about 160 ads in 2008.”
Whether this means that the number of complainers is starting to plateau, or that companies are getting smarter with their green marketing, or that the downturn hit advertising early, is hard to say. Probably it’s a bit of all three. Greenwasher will look out for the stats on the second half of 2008, due next year, with great interest.
Unfortunate wording for Nokia
Now in their third year – and only half the size of the inaugural 2006 event – the 2008 Green Awards, organised by communications agency Satellite and held in London in November, featured slightly bumbling accolades for agencies, government bodies, non-governmental organisations and companies raising awareness of green issues. One award collector fell over while climbing the stage, and the host handed out the wrong award to another winner.
But eventually, Nokia won the overall top prize for its “corporate employee engagement programme”. The prize was probably deserved, but the awards maestros for some reason decided to call it a “grand prix award”. Odd to choose a name for the top gong that is associated with a polluting motorsport event. To compound matters, Coca-Cola, not known as a sector leader in sustainability, won in an environmental category for smart advertising.
The scoop that got away
Trade magazines often have a hard time understanding sustainability. All have started to cover green and ethical issues in recent years, but few do it particularly well. It is perhaps understandable, given that responsible business is not their area and it is complex stuff.
Still, Marketing magazine probably wins the award in 2008 for biggest eco-story cock-up. In a recent November issue the UK marketing trade publication incorrectly alleged that retailer Marks & Spencer had told the Carbon Trust that “it is not focused on [environmental programme] Plan A in the current climate and is instead focusing on price”.
Even with the major profits drop at M&S in recent weeks, this would be one of the biggest stories of greenwash ever. A leading high street brand that has championed the environment drops its green promises as soon as consumers feel the pinch – a terrific news story. If only it were true.
Luckily for everyone, except Marketing magazine, it’s not true. “We now accept that M&S remains fully committed to its environmental programme,” the magazine said in an apology.
Greenwasher is not alone…
There are now an increasing number of sites and commentators keeping a close eye on greenwashing all over the world. From consultants who claim to provide indexes of greenwashers, to the new Guardian newspaper column by well-known environmental journalist Fred Pearce, scrutiny is on the increase.
In November Pearce rightly slated car companies for making often ludicrous claims about the environment in their advertising. The latest offering from Toyota, a firm that really ought to know better, includes a line about cleaning the air as you drive, according to Pearce, who goes on to take a pop at Land Rover for its polluting record. Amusingly, the Google-driven ads under the article were for, wait for it, Land Rover.
Greenwasher of the year
As last year, Greenwasher feels an accolade is due to the greatest example of eco-nonsense peddled by a large company in 2008.
This year’s winner has to be Shell. The oil giant was humiliated for trying to convince us all through advertising that its $10bn investment in the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, was making a contribution to a sustainable environmental future.
It is truly amazing that no one in the company, not known for hiring dummies, spotted this absurd ad before it went out. The resulting rather spectacular media coverage of Shell’s telling off meant that, in retrospect, the company not only produced, displayed and pulled the ad, while hanging its head in shame – but paid along the way for the privilege. Outstanding. Shell’s tar sands’ slip up: a worthy winner of the 2008 Greenwash award of the year.
Got a story? Email greenwasher@ethicalcorp.com