Green Advertising Hyperbole

Words by Emma Goldrick

This article is part of PULPCLIMATE week. CLICK HERE to join the facebook group. University of Sydney Students will be marching from Fischer Library at 10:00 AM on the 20th of September.

Our capitalistic society has embodied environmentalism into a selling point, leaving individuals unable to escape the hypocrisy of the consumer world. As individuals are becoming increasingly environmentally aware in their decisions, the market has amped up the practice of ‘greenwashing’. Greenwashing is a term that was originally coined in the 80s to describe companies that use misleading advertising to make consumers believe they are acting in an environmentally conscious way.  

COMPANIES FOUND GUILTY OF GREENWASHING 

Many companies present in Australia are guilty of misleading their customers into believing they have sustainable goals. Below are 5 prominent companies in Australia that practice greenwashing;

Nestle 

Nestle has continuously advertised their products to contain “sustainably source cocoa beans”. However, a 2019 lawsuit against Nestle found that the companies sourcing of cocoa is fueling the massive deforestation in West Africa. Products such as Baby Ruth bars, Newsquick Chocolate milk and Butterfinger’s all contain the cocoa driving wide-scale deforestation.

SeaWorld 

SeaWorld is no stranger to claims of greenwashing. The documentary Blackfish in 2013 showed the questionable morals of the company in its treatment of animals and employees. In fact, SeaWorld's stock price dropped 50% from its initial public offering due to an anti-SeaWorld campaign. The company faced a lawsuit as it was alleged that SeaWorld's use of ‘cares for’, ‘protects’ and ‘nurtures’ was misrepresenting the inhumane environments that animals are trapped within. 

Coca-Cola 

Coke came out with a Cola under the branding “Coke Life”. This ‘green’ drink, branded with a green logo is an excellent example of a company putting a logo on something to give it the appearance of environmentally conscious.  Coca Cola has had a long and well-recorded history of being hesitant to being responsible for their waste. A notable case of this was in 2013 when the landmark case of Coca Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Northern Territory of Australia took place, a dispute which saw this company take the state to court for trying to impose a buy-back cost on containers. Put simply, Coca-Cola challenged the proposed scheme which would see $0.1 added to their products. A cost which would be refunded at recycling stations once the bottles were returned. The proposition of a ‘Coke life’ drink, which is made of more recyclable materials, tends to bathe itself in irony as the company which pushes fo this has sued the state for trying to make it responsible for managing its own waste. 

Shell Oil

Shell Oil uses pictures of coral reefs on their website to distract from the very nature of the company. The company has a page under the titled “Shell and biodiversity” which emphasises how the business considers biodiversity during their projects. 

Origin, AGL, EnergyAustralia 

A report ‘Dirty three’ exposed the three largest electricity generators in Australia responsible for 13% of Australia’s carbon emissions in 2013. The report drew on public statements made from the companies regarding their ‘green’ mission. The three companies often claim to have championed the adoption of renewable energy despite AGL’s share of renewable energy declining as it expands ownership into fossil-fuel projects. 


HOW TO SPOT GREENWASHING

Each company engaging in greenwashing will try and employ a clever and innovative tactic to disguise that they are putting profit before the environment. Here are five ways to spot greenwashing before you fuel the flame!


  1. Green projects
    While it is nice to believe companies will act in the genuine interest of the environment, too often than not a ‘green project’ is a facade for a poor environmental impact. Green projects are commonly seen after the company has been publicly outed for some type of environmental degradation. i.e. An oil company ‘cleaning up the ocean’ after an oil spill. 

  2. Pressing issues
    Pressing issues involves the company utilising news of environmental destruction to brand themselves away from the issue. i.e. a plastic shopping bag branded with a message about how it will be reused. 

  3. Rebranding
    Companies will often try to rebrand themselves in an attempt to appear more environmentally conscious. Companies will often use a logo or slogan to entice consumers into believing the project is sustainable. 

  4. Vague data
    Often companies will commission their own research to prove themselves as environmentally friendly. Companies will use misleading statistics about their product which the company has constructed in order to give the perception of a particular image. Within this companies often will use technical terms to divert from the actual facts, confusing the customer into believing the business is environmentally friendly. 

  5. Partnerships
    Businesses will often claim a favourable partnership to make the product look as though it has been endorsed by a reliable source. This is similar to when a toothpaste company claims that ‘1 in 2 dentists recommend this’, but from an environmental sense. 


Pulp Editors