Greenwashing

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

Greenwashing by Emily Pollard Strangechord

Cue to an aerial shot - a large bird in flight over a beautiful turf of water foaming with waves. The text below reads “Shell is making waves for cleaner engines.” Shell? Shell Oil? Yes indeed; the ad text goes on to describe the specially formulated cleaner grade gasoline Shell has developed, ending with the sentence, “Experience the waves of change at Shell.” (Shell, 2002) Ahhh, you say, now I get it. And you set the magazine page down feeling reassured and even hopeful…maybe these oil companies aren’t so bad after all.

If this experience sounds familiar, you and millions of others the world over have been duped. Each year oil companies pour vast amounts of PR money into creating ad campaigns aimed at painting an environmentally friendly picture of their company. In this world of slick media, these corporations realize that the ad is mightier than the deed when it comes to shaping public perception. This mass manipulation is referred to as greenwashing.

What is “greenwashing”?

In 2000, in a moment of victory for environmentalists, the term “greenwashing” was included in the 10th Edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Pelupessy, 2000). It is defined there as “Disinformation disseminated by an organisation so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash.” The CorpWatch definition: “1.) The phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty. 2) Environmental whitewash. 3) Hogwash.” (CorpWatch, 2002)

Greenwash takes many forms. From the print advertisement described above and television commercials to participation in environmental conferences and the creation of eco-friendly-looking corporate front groups, many transnational corporations (TNCs) have made expensive and wide-reaching efforts to ensure that no matter how they act environmentally, the public will view them in a good light. These companies sink their dollars into huge public relations campaigns designed to manufacture and preserve a green image. The whole situation is two-faced. As John Stauber, publisher of PR Watch magazine said, “Companies take on corporate ad campaigns and high-profile partnerships with mainstream environmental group--while simultaneously lobbying to gut green laws.” (Helvarg, 1996)

Greenwashing has a full history behind it, beginning in the mid to late 1960s. Back then Westinghouse, recognizing the growing anti-nuclear movement, ran four-color ads proclaiming the anti-polluting virtues of atomic energy (Karliner, 2001). In 1969 alone, the utility companies spent over $300 million advertising their anti-pollution efforts, apparently more than eight times the amount the companies were spending on the efforts themselves. This brand of greenwash, which Jerry Mander labeled “eco-pornography” at the time, increased in prevalence over the coming decades, peaking around Earth Day 1990. Corporate environmentalism came into its own that year. Companies realized that increasing numbers of consumers wanted green products and so they set about marketing themselves as environmentally conscious and concerned. Today, it doesn’t take long to find products made by the biggest TNCs boasting “recyclable”, "biodegradable" or "all natural” properties. The problem is, these corporations rank among the biggest enemies of the environment when it comes to their day-to-day operations. In fact, it’s often the greatest culprits that pour the most money into hefty green PR campaigns. Ten years ago, O’Dwyer’s PR Services Report, a trade publication, posited that the environment would be, “the life-and-death PR battle of the 1990s.” (Helvarg, 1996) A battle is exactly what one would call it, with TNCs fighting it out by whatever means necessary to win the public’s approval.

What is fundamentally at play when it comes to greenwash tactics is corporations’ belief that they should be allowed to police themselves and participate in environmental causes on their own terms. There is an intrinsic assertion that governments should relax regulations and avoid legislations, allowing corporations to handle their own operation and cleanups in a voluntary way. Our government has heavily bought into this notion of corporate freedom. Protected by free speech laws and laissez-faire policy, corporations are permitted to wreak their environmental havoc, and then select eco causes that hurt their bottom lines the least and tout their affiliation with those to the public.

The oil companies

In writing this paper, once I decided to narrow my focus to a single industry the choice was glaringly obvious – the oil industry. “According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, just 122 corporations account for more than 80 percent of all global carbon emissions - by far the major greenhouse gas. And just five private global oil corporations -- ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, Shell, Chevron and Texaco -- produce oil that contributes some 10 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.” (Bruno & Karliner, 2000) The pattern we find in oil corporation greenwash is one of highlighting and glorifying the very small amount they spend on environmental research and projects (often involving renewables). The truth the public rarely hears is what a minute budget percentage goes to that which these companies are advertising.

In reality, over time, the Greenhouse Gangsters have not used their power for significant development of renewable energy. In 1973, geothermal, wind, and solar accounted for 0.1% of world energy supply. In 1996, renewables accounted for a mere 0.4% of world energy supply. During that same period, oil declined in terms of dominance of fuel supply, from 44.9% to 35.3%, though it is still the biggest source. But this decline was replaced largely with natural gas, which contributes equally to global warming, and nuclear power. (Bruno, Karliner & Brotsky, 1999)

To follow is an overview of greenwashing campaigns of BP Amoco, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil.

BP Amoco - “Plug in the Sun”

The 1998 merger of BP and Amoco formed Britain’s largest company and the world’s second largest oil corporation. The oil company most determined to carve out an environmentally sensitive image, the corporation spent over ₤69.5 million in 2000 to rebrand itself as green (Arnold, 2001). It declared a new name, “Beyond Petroleum” and now boasts a new green logo design and commitment to invest in renewable energy sources. Included in this rebranding campaign was the purchase of Solarex, the largest solar energy company. With that $45 million purchase (CorpWatch, 2001), BP can now claim that it is the largest solar energy company in the world. Within a week after the purchase, BP launched a “Plug in the Sun” global program, installing solar panels on 200 BP stations nationwide.

All of this newfound environmental concern sounds great in print and on television commercials. However, sweeping aside the green curtain also reveals some jaw-dropping hypocrisy. “A week before the purchase of Solarex, BP Amoco showed its true colors (closer to black than green) when it purchased ARCO for $26.5 billion.” (Bruno, 1999) For every $100 the company spends on oil exploration and development, a mere 16 cents is spent on solar energy (Pelupessy, 2000). The purchase of Solarex was a drop in the bucket for BP to be able to call itself the world’s largest solar energy company. “BP will spend $5 billion over five years for oil exploration in Alaska alone” (CorpWatch, 2001) and is in fact one of the strongest lobbyists for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. BP Amoco’s track record is like that of any oil company – full of oil spills, major accidents, regulations violations, and environmental destruction. Ironically, on the same day the company announced its “Beyond Petroleum” campaign, it agreed to pay $10 million in penalties for environmental and pollution violations at nine of its oil refineries. (Manuel, 2001)

Make no mistake, BP Amoco’s bread and butter is its oil business. Ads stating, “We can fill you up with sunshine” mislead consumers into thinking the company is steering away from oil and pouring vast amounts of resources into the solar energy business. Once you look past the designer greens of the print ads and the pretty glare of the service station solar panels, you see that while “BP Amoco hopes you will feel you are putting ‘some sun in your life,’….you put greenhouse gases in your tank”. (Bruno, 1999)

Chevron - “People Do”

One of the top five oil corporations in the world, Chevron has one of the longest histories of greenwash. The company’s “People Do” advertisements debuted in 1985 and the campaign is considered the textbook case of successful greenwashing. According to CorpWatch, polls Chevron conducted in California in the late 1980’s showed that it had become the oil corporation people trusted most to protect the environment (CorpWatch, 2001). In fact, Chevron rates consistently high in marketing polls asking respondents to name the oil company they would trust most to conduct environmentally sensitive projects. Perhaps most notably is that the corporation ranks best among those most antagonistic to oil companies. The following is a description of one of their fruitful “People Do” ads:

The shot opens with a troop of tiny sea turtles moving along the sand towards the full moon's glow on the ocean. "In a race to survive, instinct and moonlight guide newborn sea turtles," a somber narrator intones. "Do people make certain that the only light visible is the one that leads home? People Do." Sounds like a generic nature special, right? But actually this is an ad – for Chevron oil company. The ad goes on to explain how Chevron is saving the turtles by concealing light from nearby oil and gas operations so they can make it to the water. The message is clear: Chevron is a defender of the environment, a champion of endangered species, a lovable, eco-friendly corporation saving the infants of the animal kingdom. (Pelupessy, 2000)

What Chevron’s green ads don’t explain to the public is that these actions are usually a result of “legal ‘mitigation’ that Chevron is required to carry out under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and other laws before it can destroy other habitats with its drilling operations.” (Helvarg, 1996) Also bear in mind that the company is spending much less on the promoted projects than on the “People Do” campaign itself. “The butterfly preserve project at the El Segundo refinery in California, for example, costs the company $5,000 a year to run. But producing a 30 second advertisement about the preserve may cost $200,000.” (Pelupessy, 2000) And that amount does not even cover airtime. Chevron has been slapped with millions of dollars in fines resulting from plant explosions, illegal air pollution, neighborhood chemical and waste pollution, and improper hazardous waste disposal (Pelupessy, 2000). While achieving the best reputation of the oil companies through its greenwash ads, Chevron continues to rack up some of the highest fines recorded by the EPA.

Shell - “Profits or Principles”

Shell Corporation is the third largest global oil company. Their “Profits and Principles” campaign emphasizes Shell’s renewed commitment to “not only meet the agreed Kyoto targets to reduce greenhouse gas emission, but to exceed them” (Bruno, 2001). The commercials feature company employees doing environmental work, and Shell’s annual report now includes a special addition covering their environmental and ethical endeavors. Even their U.S. corporate web address is .

Shell looks as if it is making eco-friendly strides, beginning with its alignment with the Kyoto Protocol. Upon closer inspection, though, we see that the backing is largely symbolic. Shell alone accounts for more CO2 than most countries, and the corporation is as active in its efforts to locate oil as the other oil giants. “Shell touts its commitment to renewable energy and stresses that it has created a division called Shell Renewables…(The fact is) Shell spends just 0.6% of its annual investments on renewables.” (Bruno, 2001) The following is from a satirical Shell “acceptance speech” for winning Lifetime Achievement Award at 2002’s Green Oscars:

Our commitment to greenwash has never faltered. We believe we have spent more on greenwash than any other company (though naturally we will not give out figures)…We imply that the PR fiascoes of the 1990's have changed us, without ever admitting that there were any fiascoes, or that anything needed changing! In other words, we didn't do anything wrong, and we'll never do it again. Our ads have everything from exuberant green foliage to attractive blond actresses/geologists in Third World villages. We're starting a Sustainability Institute at Rice University…Best of all, our greenwash is working! Most 'reasonable' people (i.e. newspaper editors, government policy wonks, pretty much everyone except green wackos who we can easily marginalize) think we have changed. (EarthSummit.biz, 2002)

ExxonMobil - “Helping Earth breathe easier”

ExxonMobil continues to be the “hard-liner” of the oil corporations. As the largest in the world, the company is the least concerned with presenting an eco-friendly image. Although ExxonMobil greenwash may be less ubiquitous than that of the other corporations, it is certainly as reprehensible. A recent campaign showed the corporation contesting claims that America’s air quality is getting worse. “In fact, ExxonMobil informs (the public) that the improvement in air quality comes from a ‘determined and cooperative effort involving both public and private sectors, harnessed to the power of advanced technology.’” (Heller & O’Malley, 2002) The oil giant also ran weekly commentaries in the editorial section of the New York Times explaining how its industry is “helping Earth breathe easier” due to tree-planting and financially supporting environmental groups (Pelupessy, 2000).

One only need turn to ExxonMobil’s actions to see that not only is the company preventing Earth from breathing a little easier, but it in fact has the most staunchly anti-environmental record of any of the oil companies. Unlike Shell and BP Amoco, ExxonMobil refuses to speak out against global warming, instead taking the stance that the issue does not exist. According to the company’s website, “fears of global warming ‘are based on completely unproven climate models or more often on sheer speculation without a reliable scientific basis’. ExxonMobil believes that current scientific understanding does not justify ‘mandatory restrictions on the use of fossil fuels’”. (Bruno, 2001) The corporation also provides major funding to so-called “greenhouse skeptics” – groups that serve mainly to mislead the public and policy makers by asserting that global warming is largely a myth. One of these groups is the Global Climate Coalition, which has spent more than $63 million to fight Congressional global warming policies (Pelupessy, 2000). Through this and other industry fronts, ExxonMobil was one of the most influential opponents of U.S. entry into the Kyoto Protocol.

ExxonMobil continues to be the biggest oil industry spender when it comes to protecting its interests politically. Its campaign contributions and lobbying efforts have enormous power over which regulations are passed or renewed.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2000 election cycle, ExxonMobil ranked second out of all donors by contributing $1,375,250 in campaign contributions. To make sure Congress gets their message, ExxonMobil spends millions of dollars on lobbying each year. In 1999, the company spent $11,695,800 to protect their interests from regulations…ExxonMobil was responsible for nearly a fifth of all lobbying dollars spent by the oil and gas industry. (Heller & O’Malley, 2002)

The above passage reveals the frighteningly close link between the corporation’s purse strings and our nation’s legislative process.

The impact on the public

Because greenwashing is a public relations issue, it is vital to look at how these campaigns shape public perception of the oil corporations. Their advertisements work extremely well to the companies’ benefit, but prey upon the public’s trust, intelligence, and good intentions. According to a 1999 Cone/Roper survey, Americans are more likely to give their business to companies which support environmental protection causes (Pelupessy, 2000). The oil corporations heed this message, but instead of taking actions and implementing policy to transform their companies into ones of which the public can be proud, they resort instead to greenwashing campaigns that deliberately deceive the people. The oil companies carefully craft an image rather than disclose to the public where their real motivations lie. To be expected, the companies are quick to defend their ads:

The companies claim they're simply responding to pressure. "When you see corporate America doing green advertising, it's because they get hit so often by the environmental community. You have to let the public know what good you're doing," counters Hal Dash, president of Cerrell Associates, a Los Angeles-based PR firm that numbers oil and auto interests among its clients, and which recently helped defeat an electric car mandate in California. (Helvarg, 1996)

Unfortunately, “the good they’re doing” is not much compared to the mess they’re making. In the long run, the oil corporations would make a much stronger positive impression on the public if rather than spending such large amounts on public relations, they invested in changing their operations.

The oil and other industries are adept at making environmental problems seem within the domain of citizen responsibility. While it is important that we limit our driving, turn off lights behind us, conserve water and heat, and recycle, there is a limit to how much individuals can do in their daily lives to manifest large-scale change. Making it look like the public’s burden to bear relieves industry from having to accept any responsibility to make truly significant advances to preserve the earth. With their minuscule investments in renewable energy sources and endless plundering and exploration, they take the smallest initiative they can get away with to plug into their greenwashing ads. “In this regard, the two oil giants are seeking to completely transform their image from oil companies with flawed environmental and social records, to ‘energy companies’ committed to taking action to combat climate change, without having to dramatically change their behavior. The PR company Burson-Marsteller, an expert in ‘reputation management’, argues that ‘corporate reputation has a direct impact on a company's ability to achieve policy-related goals.’” (CEO, 2000)

The best defense against greenwashing is to stay informed. For consumers, more than half the battle won is knowing that what is portrayed in an environmentally friendly oil advertisement belies what the corporation’s main operations and objectives. Although few of us can cease filling our vehicle’s tanks with gasoline and driving, we can let our legislators know we do not support sell-out to the oil corporations’ lobbying and front groups, or the new drillings the companies propose. The hope is to prevent the scenario that the world’s children grow up believing the oil corporations will save the earth.

Citations for resources used

Arnold, Matthew. 2001, July 12. “Walking the ethical tightrope.” Marketing.

Bruno, Kenny. 1999. “BP Amoco’s ‘Plug In the Sun’ Program.” CorpWatch.
http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=4048

Bruno, Kenny. 2001. “A Convenient Confusion.” New Internationalist. http://www.newint.org/issue335/confusion.htm

Bruno, Kenny & Karliner, Joshua. 2000. “Beware of deluge of deception on Earth Day.” The Progressive. http://www.progressive.org/mpdvbk00.htm

Bruno, Kenny, Karliner, Joshua & Brotsky, China. 1999. “Greenhouse Gangsters vs. Climate Justice.” CorpWatch. http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=1048

CEO: Corporate Europe Observatory. 2000. “The Climate Greenwash Vanguard: Shell and BPAmoco.” http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/greenhouse/greenwash.html

CorpWatch. 2002. “Campaigns: Greenwash Awards.” http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCC.jsp?topicid=102

CorpWatch. 2001. “Greenwash Fact Sheet.” http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=242

EarthSummit.biz. 2002. “The Green Oscars: Lifetime Achievement Award.” http://www.earthsummit.biz/awards/lifetime.html

Helvarg, David. 1996. “Perception is Reality: Greenwashing Puts the Best Public Face on Corporate Irresponsibility.” E/The Environmental Magazine. http://www.emagazine.com/november-december_1996/1196feat2.html

Heller, Rachel & O'Malley, Rebecca. 2002. “Don't Be Fooled 2002.” Earthday Resources. http://www.earthdayresources.org/publications/dbf2002.html

Karliner, Joshua. 2001. “A Brief History of Greenwash.” CorpWatch. http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=243

Manuel, Athan. 2001. “Vice President Once Again Supports Smog, Meltdown and Oil Spill Energy Plan.” Common Dreams Newscenter. http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0508-09.htm

McMillan, Stephanie. 1990. Cartoon. http://home.earthlink.net/~msarchive2000/015.htm

Pelupessy, Asmara. 2000. “The Green Screen.” http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=7

Shell Corporation. Advertisement. U.S News & World Report. December 2, 2002: 65.

Posted by rowan at January 2, 2003 09:45 PM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |