Beyond Petroleum? More Like Big Problem
by Alex Pasternack, Beijing, China on 08.17.06
Dare you to name one truly "Treehugging" corporation? Hard, isn't it? That's not good news, not just for the environment but for all the companies who are spending a lot of green on trying to look green. Thanks to BP's recent troubles in the Arctic and elsewhere (and more to come), the old phenomenon of companies trying to look green, or "greenwashing" as it's known, returns to the limelight. Sure, the name switch from British Petroleum to BP (or "beyond petroleum") was cool, but c'mon, how "beyond" it can you be when you've still got all that black stuff on your hands? As Athan Manuel, the director of lands protection at the Sierra Club, puts it to the Washington Post, "Compared to their colleagues in the oil and gas industry, they're the best...[But] Being the best of the oil industry is like being the smartest of the Three Stooges. At the end of the day you're Moe, you're still a stooge."
It's true that, since BP's CEO famously broke ranks with the oil industry by recognizing global warming in 1997, the company has invested in alternative energies, started the U.S.'s second largest solar outfit, and lowered its greenhouse gas emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels (check out their green-heavy website). But what about all those other greenhouse gas emissions? Make no mistake, this is still very much an oil company, one that made $20 billion in 2005 largely from digging up hydrocarbons. In a recent New York Times op-ed ("Beyond Propaganda") even one of the ad-men who worked on Olgilvy and Mather's rebranding campaign for the company laments the wide gap between image and reality, leading us to wonder what research could have been funded with all those millions of marketing dollars. Joe Nocera, the grey lady's business columnist, is also bothered by BP's posing this week:
If BP hadn't been so holier than thou in its marketing these past years, I doubt that it would be getting hammered right now -- at least to this extent. If there is one ironclad rule about marketing, it is that you had better be practicing internally what you are preaching to the world.
Seriously, it's time to give credit to the BPs and the Wal-Marts for what they have done in the way of Treehugging--and we need to keep pushing them to do more. But we should also thank "eco-friendly" corporations like BP for reminding us once again not to be naive about any "green" claims. As Judy Hu, global head of advertising and branding at General Electric, recently summed-up the motivation behind GE's ongoing Ecoimagination campaign to Brandweek,
Green is green as in the color of money. It is about a business opportunity, and we believe we can increase our revenue behind these Ecomagination products and services.
So throw some of your favorite instances of "greenwashing" into the comments section. Or name some big companies that truly deserve the "green" title. But then again (and at the risk of beating an old horse, or entering a deeper, moral realm), that all comes down to how we even define a "green corporation"...
: : Associated Press via : : New York Times;: : Slate covers the BP rebranding; : : Brandweek looks at the difficulty of marketing green; and "New Alaskan Oil Fields Being Offered" : : Washington Post
I hope we can get through this 'green is fashionable' phase as quickly as possible. Let the marketing monkeys have their fun, manipulating people this way and that, then lets get on top of the real data and 'sustain' some 'sustainable' solutions. The world needs it.
I am beginning to get a bit sick of the word 'Eco' in front of everything - i'm sure the general public will as well soon. Unfortunately this is such a complicated subject that the scope for confusion is massive.
Interface Carpets. I heard Ray Anderson speak to a room full of businesspersons at a Nature Conservancy fundraiser and he really seemed to get it.
This article is why the green movement can be so exasperating to work with at times.
Yes, it's true that BP still makes the majority of its money with petroleum-based products.
Yes, it's true that some companies are mendacious and green wash.
So the question becomes: how will we know when a company honestly "gets it?" If they stumble, or heaven forbid, have to continue bringing in revenue while they transform, does that mean that they don't get it? Is it possible that they do and it just doesn't happen over night?
It's an important question. Because it is so very easy to snipe from the sidelines. And we sustainability folks need to encourage and applaud every move toward sustainability that an old line business takes -- not wait for its warts to show up and question its commitment and integrity at every turn. Well, we can, but it will discourage the people in the business and slow down the whole process.
If you're wondering about BP's marketing campaign, consider this.
In organization transformation work, once a new direction for a company is chosen, the first thing to do is declare it publicly. With a public declaration comes commitment. It notifies everyone inside and outside the company that the company is on the hook for its promises.
BP is way out in front compared to its peers.
It is:
* investing in renewables
* putting major money behind a marketing campaign and not just token change (its public declaration)
* advocating for carbon caps (http://deletetheborder.org/node/1385)
What they are doing seems to be a textbook case of the CEO getting the troops to align behind a vision. It's very courageous to make that vision public. You try being a CEO of a major oil company and say the things that Lord John Browne is saying. (For a very small window into what is happening inside BP, read the description of organizational transformation they are taking on by the company working with them: http://www.jmj.com/OrganizationalTransformation.asp.)
So the question remains: how will we know when a company gets it?
The pipeline leak needs to be looked at in practical terms as well as in a policy context. Installing the pipes was a huge challenge and completed decades ago, when Lord Brown may not have even been an executive. Regretably, the choice of materials, steel with interior corrosion proof coating, turned out to be bad. Severe corrosion set in before the end of it's anticipated design life. He can't be hedl accountable for that.
It is, however, legitimate to ask why an aggressive pipe inspection program was not in place to detect it earlier, and insitute a replacement program so as to avert long term shut-down. Cost savings would be the obvious answer. Just like a person who chooses not to take his car in for regular oil changes, it was "out of sight and out of mind".
I've heard Ray Anderson too, years ago, and feel that he really gets it as well; however, Bill McDonough is no longer so sure, at least last time I heard him address the subject. But then, I know at least one solar designer who isn't sure that McDonough gets it either.
On the other hand, I'd suggest looking at Patagonia and Malden Mills and Rockport Shoes as treehugging corporations. If you want to get controversial, look at DuPont and 3M as well. If you want to go even farther afield, consider Hyde Tools in Southbridge, MA. Ten years ago, they were already talking about approaching zero water waste in the manufacture of their products.
Discussion at among engineers regarding the corrossion focuses on (among other things) that fact that reduced flow from declining production may lead to increased corrosion. The slower flow allows water and bacteria to accumulate and do the damage.
A truly "green" company might be Soylent Energy LLC :-)
Hey Fritz, I got it. "It's made from people!"
Interface, Ecotrust, Patagonia, MEC, Tridos Bank just to name a few
More irony spotted...just below and to the right of this article is (was?) an advert for Energy Consultant Jobs...well, I thought, I can do number-crunching for wind farms and I know my I-V curves...but no! No renewables in sight, just posts in the oil and gas industries! Oh well...
Whole Foods Market. Purchasing enough wind energy credits to offset all the electricity use of every one of their 170 stores has to count for something. Not to mention the expense involved in making the transition to running all of the trucks for two of their regions (the South and the Mid-Atlantic) on biodiesel. Also, whether companies are thinking environmentally because of a sincere concern, as I believe Whole Foods has been for the past 20 years, or are doing it as a marketing strategy alone, BP and GE, shouldn't we be happy that something is being done and we are moving in the right direction, even if we aren't moving far enough and the movement is for impure reasons?