Complaints Against Greenwashing Quadruple in the UK
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA 
on 05. 1.08
The UK-based Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is a body that regulates truthfulness in advertising. We’ve already seen the authority step in to a number of disputes regarding sustainability claims – including banning a deceptive Lexus ad; a greenwashing campaign for conventional cotton, and claims from Ryanair that aviation accounted for only 2% of global greenhouse emissions. But it’s not just corporations that the ASA has on their toes – it also waded in to criticize erroneous claims made by a pamphlet for an anti-wind farm group recently. What could be behind this sudden flurry of concern around irresponsible advertising on environmental issues – well it seems that public complaints on this matter are up. Way up:
“The number of complaints lodged to the advertising standards watchdog relating to environmental or green claims has more than quadrupled in the past year, according to a report released this week. The annual report from the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) shows that in 2007 the ASA received 561 complaints about environmental claims in 410 adverts, compared with just 117 complaints about 83 adverts the year before – a more than fourfold increase. The ASA has already censured several high-profile companies including Suzuki, Shell, Ryanair and Toyota for the practice of "greenwash" – where companies are found to have misled consumers on their environmental practices as a business or of the particular benefits of a product or service.”
While some will no doubt complain about censorship, we tend to view this trend as encouraging. Freedom of expression should not be used as a license for deception, deceit or fraud, so we’re only too glad to see that the ASA exists as a body to keep advertising honest.
::The Guardian::via site visit::
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
- Focus on Focus Earth: The Beginning of Eco-Terrorism (Video)
- Cooking on a Budget: Use Everything
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Green Exercise: Dance your Butt Off
- Meet Stan Stalnaker of Hub Culture
There is no time left for the corporations to play games with going green. I am glad to hear that consumers are keeping vigilant and taking the time to let manufacturers and authorities know what they are finding and thinking.
It's more sickening than anything else that companies are using a way to save our planet for their own personal gain and not even contributing while they're at it.
It's like saying "We contribute to cancer research" when you contribute to weapons grade genetic warfare.
It's so important for those who care to spend their dollars appropriately, and to stay vigilant to help guide those that buy walmart and pottery barn stuff and clorox and say "look, walmart's gone green! clorox has gone green! yay!" when they have only bought into these greenwashing attrocities...
I saw a hilarious ad the other night by the company that makes Windex and a host of toxic cleaning products. In it they claimed that "they were doing their part" for the environment by some marginal increase in production line efficiency. "Green" labels were shown affixed to the thousands of bottles of MrClean streaming by on a conveyor belt.
I strongly believe, that the British government is far the biggest problematic institution with almost perfect 'environmentally friendly' PR - Marketing - Green Spin, which spends $millions for public promotions, yet their real activities are far away, still widely supporting the most dirty technologies.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown blocks every single attempt to make Britain more environmentally friendly and energy independent by use of renewable energy sources.
Brennan,
Just wanted to point out the Windex is owned by SC Johnson, who are actually known for being socially and environmentally sustainable before it became cool. They’re a privately-owned family company, so they aren’t as tied down to the profits-over-environment maxims that dominate the business world. The family that owns the company seems to be genuinely passionate about dedicating a portion of proceeds to environmental and social improvements. I recently saw a presentation by one of SC Johnson’s lead Corporate Social Responsibility officers, who said that they were reluctantly advertising their “green” products to keep up with the marketing trends, but, in reality, they have been operating with the most environmentally-friendly ingredients possible for years. Their GreenList process is well respected in the community, and they are in constant research to reduce their environmental impacts. SC Johnson is also experimenting with social responsibility objectives at the “base of the pyramid,” trying to help people in the world’s poorest communities start up successful businesses using SC Johnson’s products and expertise. You can check out their sustainability initiatives in their 2007 report here: http://www.scjohnson.com/community/2007_Public_Report.asp.
You also mentioned Mr. Clean, which is not owned by SC Johnson – it’s a Proctor & Gamble product. You must be blurring two different commercials together. P&G is more likely to be your greenwashing offender. I know less about their corporate attitudes, but I know that they are marketing only about half of their products as “green,” which implicitly admits that the other half of their products are environmentally-unfriendly. It seems like P&G is just jumping on the green bandwagon, while SC Johnson is driving it. Please don’t mix them up!