Red, Green & Blue: Me-Tooism Goes Green
So every big corporation is green now, huh? That’s apparently what I’m supposed to believe based on every other commercial on prime-time TV: Walmart, esurance.com, Waste Management, GE, Delta, Coca Cola, and on and on. But, to one degree or another, I’m not buying it.
Sure, some companies are doing some things to reduce their carbon footprints or save energy … but, in plenty of cases, those are moves that make sense for them from a cost-cutting perspective. It’s nice that these actions help the environment a bit while helping the bottom line, but do corporations really have to go out of the way to pat themselves so hard on the backs for it … and persuade consumer America that they’re the greenest thing since Kermit the Frog? For Pete’s sake, I’ve even seen a cigarette company ad touting how "natural" its product is because its tobacco is organically grown. Yuck.
I appreciate that airline companies and auto-makers (some of them, anyway) are trying to reduce their fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. But I’m going to go out on a limb here (A hippie in a tree? Someone call Brent Musburger!) and say that no airline or car company is really entitled to call itself a green business yet … not until, say, cellulosic ethanol and zero emissions become standard.
I think the real green companies are the ones spending more time going green and less time talking about it, like these 10 contenders for Co-op America’s 2007 People’s Choice Awards.
Tags: carbon emissions, carbon footprint, energy consumption, energy efficiency, Green Business, greenwashing, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
September 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Always beatin’ up on the big business there, Shirley.
So… what’s a noxious uber-polluter to do? Any efforts are always going to be ‘too little too late’ for those with a Green cause but isn’t it laudable that the companies are at least responding to the growing pressures of the green consumers?
I sure hope there’s some relative considerations for me on judgement day where some of the good might offset the larger portion of bad; and I would expect these businesses would want to be given credit for their good as well as bad as well.
Are some just trying to ride the green entrepreneurial rush of late? Well, yes, but it’s not limited to conglomerates and super-corps like Wal-Mart. My e’mail doesn’t go a day without getting an offer for a ‘green’ scrub-brush or other such non-sense from arm-chair spammer trying to capitalize on green awareness.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Thanks for linking to the Co-op America People’s Choice awards — that’s good stuff.
Jimmy, whether it’s the big guys or the little ones, companies giving lip service to the Big Green Deity aren’t really doing any good at all, so for them there will be no relativity on judgment day. I do hope that some of them are actually riding the green wave, but even then it’s only because it’s good business practice. Be “green,” make green. Sad.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Jimmy, you’re absolutely right: the big guys aren’t the only ones guilty of greenwashing. I get plenty of those green doo-dad and gizmo emails every day too, and I agree many are pointless band-wagoning or worse. But it’s the big-name corporations that are definitely making the most hay out of their green efforts; I’ll bet many spend more on marketing how "green" they are than in actually going green.
Sure, any efforts — however small — are better than none. But as a green-minded consumer, I get turned off by companies’ heavy-handed efforts to congratulate themselves on how eco-friendly they are (especially when they’re auto-makers who’ve actively fought efforts to reduce emissions and improve mileage).
Another concern I have is that people who might be less informed about what it takes to be truly green hear these self-congratulatory messages and believe that all is well: businesses big and small are doing everything necessary to ensure a green, healthy and sustainable future, so we’re all good.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I think it’s the hypocrisy that you seem to have a problem with Shirley.
Sure it may be a small investment on BPs part to put a percent or two of their revenues into things like Wind Power etc… but hey… that adds up to about $4 Billion that wouldn’t have been invested anyway. I’d say that even though $4 billion is chump change to BP as a whole it’s a whole bunch of dollars that wouldn’t be in wind and other alternatives had they not taken the initiative.
It’s just like the US and charity. The US is by far the most charitable country in the world in terms of individual charity and government programs to foreign nations. For some reason though absolute dollars don’t count and charitability is always measured in terms of % of GDP, etc. This distorts the reality about how many good altruistic dollars are being spent by Americans.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Yup, hypocrisy is a big part of my problem with greenwashing. Especially because some of the loudest green PR always seems to come from the environment’s worst offenders: car-makers, airlines and, now more than ever, coal (every company’s a "clean-coal" company now, it seems).
Interesting you should mention the U.S. charity issue and absolute dollars vs. GDP. One of the analogies I had thought about bringing up at the start of this discussion was the parable about the wealthy man and the poor widow at the temple: while the rich man poured out his cash and made a big deal about it, Jesus saved his praise for the destitute woman who donated a pittance … because it was a fortune to her. Seems to be of some relevance in this conversation, don’t you think?
September 18th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I agree with Jimmy here. Giving credit where credit is due helps encourage small steps in the right direction. If "the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step," it seems that we are well on our way in the right direction.
I also think that Shirley’s point is well taken: business (large and small) is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gas production and business practices contribute greatly to resource depletion. In creating a sustainable society, it will be important to continue the march forward toward environmental and social responsibility. I think that the article reflects a general and valid concern that we must continue to hold business (and perhaps more importantly, our own lifestyle habits) responsible for continuing on the road to a sustainable society.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Gavin, I think you’re right in that it does come down to the consumer. If the consumer is green aware it will drive the companies to be more green aware.
I think that parable holds true if you are talking about individual charity, Shirley; since there really is no other kind. Where people get in trouble misinterpreting that one is when they feel right by taking earnings of others to do their own definition of ‘good’. That’s not charity at all… it’s simply stealing.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Jimmy–You mentioning charity made me think of something I just read. In the recent issue of Good that I just reviewed, there’s a editorial about how philanthropy is bad. Not bad in and of itself, but when companies pat themselves on the back for donating fat cash to a cause, but their day-to-day operations inherently support the conditions that create social problems, that’s not very sustainable. For example, who cares how much money the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates to poverty awareness, if much of their fortune is indirectly built with the cheap labor of the impoverished?
However, I do agree that it’s a better thing if big businesses are talking green. I hate Wal-Mart and will never shop there, but if they’re at least trying to start addressing their impact, that can’t be bad. Raising consciousness is huge in the green movement, and once people start understanding sustainability, they’ll eventually be able to discern greenwashing, too.