Greenwash in the First Degree
In my zealous enthusiasm to indict (and convict—it’s good to have an iron grip on your own judiciary) Lululemon Athletica I delved directly into greenwashing in the second degree. Let’s take a step back for a moment and have a look at first-degree greenwashing.
You will remember that entities engage in first-degree greenwashing to “create a pro-environmental image”. This type of greenwashing surely is closely related to the second-degree manifestation that we have already seen; the difference is that the first-degree sort is part and parcel of a broader public relations effort whereas second-degree greenwashing carries the objective of promoting and selling a particular product or service.
We recognize that many corporations and other entities are in fact investing genuinely in the green revolution. But like second-degree greenwash, first-degree greenwash describes the activities of companies which seek to cash in on the trend of green in the marketplace, without an authentic regard for the preservation of our environment.
In January Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil titan, abandoned its sponsorship of what London’s Sunday Times deems “one of Britain’s most prestigious wildlife photography exhibitions”. Shell, which began the sponsorship in 2006, denied that its decision was influenced by irate protestors who cited its “ambitions in the Arctic and the destruction it causes in areas such as the Alberta tar sands in Canada and the east Siberian island of Sakhalin”. Shell responded by pointing out its relationships with organizations such as the World Conservation Union, the Nature Conservancy, the Smithsonian Institution and Wetlands International.
I accept the need for continuing (and sustainable) energy exploitation in our world. But hypocrisy is a despicable thing.
Shell: charged with greenwash in the first degree.
This time I am courteous enough to leave the verdict to the jury of my readers.
Posted by on 03/22 at 01:55 PM