Cmns 100 - the Green Advertising Conundrum

TERM PAPER

THE GREEN ADVERTISING CONUNDRUM

Simon Fraser University

CMNS 110 (D105)

TA: Anis Rahman

March 29, 2016

(2212 words)

Since 1950, the industrialized world has been on an unprecedented consumption binge, consuming more goods and services than the combined total of all humans who have ever walked the planet before us (Taylor & Tilford, 2000). This soaring consumption of goods and services had been accomplished largely through increased resource extraction and waste production. Taylor and Tilford (2000) eloquently put forward the words, “we have been buying on credit for the past few decades: charging our current lifestyles on resources necessary for the well-being of future generations” (p.392). In a cultural climate characterized by a growing awareness of environmental hazards, companies have started to reposition their commodities whose production and consumption may be damaging to the environment as “green” or “earth-friendly” (Goldman & Papson, 1996). The consumer marketplace today offers us every kind of ethical, ecological and healthy option we can imagine, from recycled toilet paper to solar panels. This growing trend of consuming “green” reduces all of the problems of the world into making the right shopping decisions, or so we believe (Wilk, 2013). The problem with green consumerism is although buying a green product may be the “lesser of the two evils”, it still operates within a neoliberal, capitalist context which is more concerned with making a profit than saving the environment (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). Through this essay, I’d hope to illustrate the falsity of the premise that sustainability can be achieved by consuming green, and how green marketing has managed to create a sense of heightened distrust between consumers and businesses.

Growing concern for the environment on the part of citizens has led to corporations advancing a green capitalist ideology, wherein consumers are urged to buy eco-friendly products. The problem with corporations and their green capitalist ideology is that the environment is treated as an externality, something which can be bought and sold (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). The consumers are placed with a degree of responsibility when asked to employ environment-friendly habits which is appropriate to some extent; however, the focus shifts away from the corporations as the cause of many of the world’s environment problems and the government as regulators (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). This view that larger structural problems in society can be solved by acts of individual consumer choice, rather than corporate real change describes the core problem of green consumerism. It tends to deflect the attention away from the destructive nature of the capitalist modes of production and corporate activities (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). The apparently easy solution to all our environmental problems as portrayed by major corporates and big media seems to be green consumerism. Buying a green product may be the “lesser of two evils”; a product’s claims may be true but it distracts the consumer away from the overall implications of that category of products for the environment (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). Organic cigarette could just be the perfect example to exemplify this point. A vegan blogger wrote and I quote “I tell myself that I at least smoke an organic cigarette, so I’m not inhaling as many chemicals” (Wicker, 2014).  The consumers view it as a product that is less destructive on the Earth, and hence believe they can be environmentalists by making thoughtful choices from within the range of consumer choices available within the market. Again, attention is drawn away from the importance of collective action often needed to bring about meaningful social/environmental change (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013).

 We instantly feel better after eating a healthy granola bar, enjoying an organic mud bath, or drinking a few cups of fair-trade coffee. Richard Wilk once said that if we buy gold ear-studs that have been “ethically mined”, we absolve from thinking about why we feel we need to wear gold at all (Wilk, 2013). Quite simply put, we abstain from thinking how our daily pleasures can possibly contribute to global warming and rainforest destruction. “Green” consumer goods make us believe we can change the world without any sacrifice, or any more effort than smarter shopping or eco-shopping (Wilk, 2013). Well, this is not to say eco-shopping does not make a difference, but the problem it tries to address are much larger than and more serious in context. Purchasing green products as a form of consumer activism ignores the fact that our earth cannot sustain these continued levels of growth and also ignores the massive amount of waste produced as result of over consumption (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). The amount of vital resources being destroyed and degraded far exceed their rate of renewal. When outlaw Spanish fishermen chase down the last Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, we are supposed to find out where the tuna in our local sushi bar came from to make sure we are not partners in crime (Wilk, 2013). Well, at a critical distance, to alternate our way of thinking about consuming products does sound extremely hard, but the problem of over consumption and subsequent resource degradation cannot be solved by just eco-shopping. Purchasing “green” products does not necessarily diminish overconsumption and mass waste, nor does it account for emissions and pollutions released from producing and shipping products, which are all contributing factors to the degradation of the environment. In the U.S, over 2.5 million plastic bottles are thrown away each hour (Recycle Across America, 2011). In a world where our philosophy is “continuous consumption”, we’ll eventually run out of places to put all the waste (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). Each and every precious commodity on the Earth is being pushed beyond its limit. No, tomorrow will not take care of itself, and we should stop treating the natural world as a bank that does not have to be paid back (Taylor & Tilford, 2000).

Contemporary advertising is littered with representations of nature. Green advertising, like any advertising appeal aims at stimulating demand for a product (Goldman & Papson, 1996). Greening a product line serve two agendas: to expand market share by using green respect as a sign that appeals to environmentally minded consumers, and to position companies as environmentally and socially responsible (Goldman & Papson, 1996). Commodities like cars and cigarettes are placed in landscape settings, labelled “natural” and juxtaposed with natural objects. However, these associations disguise the artificial and negative characteristics of a particular commodity by presenting idealized images of consumption and fails to acknowledge the entire process of production that goes into making a commodity (Goldman & Papson, 1996).  McDonald’s and the National Cattlemen’s Association is a famous example of such contradictory claims. They signified their environmental concern by buying ad space to position themselves as caring entities who believe in the well-being of the social whole (Goldman & Papson, 1996). Ever wonder about the ingredients of a quarter-pound burger? Over 700 gallons of water goes into the average quarter-pound cheeseburger (Taylor & Tilford, 2000). The sheer volume of water and ground beef required to keep the hamburger industry has taken a serious toll on the environment. Of course, this part of the story was left out by McDonald’s and the National Cattlemen’s Association. They failed to acknowledge the entire process of producing a hamburger, and presented an idealized image of consumption by marketing McDonald’s as a socially responsible organization. One could possibly say that manufacturers have been forced to embrace the green/ eco-friendly movement for fear of bad publicity, lowered brand image and consumer backlash but then again, we live in a pull economy where consumers reign supreme or so we’re told. Unfortunately, there is a great degree of skepticism among consumers regarding the real value of green products and have raised questions regarding the authenticity of some of the claims made by businesses. Greenwashing has been referred to as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a good or service”. TerraChoice, an environmentally friendly marketing agency and consulting firm, described what they refer to as the “sins of greenwashing” which includes hidden trade-offs, vagueness, no proof, irrelevance, and “the lesser of two evils” (Budinsky & Bryant, 2013). A famous example, perhaps that of Microsoft; In 2009, they added some minor power-saving features to Windows 7, while at the same time pushed users to buy a new computer to run Windows 7 (Knufken, 2010). Contradictory much? So much so for going “green”. In 2015, Volkswagen were found guilty of one of the biggest corporate scams in recent history (Lynes, 2015). Initially, the company was trumpeted for their production line of low emission cars. As the demand rose, Volkswagen engaged in what is now known as the “diesel dupe”. Many of the VW cars being sold had a “defeat device”- software that could detect when they were being tested, changing performance to improve results. In the short run, Volkswagen was successful in passing the performance tests. In the long run, the engines emitted nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the U.S. The owners of the car purchased the vehicles in good faith that they were powered by “clean diesel”. Before the scandal, a Volkswagen executive said “We believe more people will drive environmentally minded cars since it’s fun to do”. Volkswagen presented an idealized image of consumption, and also a reputation for fuel efficient cars. Volkswagen then committed the cardinal sin of greenwashing: lying or fibbing. For all the companies that have worked hard to undo the lack of trust in a green product, Volkswagen’s move has put us back a decade, undermining any progress made in this area. For a company to be considered green and not greenwashed, it requires more than a superficial change (Neumann, 2014). Right from processing to packaging and distribution, companies must make decisions related to the entire process based on environmental awareness or factors.