As a friendly mid-week reminder of what the power of a sensible mind, a decent computer and a relentless thirst to add some humor to the wreckage of oil industry CSR communications can do, I think it's about time we reflected on the success of the Yes Men in hijacking the Chevron We Agree campaign. In fact, the Yes Men effort was so authentic I believe I mistakenly linked to their ingenious version of the actual Chevron site when I originally wrote about this here.
Firstly, the Yes Men replaced Chevron's extraordinarily disingenuous statements--real winners like 'Oil companies should get behind the development of renewable energy' and 'Oil companies should support the communities they are a part of'--with mind-blowing ones. Try 'Oil companies should clean up their messes' and 'Oil companies should stop endangering life' on for size.
Secondly, they put out a press release which was adopted by key journalists even before Chevron had time to respond. The release is a tour-de-force of corporate language, including fake commentary from the ad agency which allegedly created the campaign, and insidious gems like this one:
"The "We Agree" campaign is an evolution of Chevron's "Power of Human Energy" campaign, which launched in 2007 with a series of print, online, broadcast and outdoor ads that all sought to raise awareness and encourage discussion about the major issues facing the energy industry. Though the exact cost of "We Agree" remains confidential, Chevron routinely spends $90 million per year on US advertising alone."
Lastly, in light of my egregious linking error, let's take an additional moment of reflection on what that means. It means that my expectations for what oil companies are capable of greenwashing is so breathtakingly low at this point that I would actually accept the Yes Men campaign as a possibility. This is not an unjustified perspective--it's getting really bad out there. Or, as our friend HST would say, really weird.
Here's to more armchair activism from our friends the Yes Men. I'd like to be fooled again.
Showing posts with label Greenwash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greenwash. Show all posts
10.27.2010
10.25.2010
Gem of the day
I've said in the past, with a nice grain of salt, that it can't get any worse with BP. Well, here's another gem--it's kind of an uber-gem, but not really because it won't come as a surprise to anyone who is: a. Familiar with the relentless cycle of American politics, and/or b. Familiar with the mind-blowing tactics of major oil companies, especially our friends at BP. As trusty stalwart of the progressive scene The Guardian reports:
"BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda."
We're not talking that much money, apparently: a piddling $25,000 from BP. Still, it's $25k too much for a company that is supposed to be tearing its hair out over, oh I don't know, large-scale dilemmas such as how to allocate the Gulf of Mexico relief fund.
But here's where it gets extraordinary. The total sum contributed by BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay--some $240,000, to winners who include the classic climate denier James Inhofe--actually exceeds that on the books from the Koch Brothers, who came in at $217,000. Caveat: these numbers are, of course, all that is officially on the books. It doesn't include other, shall we say, more 'intangible' forms of persuasion such as lunches at the Four Seasons and such.
What a nice start to a Monday.
"BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda."
We're not talking that much money, apparently: a piddling $25,000 from BP. Still, it's $25k too much for a company that is supposed to be tearing its hair out over, oh I don't know, large-scale dilemmas such as how to allocate the Gulf of Mexico relief fund.
But here's where it gets extraordinary. The total sum contributed by BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay--some $240,000, to winners who include the classic climate denier James Inhofe--actually exceeds that on the books from the Koch Brothers, who came in at $217,000. Caveat: these numbers are, of course, all that is officially on the books. It doesn't include other, shall we say, more 'intangible' forms of persuasion such as lunches at the Four Seasons and such.
What a nice start to a Monday.
10.22.2010
Gem of the day
As Toby points out, Total Energy (if anyone needs a refresher on how Total communicates on climate and energy, here you go) somehow manages to place higher on the list than Unilever. Then there's the issue of comparing companies across industries--which means that, FYI as usual, FMCG companies don't tend to do as well as their service industry counterparts.
My personal vitriol towards Newsweek and everything it stands for aside, let's take a moment and examine the goal of this ranking in their own words:
"Our goal was to cut through the green chatter and quantify the actual environmental footprints, policies, and reputations of these big businesses. To do this, we teamed up with three leading environmental research organizations to create the most comprehensive rankings available."
First of all, I love the idea of a ranking cutting through 'the green chatter' by identifying itself as....Green. But the real gem is delivered in the methodology behind these 'green scores':
"This score is derived from three component scores: the Environmental Impact Score (EIS), the Green Policies Score (GPS), and the Reputation Survey Score (RSS), weighted at 45 percent, 45 percent, and 10 percent, respectively."
So regardless of your actual environmental policies and initiatives as a company, you can still get 10% for how the public perceives you? I can already hear the communications team at ExxonMobil getting out their credit cards...
And now for the final gem: BP comes in at the magical place of #92. Harken, corporate sustainability! It's here.
10.21.2010
Gem of the day
Let's start with the question itself. It seems clear--we're using a lot of fossil fuels and probably will continue to, so what should we do about it? But inherent in this question is a key message Big Oil has been pushing for awhile. Think of it as 'the anti-Greenpeace' (if their objective is to normalise renewables): it's a message which intends to solidify in our heads the idea that it's impossible to shift away from fossil fuels over the next critical decades. The second part of the question is also crucial: 'managing CO2 emissions'. This implies incremental innovation--that rather than eliminate emissions through clean energy sources, our best bet is to reduce them one step at a time.
Finally, the answer options are hideously disingenuous. Note that the option of a shift to renewable technologies that are available now--solar, wind, geothermal, etc.--is not even included. Instead, the closest option we have is 'continuing to research and develop technologies'. I wouldn't place a penny on that option, considering R&D spending has essentially remained flat for the world's major energy companies over the past two decades, despite record profits.
So here's to you, Shell: you're a greenwash machine.
10.19.2010
Gem of the day
"Oil Companies Should Clean Up Their Messes"
"For decades, oil companies like ours have worked in disadvantaged areas, influencing policy in order to do there what we can't do at home. It's time this changed. People in Ecuador, Nigeria, the Gulf of Mexico, Richmond, and elsewhere have a right to a clean and healthy environment too."
First and foremost, why? Why launch this campaign, other than to anticipate criticism in the aftermath of the oil spill and deflect responsibility by claiming forethought on these issues?
Secondly, what does the message above even mean? Just as in Shell's 'Let's Go' ads, the words these companies are [ab]using are not just ambiguous--they're deliberately misleading and just plain strange. In this message, it may seem at first that Chevron is admitting to decades of wrongdoing in developing world communities. But it's far from clear what they are actually talking about.
Finally, for Chevron to state in the key messages of this campaign that 'we agree' strong rules to govern oil companies, strict emissions limits, and preventative measures for reducing the risks of oil spills are needed, is beyond disingenuous. We've seen the extraordinary figures spent by major oil companies to lobby Congress in the wake of Deepwater Horizon, with the specific objective to avoid tougher legislation. Companies like Chevron are also directly responsible for the failure of climate legislation in the US, which has had a devastating domino effect on global progress towards putting a price on carbon and sending important long-term investment signals--COP15, anyone?--and I categorically reject the idea that they could run a campaign like this aggressively asking if 'we', the global public, agree that these initiatives are needed.
All of these campaigns are useless, damaging and frankly, insulting use of PR money to try to deflect any real examination of what these companies are actually doing and investing in. I am a strong believer that, given the extraordinary profits of Big Oil, these companies could be driving a transformative shift towards renewables and efficiency solutions in our global energy mix. But you know what? Right now they're not.
And now, because we all desperately need a laugh on a dark day such as this one, I leave you with the predictably wise words of my partner in crime, Casper ter Kuile:
"This is obviously brilliant, but if anyone was fooled by it - they haven't been paying attention. Oh yes, that reminds me, nobody is. Carry on everyone."
10.13.2010
Bonus gem
The campaign is titled 'It's Never Been Done Before' with the accompanying slogan 'Consider It Solved'. If that wasn't bad enough to cause you anxiety, fear and despair already, consider it in context. This is an ad which I encountered in Amsterdam airport recently:
"Turn the frigid waters of the North Sea into heat for an entire city with zero global warming impact. It's never been done before. Emerson: Consider It Solved."
Now, the company is pursuing a range of sustainability issues which it frames for this campaign as 'innovation stories'. They all seem decent enough--converting food waste to electricity in the US, reinventing heat pump technology in China.
It doesn't take much insight to notice the imagery Emerson is using in the above ad is total greenwash--a pure mountain scene with no evidence whatsoever.
But what really makes this campaign mind-blowingly destructive is the idea of saying everything is solved. And not just suggesting the problem has been solved--actually instructing public audiences to sit back and relax, because Emerson is at the wheel.
So can I go home and sip an iced tea now, Emerson? Are you on it? Sounds great, thanks.
10.11.2010
10.01.2010
Gem of the day
How many times, when asked about BP's future commitment to renewables, can the company's new CEO say the words 'broadly' and 'long-term'? Quite a few, apparently. Check this out:
“Broadly, I believe the world is going to evolve over time to a lower-carbon energy world,” he said. “You will see BP committed to certain forms of renewable energy. Biofuels is one. We have a wind business in the U.S. that is successful and will continue to grow. Broadly, long term, the world is going to need every kind of energy, particularly with the growth in Asia.”
“Broadly, I believe the world is going to evolve over time to a lower-carbon energy world,” he said. “You will see BP committed to certain forms of renewable energy. Biofuels is one. We have a wind business in the U.S. that is successful and will continue to grow. Broadly, long term, the world is going to need every kind of energy, particularly with the growth in Asia.”
9.30.2010
Bonus gem
Asia Pulp and Paper, that relentless bastion of greenwashing, has yet again upped the ante. PR Week reports the corporation has enlisted the shiny skills of industry stalwarts Cohn & Wolfe to deliver a seven-figure comms campaign.
"Donna Imperato, CEO of C&W, confirmed it was working for APP and said: ‘APP has been treated unfair and the company has a very good story to tell.’"
'Treated unfair'? Dearest me. Bonus bonus gem too: PR Week calls the company 'Asian' Pulp and Paper. Over and over. Better get the corporate comms team on that one!
"Donna Imperato, CEO of C&W, confirmed it was working for APP and said: ‘APP has been treated unfair and the company has a very good story to tell.’"
'Treated unfair'? Dearest me. Bonus bonus gem too: PR Week calls the company 'Asian' Pulp and Paper. Over and over. Better get the corporate comms team on that one!
Gem of the day
Ever wondered when is the right time, as a brand, to 'tell your sustainability story'? Me either. But luckily Suzanne Shelton has, and here's what her take on it is, based on recent experience apparently:
"In these two cases, both brands have a solid sustainability story to tell -- it’s not like they’re still figuring out the initial steps -- but they’re not telling that story. And that’s a wasted marketing opportunity."
So get out there, folks! Think of it this way: if Shell can do it, and also do this at the same time, you can do it too! Ah, capitalism.
"In these two cases, both brands have a solid sustainability story to tell -- it’s not like they’re still figuring out the initial steps -- but they’re not telling that story. And that’s a wasted marketing opportunity."
So get out there, folks! Think of it this way: if Shell can do it, and also do this at the same time, you can do it too! Ah, capitalism.
9.28.2010
Bonus bonus gem
9.23.2010
Something that's actually good
Rising out of the ashes of professional commentary on Deepwater Horizon, there's finally--at long last--a voice of reason. Yes, it's still a discussion focused on image, but it's something.
David Jones, power CEO of firm Havas, delivers his perspective on BP as a case-in-point of what he calls the decade of damage'--where greenwashing no longer cuts it. My favorite quote:
"I'm not saying the oil business is easy and if tomorrow we all had to live without oil we would be in serious trouble. But you don't have to change your logo to a flower and give everyone the impression that you press wild daisies for a living. That's one of the reasons why the backlash against them was so harsh."
Just to add some context to his discussion, however, here's his glowing take on Wal-Mart's achievements:
"It completely re-engineered its reputation in North America and became one of the most respected and admired companies in terms of what it was doing. A decade earlier, it had real [image] problems," he says. "The critical point was that it was genuine and it probably did more to change its supply chain and logistics in terms of sustainability than any major company has ever done."
Indeed, the sheer visibility and scale of Wal-Mart's environmental commitments has done practically more than anything else to change the American corporate landscape on sustainability. But Wal-Mart is still painfully missing major commitments to the social dimension of sustainability. This article still rings true, even 6 years later, analysing the extraordinary lengths to which Wal-Mart has gone to dominate American retail and, in doing so, sell its workers wretchedly short.
David Jones, power CEO of firm Havas, delivers his perspective on BP as a case-in-point of what he calls the decade of damage'--where greenwashing no longer cuts it. My favorite quote:
"I'm not saying the oil business is easy and if tomorrow we all had to live without oil we would be in serious trouble. But you don't have to change your logo to a flower and give everyone the impression that you press wild daisies for a living. That's one of the reasons why the backlash against them was so harsh."
Just to add some context to his discussion, however, here's his glowing take on Wal-Mart's achievements:
"It completely re-engineered its reputation in North America and became one of the most respected and admired companies in terms of what it was doing. A decade earlier, it had real [image] problems," he says. "The critical point was that it was genuine and it probably did more to change its supply chain and logistics in terms of sustainability than any major company has ever done."
Indeed, the sheer visibility and scale of Wal-Mart's environmental commitments has done practically more than anything else to change the American corporate landscape on sustainability. But Wal-Mart is still painfully missing major commitments to the social dimension of sustainability. This article still rings true, even 6 years later, analysing the extraordinary lengths to which Wal-Mart has gone to dominate American retail and, in doing so, sell its workers wretchedly short.
9.22.2010
Gem of the day
The commentary continues:
"For BP to survive now in the US – it might mean no more than a name change. BP is still facing pressure from many in the US to rename its American service stations or provide those who sell BP brand items with tools to counter the loss of customer loyalty."
And here's the branding expert analysis of how BP can forge this superficial route forward (AIG, anyone?):
"“Some things definitely need to go. … So here’s an idea that just might work. Bring back the Amoco name. You purchased the brand some years ago, and ultimately shuttered it. It may be ready for a new look and a comeback,” said Jamey Boiter, a brand strategist at BOLTgroup, in a FastCompany report."
Thanks for that insight, Jamey. But wait! It gets even better:
"There are even some analysts who argue that BP will come out of this disaster “reinvigorated”."
I need more coffee.
"For BP to survive now in the US – it might mean no more than a name change. BP is still facing pressure from many in the US to rename its American service stations or provide those who sell BP brand items with tools to counter the loss of customer loyalty."
And here's the branding expert analysis of how BP can forge this superficial route forward (AIG, anyone?):
"“Some things definitely need to go. … So here’s an idea that just might work. Bring back the Amoco name. You purchased the brand some years ago, and ultimately shuttered it. It may be ready for a new look and a comeback,” said Jamey Boiter, a brand strategist at BOLTgroup, in a FastCompany report."
Thanks for that insight, Jamey. But wait! It gets even better:
"There are even some analysts who argue that BP will come out of this disaster “reinvigorated”."
I need more coffee.
9.20.2010
Bonus gem
Today we're treated to this incredible headline in the FT:
"BP leak just a bump in the road for the oil industry"
The thesis of the article lieth here:
"For the global oil industry, it looks like being no more than a bump in the road towards further exploitation of deepwater oil reserves, even in the Gulf of Mexico."
Two things: 1, the tepid regulatory changes that have been proposed are going to have no effect on these companies. 2, any internal changes that do result for these companies are being implemented only for reputational purposes. Case in point delivered:
"At last week’s World Energy Congress in Montreal, some executives called for new global safety standards for the industry in order to restore public confidence."
Right.
"BP leak just a bump in the road for the oil industry"
The thesis of the article lieth here:
"For the global oil industry, it looks like being no more than a bump in the road towards further exploitation of deepwater oil reserves, even in the Gulf of Mexico."
Two things: 1, the tepid regulatory changes that have been proposed are going to have no effect on these companies. 2, any internal changes that do result for these companies are being implemented only for reputational purposes. Case in point delivered:
"At last week’s World Energy Congress in Montreal, some executives called for new global safety standards for the industry in order to restore public confidence."
Right.
Gem of the day
CRD Analytics has released its mega-ranking of the Global 1000 Sustainable Performance Leaders. Here's their methodology:
"Companies included on the list must be publicly traded on a major global exchange, have a market capitalization of at least $1 billion, and publish a sustainability or corporate responsibility (CSR) report.
Companies that meet the criteria are force-ranked by total Sustainable Performance Value (SPV) calculated as the average of four performance dimensions: financial, environmental, social and governance."
The key element of this ranking is that it is the average of those four dimensions. Therefore, a company with immense profits, as we'll see below, can triumph on the ranking despite having fundamentally unsustainable core products and services.
Not surprisingly, the top 10 are dominated by companies in financial services and healthcare with relatively small footprints compared to other sectors: Merck, Novartis, Credit Suisse, Glaxosmithkline PLC.
But the top 50 is where it really gets interesting. Please find my shortlist below of most extraordinary placements on the ranking:
This kind of ranking is a serious issue. Not only does it send misguided, short-term investment signals, it basically says to companies like ExxonMobil that business as usual should continue. After all, if ExxonMobil can already be considered a global sustainability leader, there's no work to be done. Right?
Note, as well, this gem of a caveat (I wonder what could have triggered it...):
"CRD Analytics reserves the right to remove any companies that are involved in a significant public crisis without notice."
"Companies included on the list must be publicly traded on a major global exchange, have a market capitalization of at least $1 billion, and publish a sustainability or corporate responsibility (CSR) report.
Companies that meet the criteria are force-ranked by total Sustainable Performance Value (SPV) calculated as the average of four performance dimensions: financial, environmental, social and governance."
The key element of this ranking is that it is the average of those four dimensions. Therefore, a company with immense profits, as we'll see below, can triumph on the ranking despite having fundamentally unsustainable core products and services.
Not surprisingly, the top 10 are dominated by companies in financial services and healthcare with relatively small footprints compared to other sectors: Merck, Novartis, Credit Suisse, Glaxosmithkline PLC.
But the top 50 is where it really gets interesting. Please find my shortlist below of most extraordinary placements on the ranking:
- Newmont Mining Corp (seriously?): 15
- ExxonMobil: 48
- British American Tobacco: 49
This kind of ranking is a serious issue. Not only does it send misguided, short-term investment signals, it basically says to companies like ExxonMobil that business as usual should continue. After all, if ExxonMobil can already be considered a global sustainability leader, there's no work to be done. Right?
Note, as well, this gem of a caveat (I wonder what could have triggered it...):
"CRD Analytics reserves the right to remove any companies that are involved in a significant public crisis without notice."
9.17.2010
Gem of the day
FT wows us with this headline:
"BP's competitors tempt fate with provocative advertising"
And delivers us this gem, in the post:
"Risk management is sort of like being pregnant - you can make all the preparations you want but you cannot really know what to expect."
"BP's competitors tempt fate with provocative advertising"
And delivers us this gem, in the post:
"Risk management is sort of like being pregnant - you can make all the preparations you want but you cannot really know what to expect."
9.09.2010
Bonus bonus gem
- "Every year Gazprom actively participates in social support projects by creating new jobs, rendering assistance to economically disadvantageous people"
- "Gazprom daily pays over RUB $1.5 billion to Russia's budget"
- "The “Gazprom to Children” Program is a key social project intended for backing Russia’s children and youth"
Which, it's true, might just have currency as a groundbreaking, industry-leading perspective compared to Exxon Mobil...
I don't even think I can call this greenwash. It's simply beyond explicable under any known classifications.
Bonus gem
Dear OgilvyEarth,
Congratulations on your game-changing rating by Verdantix as a leader in the US market for sustainability communications. You must be over the moon--such an accomplishment. And what with years of major campaigns under your belt--including, of course, the legendary BP Beyond Petroleum triumph--now is the time to celebrate.
I'll raise a glass to you for your most recent tour-de-force, the new APP corporate site. It's a celebration of our world's lushest forests and plumpest birds, complete with birdsong. The only problem, ahem, is that APP is probably the first corporation ever to be rejected by the Forest Stewardship Council. But hey, when it comes to reputational enhancement and using communications as a defensive shell against NGO inquiries, the world of OgilvyEarth knows no limits.
My sincerest regards,
Natalya
Congratulations on your game-changing rating by Verdantix as a leader in the US market for sustainability communications. You must be over the moon--such an accomplishment. And what with years of major campaigns under your belt--including, of course, the legendary BP Beyond Petroleum triumph--now is the time to celebrate.
I'll raise a glass to you for your most recent tour-de-force, the new APP corporate site. It's a celebration of our world's lushest forests and plumpest birds, complete with birdsong. The only problem, ahem, is that APP is probably the first corporation ever to be rejected by the Forest Stewardship Council. But hey, when it comes to reputational enhancement and using communications as a defensive shell against NGO inquiries, the world of OgilvyEarth knows no limits.
My sincerest regards,
Natalya
9.03.2010
Gem of the day
Breaking news: someone in the loathsome vortex of Congress actually says something intelligent. Here's what BP is currently contending:
BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."
Here's what Rep. George Miller's chief of staff has to say about that:
“The risk of having a dangerous company like BP develop new resources in the gulf is too great,” said Daniel Weiss. “Year after year after year, no matter how many incidents they’re involved in, no matter how many fines they’ve had to pay, they never changed their behavior. BP has no one to blame but themselves.”
Zing!
BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."
Here's what Rep. George Miller's chief of staff has to say about that:
“The risk of having a dangerous company like BP develop new resources in the gulf is too great,” said Daniel Weiss. “Year after year after year, no matter how many incidents they’re involved in, no matter how many fines they’ve had to pay, they never changed their behavior. BP has no one to blame but themselves.”
Zing!
9.01.2010
Bonus bonus gem
The crisis management experts are still getting calls to interpret BP's experience in the aftermath of the disaster. Incredible stuff, really--especially now that the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has demanded BP provide a quote for how much the company has spent on advertising since April. Word to the wise: it's looking to be around a cool $1 million weekly. Magically enough, here's Gene Grabowski, senior vice president and chair of the crisis and litigation practice at Levick Strategic Communications, on why that figure shouldn't raise any eyebrows:
"A million dollars a week is nothing. I don't know how much they're spending, but it's probably less than they would have spent on a global ad campaign to advertise the benefits of what they generally do."
So what kind of advertising is this apparently well-spent money going towards?
"In a crisis, issue-based advertising is essential. You have a relationship with your customers, and implied in that relationship in the 21st century is a conversation."
Incredible. But it still gets better. Here's the subsequent summary of Grabowski's commentary provided by CNN Money:
"Grabowski says there's a critical moment in advertising after a crisis when people are still tuned in to the product, but aren't anxious anymore. This is when companies start to release more product promotion ads to regain trust. BP isn't there yet by a long shot."
Isn't there yet? So hopefully the crisis aftermath will dissolve quietly soon, so that BP can get back to selling its core product: oil. And continue the veneer of 'doing the right thing' for consumers.
To cap it off--sorry I couldn't resist--here's what Grabowski has to say about Congressional demand for the numbers from BP:
"I'm frankly surprised that Congress would do this," Grabowski says. "I think that for executives at BP and throughout the oil industry, this might appear to be piling on."
"A million dollars a week is nothing. I don't know how much they're spending, but it's probably less than they would have spent on a global ad campaign to advertise the benefits of what they generally do."
So what kind of advertising is this apparently well-spent money going towards?
"In a crisis, issue-based advertising is essential. You have a relationship with your customers, and implied in that relationship in the 21st century is a conversation."
Incredible. But it still gets better. Here's the subsequent summary of Grabowski's commentary provided by CNN Money:
"Grabowski says there's a critical moment in advertising after a crisis when people are still tuned in to the product, but aren't anxious anymore. This is when companies start to release more product promotion ads to regain trust. BP isn't there yet by a long shot."
Isn't there yet? So hopefully the crisis aftermath will dissolve quietly soon, so that BP can get back to selling its core product: oil. And continue the veneer of 'doing the right thing' for consumers.
To cap it off--sorry I couldn't resist--here's what Grabowski has to say about Congressional demand for the numbers from BP:
"I'm frankly surprised that Congress would do this," Grabowski says. "I think that for executives at BP and throughout the oil industry, this might appear to be piling on."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)