12 Hilarious Corporate Attempts to Look Green

[marmar]

Edited by OP to include link. Sorry.:hide:



via AlterNet:



12 Hilarious Corporate Attempts to Look Green

By * Staff, WebEcoist. Posted December 15, 2009.

Don't be fooled. Hummers and McDonald's aren't "green." Neither are fossil fuels or Fox News, for that matter.




When companies like Exxon-Mobil and McDonalds think "green," they’re thinking of cash, not the earth. And after all, what matters to unscrupulous marketers isn’t so much the reality of their brand or product, but how the public perceives it – which often results in greenwashing so absurd, it’s almost funny. These 15 examples of extreme greenwashing range from woefully ignorant to downright malicious.

1. McDonalds Literally Greenwashes its Logo

McDonalds wants everyone to know they’re going green…ish. The fast food monster is swapping the red in their logo for green in an effort to convince Europeans that they care about the environment. To be fair, the company has made some important strides -- like using environmentally-friendly refrigeration and converting used oil to biodiesel -- but this is still fast food relying on distinctly un-green factory farms for their supplies, to say the least.

As GreenBiz.com put it, "This strategy is essentially the textbook definition of greenwashing: Promoting green in the abstract, literally re-painting your signage with the color green, while simultaneously making sparse, vague claims about environmental action."

2. "Eco Smart" Hummer

Recipe for a whale of a fail: Take one Hummer, the most environmentally unfriendly personal vehicle known to man. Plaster it with images of glistening green leaves and phrases like ‘EcoSmart’, which just happens to be the name of your company. Watch your company lose credibility instantaneously, and become an internet laughingstock among the very people you were hoping would become your customers.

Even if this particular behemoth were somehow greener than your typical Hummer, that wouldn’t mean much – but would still be more forgivable than using one of these vehicles to advertise an "eco-smart" company.

3. "Even Our Store Bags are Disposable!"

When this New Mexico pet shop decided to "go green," they apparently didn’t bother finding out what that actually means -- hence, their proud declaration that “even our store bags are disposable!” Though the people responsible for the ad probably didn’t mean to deceive anyone, ignorance can be just as bad -- it’s seriously confusing for consumers who are already not too clear on what makes a product green.

4. Cover the Earth with Toxic Paint!

Want some tips on how to greenwash? Ask Sherwin-Williams. They’ve built an entire marketing campaign around a supposedly green line of paint which, according to Inhabitat, isn’t actually all that green -- all while plastering billboards with their head-scratching logo that seems to advocate covering the entire world in toxic Sherwin-Williams paint.

5. Fox News + Going Green = ?

Wait a minute, is that a Fox News logo being hugged by a commie recycling symbol? Indeed, the undeniably conservative news network seemed to completely forget who their audience is with their “How Green” website, an apparent attempt to maintain that "fair and balanced" illusion.

The site was about as authentic as a backdrop on a middle school theater set, with uninspired articles and a sloppy design. It became pretty clear that Fox News’ heart wasn’t exactly into it when the site went without updates for months on end, prompting Ecorazzi to liken it to "a zombie that won’t die." The website was finally taken down in Fall 2009. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/media/144557/12_hilarious_corporate_attempts_to_look_green

[kristopher]

1. If the rest...

If the rest of the examples are like the one for Sherwin Williams, I'd say the joke is the article...

I know it is meant to be humor, but the subtext is very serious.

Here is what their reference about SW (a site called Inhabitat) quotes another site (Degrees of Pain) has to say. I'm not terribly impressed at the failure to go to the original source either. After talking briefly about some standard efficiency improvements Sherwin Williams did and the fact that SW was making the case that they were trying to be more environmentally friendly based on those actions, the discussion continues:

All good things to do, but purely on a common sense basis, not because it’s considered green,” Pace said. “Landfilling stretch wrap and other recyclables is an expense that is eliminated if you contract with a company to pick up your recyclables. Therefore, it just makes good business sense. Same with reflective insulation, since it will save on energy costs. “We would classify these types of claims as greenwashing,” he said.

The GreenSure paints do have 50 g/l or fewer VOCs, which is as strict as the GreenSeal and LEED building standards. None of the GreenSure paints include acetone or ammonia in their ingredients (even though those ingredients are not regulated by the EPA), and they don’t include a long list of scary ingredients like benzene and formaldehyde – although they may be artificially inflating that list a bit. The avoided ingredients include lead, which is good because the EPA banned lead from paint except in trace amounts.

To me, the article in the OP is just flat out wrong.

If companies aren't given credit for meeting legitimate recognized standards for environmentally friendly products and policies, then why should they bother?

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/01/22/is-it-green-sherwin-williams-paint/

http://www.leedbuilding.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design

http://www.greenseal.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Seal