I just read this post from Green LA Girl. I found it so fascinating how Fiji water has managed to greenwash its corporation. It is bottled water, there is nothing green in that! I was so interested, that rather than share on Facebook or twitter, I decided to repost this article in its entirety. If you like sustainability blogs, then you should really subscribe to Green LA Girl. Siel does such a great job with news and information, but in a very approachable style. I get tons of news and information from this blog, so subscribe now!
Fiji Water is going to stop operating in Fiji — at least according to the company’s latest statement. Apparently, the Fiji government’s planning to raise taxes from one-third of a Fijian cent a liter to 15 Fijian cents (about 8 U.S. cents) a liter — a tax increase the L.A.-based company Fiji Water finds unacceptable.
According to LA Times, Fiji Water says it’s “paid millions of dollars in duties and income taxes to the Fijian government” while the Fijian government says Fiji Water’s “paid less that $600,000 in taxes to the country.” Now, Fiji Water says it’ll be “laying off nearly 400 Fijian employees and canceling construction projects in the country,” and the Fiji government says “the country would look for another bottler.”
Whether Fiji Water actually intends to leave Fiji — or is just trying to get a tax break — is up for debate. According to Tara Lohan at AlterNet, “A few years ago the company temporarily shut down its operations in protest to tax hikes as well.” The latest kerfuffle does, however, bring attention to the many controversies surrounding Fiji Water — including the company’s well-documented greenwashing tactics.
Nowhere in Fiji Water’s glossy marketing materials will you find reference to the typhoid outbreaks that plague Fijians because of the island’s faulty water supplies; the corporate entities that Fiji Water has
I know I am the oddball in the room. That is fine. I accept it. I am that weird guy who has his own name tag, tries to bring his own cup, and often will not take your business card, because I don’t want more paper. That’s fine. I don’t mind being different from everyone else, and I don’t mind being the weird one in a group. I also don’t expect others to be like me. That being said, I have been to 2 separate sustainability events that were hosted by the local chapter of the USGBC, and it amazes me that people do not even think about their trash or their transportation. I am that crazy person that drinks draft beer if a location doesn’t recycle, or who takes his juice bottle home. But when I go to an industry event promoting sustainability, I at least expect people to recycle.
When I last went to Greenbuild, the entire event recycled. They even had most of the garbage stations manned on the first day to instruct people that their coffee cups are compostable and go in one can, their water bottle is recyclable and that very little actually goes into the garbage. Care was taken to provide cups made from sugar cane and water was available by the glass, not by the bottle. At local events, though there is often not even a recycling bin. We went to an event where a new park was being dedicated. A building was being taken down and a new green space was going to be created along the towpath. They provided refreshments, but there was no place to recycle the pop cans or water bottles that we being given out. Funny, when the whole point was to support new green space and land re use. So they were a little short sighted. At least this was not a sustainability event.
So, two events hosted by the NE Ohio chapter of the USGBC. Both attended by building industry professionals. Both had recycling bins stationed near the garbage. Both were well attended. Both had piles of recyclables in the trash. I get it when the food is served with plastic forks and you don’t know if they are recyclable or not, or if the plates can be recycled because there are food remnants attached. But for pete’s sake, if you are going to a “green” event why would you not take the care to toss you glass bottle into the bin on the right that is inches away?
Sustainability and green are not new concepts. In fact, most of the basic ideas that we are promoting these days were big in the 1970s. Remember driving less, cause you could only get gas on certain days of the week? Remember the push for the bottle deposit? Carter put solar panels on the White House. Even the “Give a hoot, don’t pollute” campaign is decades old. But much of the progress that we made in the 60s & 70s was replaced by consumption and consumerism of the end of the 20th century. Now everyone seems to be on board again. While the USGBC has been around for nearly a decade, and the building concepts that were behind its formation even older, it has only been the last couple of years that we are seeing the idea of building more sustainable becoming mainstream. As was said in a presentation today, if Wal-Mart is doing it, then everybody better be doing it. But in a room full of building professionals who aspire to do better, why is there obvious recyclables in the trash? It makes me wonder if this is more about business as usual.
Since buildings account for nearly half of all CO2 emissions, any reason to build greener is a good reason. That being said, when we are most concerned about just ourselves, the results are often fleeting. Are we doing the right thing, because it is important, or because we are trying to find a “leg up” in a tough economic time? Are we creating real lasting change, or like the fuel efficient cars of the past, are we just waiting for our chance to start buying Hummers again? As a business, as a household, as an individual are you using ‘green” as your buzzword, or is it a way of life? These are the things I wander when I see the parking lot of a green event filled with SUVs and the trash full of aluminum cans.
I mentioned the H & M “scandal” in NYC in a post the other day about green and greenwashing. In all fairness, I received this email from H & M in response to this query and wanted to post it. Here is the email that I got:
Thank you for contacting H&M regarding the recent article in the New York Times.
H&M is committed to taking responsibility for how our operations affect people and the environment. Globally, we donate garments that do not meet our quality requirements to organizations such as Gifts In Kind International, UNHCR, Caritas, the Red Cross and Helping Hands. Since 2000, H&M US has donated more than 350 pallets of our products to charitable organizations throughout the United States and around the world via Gifts In Kind International.
When possible, we also donate garments that have been returned to our stores. However, we do not donate clothes that do not meet our safety requirements, chemical restrictions or are damaged. We have agreements with reputable aid organizations in most of our sales countries. In total, more than 500,000 pieces of H&M garments were donated during 2009.
We have thoroughly examined the situation surrounding the garments found outside of our 34th Street store. We have determined that these garments were damaged, did not meet our safety standards or had been used for in-store display. For example, shoes that had been punctured for use on mannequins. The garments in question were not excess inventory that did not sell well.
Going forward, we are reevaluating what we categorize as “damaged” garments and we continue to be committed to donating as many of these items as possible to our aid organization partners.
Overall, I do not know what to think. I have been to H & M stores, and there is little in the way of displays that warrant large cuts and slashes across merchandise. I am also a bit dubious, as since this is a known spot to folks who pick through trash for treasures, that this is an isolated incident. I am glad that they donate factory items that cannot be reused, but is it enough? I have a long history of retail, so I also get that there is always a possibility of people trying to return items to the store for cash, when they never purchased it in the first place. That being said, simply removing the tag could be enough to solve the problem. In general, H & M does have a pretty good track record in terms of charity and the environment, so I can cut them a little slack. On the other hand, since they are launching a new line of eco-friendly products, They should have systems in place to reduce their waste and consumption. Perhaps only second quality shoes that could not be donated should have been used for display, or their merchandising team could have come up with a display plan that didn’t involve destroying perfectly good merchandise for the sole purpose of putting shoes on a mannequin. Knowing that this is a multi-national corporation with a huge team that plans displays for stores across the globe, what does it say about their team that they decided to cut up hundred (thousands? ) of shoes to put them on mannequins? I remain unconvinced in their true commitment to the environment, and will refrain from giving them any of my money for a while until I get better answers. This situation sits right at that border of green for the sake of being green and for the sake of greenwashing.
Here is the respnse I sent back to them:
Just to be clear. You are a multinational corporation with a merchandising team that plans displays for its stores around the globe. Your team thought the best use of perfectly good clothing was to punch holes in it so you can put it on display? I remain skeptical. Given the thought, time and effort that was put into your new line of eco friendly clothing for the spring, it seems to me that your merchandising team should have been a part of the overall planning in your stores. If you want to more beyond greenwashing and into sustainability, then the entire corporate team needs to be involved. Adding eco fabric lines to your palette of choices is great, but given the state of the environment, far from being good enough. Please consider a corporate wide approach to reducing waste and impact on the environment, or you will not convince the smart shoppers that you are doing more than greenwashing. Until then, I think my money can best be spent elsewhere.
I am posting your letter and my response at www.greatlakesgreenpages.com
Green is the new black. Everyone wants to be on the sustainability train. By making green claims, they are hoping to jump ahead of their competitors, or at least catch up to them. It is happening in every segment of the marketplace: retailers, wholesalers, product developers, business to business companies, energy suppliers and even information and technology companies. While consumers are raising their awareness to issues about the products that they use, all sorts of companies are making claims about what they sell. Buy how green are these companies and their products?
NY Times posted a scathing article this week about clothing stores in NYC that are destroying clothing and throwing it out, rather than something more environmentally friendly. Ironic that this happened rather shortly after the company’s press release about their new spring line that features a wide range of eco friendly fabrics. While perusing the H & M website, I found a lot of Corporate Sustainability Data. They love to talk big about their use of sustainable materials, CO2 emission reductions, and factory worker treatment. They were even given an award by PETA. So, it makes me wonder what is up. The company website says that they donate clothing to charity, with a caveat for damaged or unsafe goods. Interesting that all the goods being thrown out at the H&M store in NYC were slashed and damaged, apparently in house. I have asked H & M to comment, but have yet to receive a reply. I am left wondering if this was an isolated store practice, or a company wide issue. Given the state of affairs in greenwashing, this leaves a bad taste for H&M in my mouth. Had they not been outed by the NY Times, would we see bags of clothes made from environmentally friendly fabrics ripped to shreds and bagged up for transportation to landfill?
But H&M is not alone in its use of green claims. Samsung loves to wax poetic about its newest “green” phone. The Reclaim phone from Samsung features a casing made from 40% bioplastics that is 100% biodegradable and an Energy Star charger. A scan of the blogosphere lists other features like 80% recycled materials, recycled materials in the packaging, and less toxic chemicals in the production. Samsung, however says nothing about these features on their website. Much like the Earth Phone that was hyped in February with a built in solar panel and plastics made from bottles, I wonder just how green are their products. While a phone that uses biodegradable materials is great, it really is a waste. First off, bio plastics cannot be recycled with other materials, so they need to be separated from the other components in the phone and composted-because even organic materials will not decompose quickly in landfill. Would you take the time to tear apart your phone to separate out the 40% that can be composted? Besides, bioplastics made from corn are not the environmentally friendly material that we like to think they are. Then, what about the rest of it? Even if it were made of 100% recycled materials, what is the point if there is no program in place that can recycle the phone by taking it all apart. An Energy Star rated charger is great, but only if the consumer is educated to unplug it when not in use and if the phone itself uses less energy in between charging. Overall, more hype than substance. Check out the Greenpeace press release from the Consumer Electronics show, as it seems they agree. They unveiled their latest edition of their Guide to Greener Electronics and Samsung fell on the list due to their lack of follow through.
Now take a look at Nestle. In an effort to greenwash the company’s overall poor performance in the area of sustainability, it has announced that it will make it’s Kit-Kat bars from Fair Trade chocolate. Sounds good, until you realize that this announcement hold no weight when it is only for Kit Kat bars in the UK. They have plans to extend that promise to Canada and Australia, but no word yet about the US. While I understand that mega corporations have a commitment to their shareholders, this move does little for me but alert me to the fact that Nestle is trying to jump on the green bandwagon to diminish its loss to brands with more of a commitment to the environment and to people. A giant corporation has the ability to make a huge impact on the global cocoa market and farm production around the world, but a move like this is only to a token gesture. To read more about some of Nestle’s claims, check out Green LA Girl’s post on this topic.
In an effort to green their image, look for claims from a myriad of other corporations. Do your research and don’t be fooled. I am waiting for claims of renewable power generation coming from Ohio utility companies. While it is great that many are finding alternative sources for their energy production, state law has a mandate in place for a percentage of all electricity to come from renewable sources. While the claims that they are likely to make may be true, it holds no weight when it is merely compliance with state laws. Much like the hyped claims of several paper products being heralded as “biodegradable” these claims hold little or no value when you look below the surface. Enter the FTC who cited Kmart, Tender Corp., and Dyna-E International with making false and unsubstantiated claims. Luckily, the internet allows us to look closely at track records of companies and their claims. We can delve a little deeper, and in order to be really good consumers, we have to look beyond the hype and into the reality of claims made by corporations.
Check out the Greenwashing Index to find out more about this topic, and watch this video to see some of the ways that greenwashing is taking place.
