Greenwashing

An advertisement for Mentos gum

How many ads like this one do you see on TV every day from various companies, all claiming to sell the most environmentally friendly product on the market? These marketing schemes all try to make you think that by using their product you will be making a positive difference on the planet. Well when these claims are not as true as they seem, this phenomenon is called “greenwashing”. If you’ve ever heard of “whitewashing” in a political campaign (“a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts”, according to the Greenwashing Index), this is along the same premise.  Sometime a company will spend more money in their media and advertising trying to convince the public that they are environmentally friendly than they actually do implementing the business practices that would make them more green.

And this isn’t a new phenomenon either. Even at the beginning of the 20^th century, according to Maier, people "had already acknowledged that ‘mass media was likely to be of major importance in the selection, transformation and circulation of environmental meanings in modern society’” (166).  Mass media clearly has a lot of impact on the way people think, and can really influence which products the public buys. This picture below is just one from a series of posters which aim to steer customers towards more sustainable behaviors in this gallery. Do you think media tools such as these can help consumers choose an option better for the environment than they otherwise would?

An example of a poster which promotes sustainable
behaviors among consumers from a series of
media campaigns found here.

One example of a company who uses sustainability in their platform is the consumer products company, Unilever. They are one of the more reliable companies in their environmental campaigns, but definitely use “being green” in their advertising campaigns. They have an entire section of their website dedicated to sustainability. Here’s a screenshot of their “Sustainable Living” webpage:

Unilever places a lot of emphasis on their efforts to make their products green. Unlike a lot of other places which are not as reliable, their efforts have distinct goals and they are very transparent about which goals are being met and which are taking longer than they expected. It’s clear that this company, unlike many others, has made a true commitment to producing greener products which help the environment.

What about you? Do claims of sustainable products sway you when you’re trying to decide which household cleaner to use, or do you stick to a certain brand or product regardless of its effects on the environment?

Sources: 

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/gallery/role-green-marketing-inspiring-change#/?picture=413512496&index=1

http://www.unileverusa.com/sustainable-living/

http://ejournals.ebsco.com.libproxy.furman.edu/Direct.asp?AccessToken=5444Q49TRPUUQUJ9WZ4PQB64BZ9YTN4UR&Show=Object

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/about-greenwashing/#what

Read More

Planned Obsolescence

(A cartoon depicting the issue of planned obsolescence; originally from here)

How many cell phones have you had in the last five years?  iPods or other type of MP3 player?  Computers?

I’ve personally had 2 computers, 2 iPods, and 3 cell phones in the last five years.  I got my first cell phone entering freshman year of high school (at age fourteen), and have had four since then, six and a half years later. And I honestly think that I’m on the lower end of that spectrum.

Planned obsolescence, also often known as  “built-to-break-down in industrial design” is a term defined on Golden Gate Express as the “policy of planning or designing a product with a limited life span”.

T-mobile’s newest plan is called “JUMP!”, and is a perfect example of planned obsolescence. It uses the slogan “Two years is too long to wait” with funny videos of a man who is struggling to wait the full two years before upgrading from his current dysfunctional phone. Watch one of the advertisements here:

Media has had a huge effect on this societal conception.  Advertising like T-mobile’s assures its consumers that it’s okay, even better, to replace their technology every two years or less. 

The companies benefit immensely from the carefully timed death of your cell phone because companies can essentially guarantee that you will be a returning customer at the end of two years, or five years, or however long they want the product to last.

But it’s not beneficial for everyone.  In fact, the thing most immensely hurt by this industrial “solution” is our planet.  For every time that we upgrade our cell phone or computer, there is a huge amount of waste that comes from that piece of technology. According to this article on The Guardian website, planned obsolescence has “led to such extraordinary mountains of waste is causing untold harm in an era of climate change and resource scarcity, so it's high time we changed it.”

The EPA tells us that excessive amounts of consumer electronics are sold every year, with only about twenty-five percent being recycled:

In 2009:

·       438 million new consumer electronics were sold;

·       5 million tons of electronics were in storage;

·       2.37 million tons of electronics were ready for end-of-life management; and

·       25% of these tons were collected for recycling

(A chart from the EPA demonstrating the problems of technology waste)

In my next post, I'll talk more about how media has created the concept of "perceived obsolescence" and how it affects our planet.

(Originally from Quiet Environmentalist)

Sources:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm 

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/changing-mindsets-prevent- environmental-disaster 

http://www.goldengatexpress.org/2013/02/24/shortens-longevity-of-electronics/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRi5gMCGaI&list=PL6DDBAB794DC92FAD

http://quiet-environmentalist.com/is-the-earth-doomed-due-to-planned-obsolescence/ 

http://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/po/ 

Read More