group+communications+proposal

Amanda Costantini-996770597 Francesca Saraco-996730569 Monika Staruszkiewicz-996766557 The 1960’s marked an era of great social change across various aspects of life. One notable movement arising from this period is the environmental movement. Greater awareness and concern grew among people for the environment and the effect that companies and their products had on it. From this emerged the modern concept of greenwashing, which is known as the dissemination of misleading information by an organization to conceal its abuse of the environment in order to present a positive public image (corpwatch.org). The primary stakeholders circulating corporate greenwashing include corporations, activist groups, the public and governments. Conflict surrounding greenwash is marked by legal action and campaigns against greenwashing through the use of new media, such as online communities. Resulting from the environmental movement of the mid-twentieth century, greenwashing has become a prominent issue evident through economic, social and legal divergence. The history of greenwash begins in the mid-twentieth century, as the contemporary environmental movement rose in the 1960's. In reaction, corporations began to develop a green image in order to appease consumers. The creation of Earth Day in 1970 marked the culmination of environmental concern. In 1969 alone, more than $300 million was invested in green advertising-more than eight times the investment made in the anti-pollution research that was being advertised(corpwatch.org). Environmental disasters such as Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez disaster in the 1980's further strengthened the environmental movement(corpwatch.org). This caused greenwash advertisements to become even more numerous and essential to corporations. In the early 1990's one poll found that 77% of Americans claimed that a corporation's environmental reputation affected what they bought(corpwatch.org). Business derived from such statistics that increasing numbers of consumers were becoming aware of "green products.” Companies would respond by advertising their products as "recyclable" "biodegradable" "ozone friendly" or "compostable" (corpwatch.org). However, these same companies failed to mention the massive amount of environmental destruction it took to produce, transport and package many products. Some of the world's most environmentally unfriendly corporations spent millions of dollars washing over company image with a false green exterior. ICI, a company listed as one of the “dirty dozen” by the Pesticide Action Network produced a full colour newspaper which advertised itself as “ environmentally friendly” amongst other false claims about the highly toxic herbicide that has poisoned tens of thousands of workers in Malaysia (corpwatch.org). This and many other examples have emerged since the beginning of the environmental movement as a tactic for corporations to preserve their profit via false assumptions supported through advertisements. There are many stakeholders involved in the issue ranging from the general public to governments, each with their own distinct viewpoints. Through time, these stakeholders and their positions have been able to influence the effect of the corporate greenwash. The consumerist society has given rise to corporate greenwash. Our society is one that is heavily based on package advertising and image. It is through these visual cues that companies portray that they are able to create the corporate green washing image. Companies are therefore one of the main stakeholders in the greenwashing industry, as they need to protect their reputation at all costs. An example of the influential power of corporations in green washing can be seen in the instance Vermont’s “Bottle Bill” which passed in 1953. The aim of the bottle bill was to ban the sale of beer in non-refillable bottles. This bill was passed due to the, “aftermath of magazine ads promoting beverage cans as "throwaways,"” (toolkit.bottlebill.org). Due to the influx of mass production litter was becoming a more prevalent issue. The new built in obsolescence, or the creation of products to become disposable, allowed for an increased amount of waste. //Keep America Beautiful// was formed in 1953 by a group of businessmen from the packaging and bottling industries. The group’s main idea aimed at, “bringing the public and private sectors together to develop and promote a national cleanliness ethic,”(kap.org//). Keep America Beautiful// spearheaded an advertising campaign, which used the tagline, “People Start Pollution, People Can Stop It.” The tagline was criticized by environmentalists, due to the implication that the individual was solely responsible for pollution. The tagline however, worked for corporations in the way that the blame for the increased pollution was now being displaced on the consumer. In the 1970’s an influx of “Bottle Bills” modeled after the previous bill in Vermont began to take effect. These bills required a 5-cent deposit on disposable drink containers. The public and environmentalists became stakeholders as they supported the demands of the bill, which would not further the interests of the corporations. To opposition to the changing demands of the public the U.S. Brewers Association (USBA) developed a sophisticated campaign called the "Clean Community System" (CCS), which they touted as an alternative to bottle bills,” (toolkit.bottlebill.org), in 1975. The campaign was used to further the best interests of the packaging and bottling corporations. The public and environmentalists further did not support this initiative. In 1976 //Keep America Beautiful// attempted to silence the public permanently when they delivered a speech at a Board of Directors Meeting. The organization spoke about the public and environmentalists as, ”communists” and mobilized a further attack against the bottle bills. The bottle bills in Vermont were undone and no legislation like it was ever passed again, (Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage). In further years Keep America Beautiful has proposed many ineffective bottle bill alternatives, all with conditional funding based on the best interests of the companies they represent. In the instance of corporations, profitability and a good public image take precedence over the best interests of the public and the environment. Social activist organizations are also primary stakeholders in the corporate greenwash. In Canada, The Polaris Institute is a social organization that works, “ with citizen movements in developing the kinds of strategies and tactics required to unmask and challenge the corporate power that is the driving force behind governments concerning public policy making on economic, social and environmental issues,” (polariinstitute.org). The organization works on drawing attention to issues that are often masked by corporations and through drawing attention to these issues, social change can be made. The Polaris Institute recently awarded the Coca-Cola Company with the first annual Corporate Greenwashing Award. According to the Polaris Institute, Coca- Cola is the company that has worked the hardest to, “present itself as socially and environmentally responsible – while continuing to harm environments and communities through the production and distribution of its products,” (polarisinstitute.org). Coca-Cola recently began funding international water conservation projects in order to polish their corporate image. However, the company does not disclose how much water they consume and have contributed, “56 billion pounds of plastic that was burned or thrown in landfills in the US in 2005,” as well as continued pollution of water resources in India. Coca-Cola’s greenwash masks their harmful environmental behavior to an extent, however, activist groups will always attempt to expose their fraud.
 * Corporate Greenwashing **
 * Submitted By: **

In regard to events pertaining to greenwashing, there has been substantial legal dispute initiated by Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps. Bronner’s soaps are completely organic and the company is highly involved in preventing the corporate Greenwashing occurring within certain companies. They have filed lawsuits against many different companies and corporations. Corporations such as Yves Saint Laurent, Stella McCartney “100% Organic” make-up, Giovanni, and Hain-Celestial are among the many defendants. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps are the top selling natural soap brand. They are family owned and in that way are completely devoted to keeping their products natural. They are filing complaints against companies who claim to be completely organic but only use one or two organic ingredients. Dr. Bronner’s makes the claim that in order for companies to consider themselves organic, their products must be comprised of 95% organic ingredients, criteria that the products of most companies do not meet. The lawsuits are still under way and are making extreme headway, where they have forced companies such as AVEDA to reconsider labeling their products organic.

Greenpeace has begun a prominent advertizing campaign raising awareness about Greenwashing. Anyone can visit [|www.stopgreenwashing.org] and get information on Greenwashing as well as what to do about this ongoing problem. Their motto is “Clean up your act, NOT your image,” which is directly addressing companies that are using Greenwashing techniques in order to sell more products. Because “going green” is a huge trend, Greenpeace is warning everyone to become aware of various products that may not be telling the complete truth about their ingredients. They have a page titled “Investigations” where they list various companies and products that are currently under investigation for suspicion of Greenwashing. There are links to various documents and articles that prove that these companies are not telling the complete truth about their seemingly organic products.

Through these lawsuits and initiatives, companies and organizations seek to educate people on making smart decisions when it comes to purchasing organic products. No one wants to pay more for their products when they aren’t receiving the quality that they paid for. Companies who deem their products organic have a responsibility to ensure that they are in fact staying true to their word and that their products are made from proper organic ingredients. Without the trust that companies are producing truly organic materials, people are going to boycott organic products all together.

In regards to the issue of corporate greenwashing our group is against corporations false promises of green products. We feel as though corporate greenwashing is unjust for various reasons. Ethically, it is unfair to mislead the public when stating that products are greener than they actually are as the truth becomes skewed. The public is led to believe certain products are environmentally friendly due to the misrepresentation of what is deemed ‘green.’ Corporate greenwashing further deters the individual from purchasing green products by creating an uncertainty within the public as to if ingredients or materials a product is comprised of are actually sustainable. If corporations are effective in their greenwashing tactics this may render harmful to the environment. An example of this would be buying into a corporation that advertizes themselves as green but is in turn harming the environment. By supporting the company the individual is supporting environmental harm, a cycle which can only be stopped by becoming aware of the effects of corporate greenwashing.

Our aim is to have our target audience of consumers make informed decisions. This an be achieved by having the audience visit some of the websites listed above as well as making themselves more fluent with the issue. By informing the public we can create a new generation of product and company savvy consumers. Through making informed decisions, and creating an influx of public pressure on the issue it is hoped that companies will listen to the demands of their consumers. We want people to realize that consumers have the power to influence corporations and in turn foster social change.


 * __ Communication Strategy: __**

· Inform and educate each student enrolled in CCT205 about the premise, effects and consequences of corporate greenwashing · To encourage each individual to become an informed and aware consumer · To foster “word-of-mouth” communication between the students in class and people they know about corporate greenwashing · To encourage the individual to make smarter choices when purchasing · To encourage the individual to contact their Member of Parliament about further environmental and false advertizing legislation · Consumers aged 16-25 · Corporate green washing is a marketing tactic used by corporation to sell products and cover up unethical environmental practices · As the consumer you have the responsibility to educate yourself about the products that you are purchasing · Also as a consumer and an informed member of the public you have the ability to influence governments, corporations and activist groups · Our group aims to expose the false precepts and hidden agendas of corporations that claim to be green · A blog that delves into details of corporate greenwashing and tactics that go against it · Through the use of visual cues and examples we will attempt show the individual the effects that go against it  · Interactive activities to engage and educate the individual · Contacting social activist groups - Monday March 29, with permission from UTMSU we will have a "smart shopper" game set up in the South Building where students can test their greenwash knowledge, as an incentive we will give prizes and fact cards -posters informing about the event · The amount of people that listen to our presentation and visit the blog
 * Objective: **
 * Goals: **
 * Audience: **
 * Key Messages: **
 * Strategies: **
 * Tactics: **
 * Measurements: **