The Collage Foundation: Research

by Bryan Farrell

Image is everything. I know it. You know it. But more importantly, Sprite knows it. No longer a mere cliche, the idea of "image as a product" has stuffed many a corporate pocket with money, leaving the conscientious consumer with little besides having to choose what to buy into. Companies willing to throw out false images, however, make this no easy task.

Consider, for instance, the market for environmentally-conscious products. Many people are proud to buy organic dairy products from Stonyfield Farm, eco-friendly cleaning supplies from Seventh Generation, and treat themselves to the occasional pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, 7.5 percent of whose pretax profits are donated to charity. But upon realizing that 'caring' can translate to profits, some unscrupulous corporations were interested in getting on the green bandwagon. The only problem: they wanted the image, not the business model. This practice of painting the roses red, when they are in fact dead, is known as corporate greenwashing, and it is a growing dilemma in our image-fueled society.

Companies like ChevronTexaco financed Earth Day cleanup and park restoration programs in California, while being forced to pay a $275 million settlement for air pollution violations at five of their refineries. In Houston, Marathon Oil gave its support to the area's Earth Day programs, while remaining the main reason the city has one of the worst air quality problems in the country. Then there is Starbucks, which heavily promotes its "origins" line of coffees to show support for sustainable coffee farming, but refuses to label or remove genetically modified ingredients from its products (reclaimdemocracy.org).

These companies are willing to throw money at public relations efforts to look green, but have no interest in actually addressing the environmental impact of their manufacturing and marketing methods. When activists, consumers, and shareholders pressure these companies into making real systemic changes, they whine and cry that the cost of reducing pollution would cut too greatly into the profit margin and put them out of business. Their defense is the oldest story in the book and loses most of its credence, when they turn around and spend millions on environmental publicity. The real danger of faux green advertising is that unsuspecting customers might be lured away from honest-to-goodness sustainable businesses.

It's easy for conscientious consumers to see through the con of the obvious greenwashing companies, but what about those that fall somewhere between, say a Houston Oil and a Stonyfield Farms. Although not sustainable from inception, some larger corporations are changing some of their practices to become more environmentally responsible. These changes tend to be piecemeal rather than systemic, but can be incredibly beneficial given the companies' size and influence.

Take Nike for example. After the sweatshop conditions, paltry wages, child labor, and sexual and verbal harassment in Nike's contract factories was exposed in the New York Times in the early '90s, the company set about reshaping its image to quell the scandal. They drafted a code of conduct for its contractors, which included minimum wage recommendations, a maximum of 60 working hours per week, a minimum age of 16 for workers, a ban on forced labor, and minimum safety standards. Nike also committed to never use materials from old growth forests and to phase out the toxin-producing chemical polyvinyl chloride from its shoes. In the Fall of 2002, Nike introduced a line of garments that was 100% certified organic cotton, and began to use organic blends (5-30%) in their popular active wear. Despite being only partial, these changes quickly made the company one of the world's largest buyers of organic cotton, which shows the power and influences a mega corporation. like Nike can have on the global market. Sounds good, right? It is, but Nike is no boy scout. Violations continued at their contract factories after they received accolades for their Code of Conduct, and they still refuse to remove the extremely damaging toxin, PVC, from their yoga mats.

So where does Nike fit in? Although they have undoubtedly made some strides toward social responsibility, they are still miles away from sustainable businesses like Seventh Generation. Is it impossible to convince our nation's largest retailers to actually become responsible? Is the task of deciding which companies deserve your consumer dollars an overwhelming task. Robert Redford was actually asked these same questions in a recent interview with Worthwhile Magazine. His response:

"Companies should get credit for trying and more for achieving," Redford said.

"Now more than ever they are needed. The situation is so dire in terms of our social condition, and particularly the environment, that anybody who is putting their best foot forward should be acknowledged and when they achieve something, that should be heavily promoted."

Coming from a man who can speak to horses, Redford's point makes a lot of sense. In order to encourage corporate responsibility, we need to play their game. As environmentally conscious consumers we stand little chance of bringing the mega corps to our side if we never reward them for making an effort. If image is what they want, image is what they'll get, so long as it's earned and not bought through false advertising.

Donate