Splashing in greenwash
Yin Shao LoongPublished: May 10, 2001 12:38 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Is World Environment Day, Earth Day or any other "international" day of celebration of all that is clean and green an opportunity to reassess our relationship with our environment, or just an excuse for controversial companies to issue advertisements?
Is World Environment Day, Earth Day or any other "international" day of celebration of all that is clean and green an opportunity to reassess our relationship with our environment, or just an excuse for controversial companies to issue advertisements?
Witness the publication in The Star's Metro supplement (June 5) of a full-page advert from Syarikat Pengeluar Air Sungai Selangor (Splash) with dead fish sprawled in silvery-blue rigor mortis amidst oil drums, gas canisters, rubbish and brackish water.
"When we pollute our rivers, we are abusing our very own life-giving resource," reads the lead copy. "We must be totally committed against polluting our rivers."
Your average Malaysian river, you might think. Indeed, more than average according to the advert and Department of Environment which states that "72 percent of our rivers are polluted".
Perhaps we can sigh in relief since "in conjunction with World Environment Day, Splash pledges commitment as guardian of our water resources to ensure sustainability of water for our future".
But it's not all that simple. The advert is classic greenwash, the art of clouding over environmental controversy with positive PR. The term has even earned an entry in the "10th Edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary":
"green*wash: (n) Disinformation disseminated by an organisation so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash."
Greenwash is big business for global PR and advertising firms such as Hill & Knowlton, Burston-Marstellar and J Walter Thompson, who all specialise in producing these "corporate communications". They rake in revenue in millions of US dollars each year just to tell the public how much errant corporations really care. Really.
Splash's advertising effort is an in-house production however, and is targeted at urban residents of the KL and Selangor area. The Orang Asli of Sungai Selangor, by this definition, remain excluded. They lack the political or financial clout to influence Splash's actions and in the end do not require such costly methods of persuasion.
According to Joyce Yeong of Splash's public relations department, the advert is the first in a series of "community service messages" advertised in The Star, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Utusan Melayu to "reach out to all the races" and "encourage people not to pollute the river".
On the topic of whether the adverts are designed with the Sungai Selangor Dam controversy in mind, Splash is somewhat uncomfortable. Yeong reiterates that it is just a "community service message, we have not previously advertised about the dam. We have other communications on that issue."
For that, one can refer to the somewhat defensively-named "Facts vs Fallacies" section of the [#1]Splash[/#] website set up in response to [#2]SOS Selangor's[/#] own web effort.
The image
By subverting and using the images of pollution employed by the environmental movement, greenwash attempts to reclaim legitimacy for beleaguered organisations. Turtles, pristine wildlife and solar panels have all been unwittingly enlisted in adverts from oil or mining companies proclaiming their environmental credentials.
By appropriating the image of a constituency diametrically opposed to them, the advertiser appropriates a portion of the values, sentiment and sympathy accorded to that group by the public. It is a form of "goodwill theft".
Corporate Watch ([#3]www.corpwatch.org[/#]), a US watchdog organisation, offers their own definition of greenwash:
"green*wash: (gr~en-w^osh) -washers, -washing, -washed 1) The phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty. 2) Environmental whitewash. 3) Hogwash."
Corporate Watch held its annual Greenwash Award on Earth Day this year. Describing themselves as "reluctant admirers" of the art, they confess that "the mixture of beautiful images of nature, the language of the environmental movement, pots of money for high production values and the cleverness of the world's best PR firms can really serve up a deluge of deception".
Winner carmaker Ford was followed by runners-up the World Bank, biotechnology firm Monsanto, oil company Royal Dutch/Shell, and tied for fourth place, were fellow sisters in oil Chevron and Unocal.
Next to the high-gloss efforts of the above (just look at any copy of Time, Newsweek or Fortune for examples), the monochrome-blue effort of Splash is rather humble. But we should always pay close attention to the rise of home-grown talent.
Dr Kua Kia Soong of the SOS Selangor group that is campaigning to save Sungai Selangor from further damming says that Splash is a "prime destroyer of a beautiful river."
In contrast to Splash urging readers "against polluting our rivers and waterways", Kua notes that "water quality is adversely affected by the dam. It will increase the salinity of the river downstream (by preventing dilution) and also affect the estuary. The best way to ensure water quality is to leave it as it is."
He notes that the clearing of the hill slopes shows "great contempt for [the Orang Asli] while they are still living there." Furthermore, when he visited the site two weeks ago, no silt traps were installed to prevent the eroding hillside from entering the water and polluting it.
The word
By focussing on river water quality, the advert presents Splash as the responsible "corporate citizen", establishing a brand value, if you like, in the reader's mind. The controversies of Orang Asli relocation, habitat destruction, firefly eradication, the merits of big dams over better water management are excluded (but do check both websites to make up your own mind: www.savesungaiselangor.org and www.splash.com.my).
Featuring the image of a polluted body of water speaks of a shared concern, but how far does this extend? Such advertising often aims to curtail critical thought within the public, by presenting images or words completely unrelated to the organisation's actual practice or belief to date. It disinforms or, more sinisterly, re-educates the public.
The more sophisticated examples will take highly liberal stances that appear to wholly sympathise with the views of critics in a manner that appears both considerate and solicitous. By so doing it undermines the accurate flow of information that is so crucial to effective democracy.
Shell's international "Profits and Principles, is there a choice?" campaign is an excellent recent example. Targeted at the "international set" of influential thinkers, investors and opinion-formers (readers of Time, Newsweek, The Economist, Fortune, Financial Times and National Geographic) it confessed that "We care what you think of us ... we will continue to seek your views" and most winningly "... a sustainable oil company is a contradiction in terms ..."
The unmentioned
From the advertising copy alone, one might have to concede that Shell is a reasonable company. But it begs the question, why are they advertising? What have they got to make up for?
This is where the "art of the unmentioned" in greenwash comes in. By not mentioning the past (i.e. the execution of Nigerian environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa), the hope is that the memory of abuses committed slowly fades. Have the fundamental issues really been addressed? If we accept this at face value we risk losing our critical capacities.
The Splash media blitz is destined to intensify with more adverts and a television commercials in the pipeline. Splash will tout its "river basin monitoring system" in the Sungai Selangor, but does this really address the issue of the dam? Or is it Splash's reputation?
Hopefully, malaysiakini readers will be ready to spot the "unmentioned", the "image" and the "word" here and elsewhere.
[#4]Malaysiakini's bluffers guide to greenwash[/#]
YIN SHAO LOONG has worked on sustainable development and corporate accountability. He has spent several years sifting through corporate environmental reports and PR material and strongly believes that they are a leading cause of cancer amongst analysts.
Witness the publication in The Star's Metro supplement (June 5) of a full-page advert from Syarikat Pengeluar Air Sungai Selangor (Splash) with dead fish sprawled in silvery-blue rigor mortis amidst oil drums, gas canisters, rubbish and brackish water.
"When we pollute our rivers, we are abusing our very own life-giving resource," reads the lead copy. "We must be totally committed against polluting our rivers."
Your average Malaysian river, you might think. Indeed, more than average according to the advert and Department of Environment which states that "72 percent of our rivers are polluted".
Perhaps we can sigh in relief since "in conjunction with World Environment Day, Splash pledges commitment as guardian of our water resources to ensure sustainability of water for our future".
But it's not all that simple. The advert is classic greenwash, the art of clouding over environmental controversy with positive PR. The term has even earned an entry in the "10th Edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary":
"green*wash: (n) Disinformation disseminated by an organisation so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash."
Greenwash is big business for global PR and advertising firms such as Hill & Knowlton, Burston-Marstellar and J Walter Thompson, who all specialise in producing these "corporate communications". They rake in revenue in millions of US dollars each year just to tell the public how much errant corporations really care. Really.
Splash's advertising effort is an in-house production however, and is targeted at urban residents of the KL and Selangor area. The Orang Asli of Sungai Selangor, by this definition, remain excluded. They lack the political or financial clout to influence Splash's actions and in the end do not require such costly methods of persuasion.
According to Joyce Yeong of Splash's public relations department, the advert is the first in a series of "community service messages" advertised in The Star, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Utusan Melayu to "reach out to all the races" and "encourage people not to pollute the river".
On the topic of whether the adverts are designed with the Sungai Selangor Dam controversy in mind, Splash is somewhat uncomfortable. Yeong reiterates that it is just a "community service message, we have not previously advertised about the dam. We have other communications on that issue."
For that, one can refer to the somewhat defensively-named "Facts vs Fallacies" section of the [#1]Splash[/#] website set up in response to [#2]SOS Selangor's[/#] own web effort.
The image
By subverting and using the images of pollution employed by the environmental movement, greenwash attempts to reclaim legitimacy for beleaguered organisations. Turtles, pristine wildlife and solar panels have all been unwittingly enlisted in adverts from oil or mining companies proclaiming their environmental credentials.
By appropriating the image of a constituency diametrically opposed to them, the advertiser appropriates a portion of the values, sentiment and sympathy accorded to that group by the public. It is a form of "goodwill theft".
Corporate Watch ([#3]www.corpwatch.org[/#]), a US watchdog organisation, offers their own definition of greenwash:
"green*wash: (gr~en-w^osh) -washers, -washing, -washed 1) The phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty. 2) Environmental whitewash. 3) Hogwash."
Corporate Watch held its annual Greenwash Award on Earth Day this year. Describing themselves as "reluctant admirers" of the art, they confess that "the mixture of beautiful images of nature, the language of the environmental movement, pots of money for high production values and the cleverness of the world's best PR firms can really serve up a deluge of deception".
Winner carmaker Ford was followed by runners-up the World Bank, biotechnology firm Monsanto, oil company Royal Dutch/Shell, and tied for fourth place, were fellow sisters in oil Chevron and Unocal.
Next to the high-gloss efforts of the above (just look at any copy of Time, Newsweek or Fortune for examples), the monochrome-blue effort of Splash is rather humble. But we should always pay close attention to the rise of home-grown talent.
Dr Kua Kia Soong of the SOS Selangor group that is campaigning to save Sungai Selangor from further damming says that Splash is a "prime destroyer of a beautiful river."
In contrast to Splash urging readers "against polluting our rivers and waterways", Kua notes that "water quality is adversely affected by the dam. It will increase the salinity of the river downstream (by preventing dilution) and also affect the estuary. The best way to ensure water quality is to leave it as it is."
He notes that the clearing of the hill slopes shows "great contempt for [the Orang Asli] while they are still living there." Furthermore, when he visited the site two weeks ago, no silt traps were installed to prevent the eroding hillside from entering the water and polluting it.
The word
By focussing on river water quality, the advert presents Splash as the responsible "corporate citizen", establishing a brand value, if you like, in the reader's mind. The controversies of Orang Asli relocation, habitat destruction, firefly eradication, the merits of big dams over better water management are excluded (but do check both websites to make up your own mind: www.savesungaiselangor.org and www.splash.com.my).
Featuring the image of a polluted body of water speaks of a shared concern, but how far does this extend? Such advertising often aims to curtail critical thought within the public, by presenting images or words completely unrelated to the organisation's actual practice or belief to date. It disinforms or, more sinisterly, re-educates the public.
The more sophisticated examples will take highly liberal stances that appear to wholly sympathise with the views of critics in a manner that appears both considerate and solicitous. By so doing it undermines the accurate flow of information that is so crucial to effective democracy.
Shell's international "Profits and Principles, is there a choice?" campaign is an excellent recent example. Targeted at the "international set" of influential thinkers, investors and opinion-formers (readers of Time, Newsweek, The Economist, Fortune, Financial Times and National Geographic) it confessed that "We care what you think of us ... we will continue to seek your views" and most winningly "... a sustainable oil company is a contradiction in terms ..."
The unmentioned
From the advertising copy alone, one might have to concede that Shell is a reasonable company. But it begs the question, why are they advertising? What have they got to make up for?
This is where the "art of the unmentioned" in greenwash comes in. By not mentioning the past (i.e. the execution of Nigerian environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa), the hope is that the memory of abuses committed slowly fades. Have the fundamental issues really been addressed? If we accept this at face value we risk losing our critical capacities.
The Splash media blitz is destined to intensify with more adverts and a television commercials in the pipeline. Splash will tout its "river basin monitoring system" in the Sungai Selangor, but does this really address the issue of the dam? Or is it Splash's reputation?
Hopefully, malaysiakini readers will be ready to spot the "unmentioned", the "image" and the "word" here and elsewhere.
[#4]Malaysiakini's bluffers guide to greenwash[/#]
YIN SHAO LOONG has worked on sustainable development and corporate accountability. He has spent several years sifting through corporate environmental reports and PR material and strongly believes that they are a leading cause of cancer amongst analysts.
View Comments0