Greenwashing? I have to admit that was a new one on me but after it was
explained, It makes perfect sense.
“Green is green as in the color of money”
- Brand director of General Electric, Brandweek, July 26, 2006
“Greenwashing” is the act of misleading the public regarding the
environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a
product, service, or business line. Due to the public’s increased awareness
of environmental issues, including global warming, deforestation, and the
loss of endangered species, greenwashing has become a staple of corporations
marketing efforts. All of the companies in this article have made some
effort to address these concerns. Some of them appear to be trying harder
than others, and even a few of them have made legitimate efforts to become
responsible corporate stewards of the environment. Evidenced by the support
of environmental groups and corporate responsibility professionals, many of
these companies’ green initiatives have made a positive impact.
The
“Green”
Hypocrisy: America’s Corporate Environment Champions Pollute The World
The irony of the "green" movement of U.S. companies is that many of the
firms that spend the most money and public relations effort trying to show
that they are trying to improve the environment are also among the most
prolific polluters in the country.
24/7 Wall St. profiles 10 of the biggest offenders
A
majority of America's largest companies have become part of the "green"
movement. Some have fleets of hybrid trucks. Others install solar panels on
their large buildings to consume energy more cost effectively with less of
an impact on the environment. Many give generously to environmental
non-profit organizations.
The irony
is some of them are among the most prolific polluters in the country.
Pollution does not mean that the companies are doing anything illegal.
Instead, it simply refers to natural consequence of the companies'
industrial efforts which result in contamination to the air, soil or water
by the discharge of substances that are toxic to the environment. 24/7 Wall
St. has put together a list of the top 10 "greenwashers" in America.
Continue through our gallery to see who made the list.
1) General Electric (GE)
2) American Electric Power (AEP)
3) ExxonMobil (XOM)
4) DuPont (DFT)
5) Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
6) Waste Management, Inc. (WMI)
7)
International Paper (IP)
8) BP (BP)
9) Dow Chemical (DOW)
10) General Motors (GM)
In the early 1990s, following a series of reports issued by the United
Nations on sustainable development and rainforest conservation, the forest
products industry began to receive increased attention over its land-use
strategies regarding logging. Specifically, these companies, including
International Paper, received negative publicity regarding their use of
chemicals, clear-cutting, and inadequate conservation protection. Informed
by increased awareness of sustainable practices, third-party certification
has become a critical tool for promoting ecologically responsible forestry
practices.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an international non-profit founded
in 1993 by environmental groups, the forestry profession, and community
groups. Its stated purpose “is to improve forest management worldwide” by
providing “a model for environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and
economically viable forest stewardship.”
In 1994, International Paper, in collaboration with the American Forest &
Paper Association (AFPA) – the national trade association for the forest,
pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products industry – founded the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). According to AFPA website, the
association’s members “agreed to adhere to a set of forestry principles that
would meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.”
According to an independent study commissioned by both FSC and SFI, although
SFI was initially developed as an industry led self-improvement program, “it
has evolved into a program that promotes third-party certification of
forestry practices of member companies and licensees.” However, contrary to
this assessment, environmental groups, including The Sierra Club, The Nation
Environmental Defense Fund and the Rainforest Action Network have published
reports critical of what they characterize as weak standards for
certification. According to these groups, because SFI standards were
developed by the same industry that requires certification, SFI
certification provides a measurement for sustainability that is weak on
oversight and contrary to its stated purpose.
The US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is a rating tool of the nonprofit
for green building design and construction that seeks to provide measurable
results for building owners and occupants. The LEED green building
certification program for new construction requirements are intended to
“encourage environmentally responsible forest management.” The most recent
version of LEED, with a scheduled launch of April 27, requires that new
construction seeking the LEED designation must “Use a minimum of 50% (based
on cost) of wood-based materials and products that are certified in
accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council’s principles and criteria,
for wood building components.”
FSC is not without its critics. It may be that some groups find both
acceptable. However, despite this criticism, 24/7 Wall St is unaware of any
environmental groups that have suggested that SFI is better than FSC.
According to International Paper’s 2008 “Sustainability Update,” FSC
certification in the U.S. reflects a fraction of the certification used by
the company’s businesses. Of the company’s 16 domestic paper mills only one
uses FSC certification. Similarly, domestic container plants and wood
procurement systems both use SFI certification in lieu of FSC.
According to TRI, for the paper industry, International Paper was the
largest producer of chemicals with fifteen facilities in the top 100
generating 42,554,027 pounds in waste. The company also had the second
highest producing facility of TRI production-related waste with 43,320,612
pounds. According to PERI, International Paper is the thirty-first most
toxic company with a toxic score of 49,385.
In 2008, the Rainforest Action Network condemned a proposal by International
Paper to build a pulp mill and establish 1.2 million acres of plantation
forest in Indonesia’s rainforest. This came as a surprise to RAN because
the company had established an internal policy that it would not expand into
Indonesia because it is a global warming and biodiversity hot spot.
Following the release, Thomas E. Gestrich, president of International Paper
Asia, explained the company’s plans in Indonesia. Mr.Gestrich said that he
would prefer land that had already been cleared, but failed to explain how
the company would secure hundreds of thousands of meters of forest without
disturbing the natural habitat, waters or indigenous peoples.
Out of the LCV’s Dirty Dozen, International Paper’s PAC has
donated thousands of dollars to 5 of the Dirty Dozen, including the leading
denier of global warming, Senator Jim Inhofe.
MBryant
Research credit to Tony Bellamy
