jueves, abril 08, 2004

Starbucks, a corporation that makes a lot of its social and environmental responsibility, is taking flak for its alleged hipocrisy. A report featured on the Organic Consumers Association news log claims that the company is one of 2003's top 10 environmental hypocrites because it has failed to uphold the promise of its Environmental Mission Statement to stay "committed to a role of environmental leadership".

Wanna know who are the other 9 hypocrites? Check out the full report.

The 12th annual Don't Be Fooled Report profiles the ten worst greenwashers of 2003.

The greenwashers profiled in this year's report include companies from the automobile, biotechnology, coffee, energy, personal care and cruise industries, trade organizations representing aquaculture, logging and chemical companies, and one government agency.

The ten worst greenwashers of 2003 are:

- Project Learning Tree : for teaching tens of millions of schoolchildren worldwide, "We cannot depend on nature alone to take care of our forests," and other lessons from the environmental education curriculum controlled by the American Forest Foundation, a logging trade group

- Avalon Natural Products : for labeling a range of personal care products as "Certified Organic", though they contain chemicals and synthetic preservatives and are composed primarily of water

- Starbucks : for failing to adhere to its Environmental Mission Statement by slipping from industry leader to laggard on Fair Trade, and for adopting a patchwork approach to sustainability through its "Commitment to Origins" line of coffees

- Royal Caribbean International : for using a variety of means, including advertisements, a self-issued environmental award and an open letter from the CEO, to shield customers from information about raw sewage dumping and other forms of cruise ship pollution

- Environmental Protection Agency : for its unprecedented and allegedly illegal use of taxpayer funds to purchase advertisements for the Clear Skies Act, which were targeted at urban communities with high rates of asthma

- BP : for suggesting in its "On the Street" marketing campaign that the oil company is satisfying consumers' environmental concerns, while its continued support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is at odds with public opinion

- American Chemistry Council : for planning a covert public relations campaign funded by 3M, BASF, Dow, Dupont and other members of the chemical trade group, in order to undermine support for the precautionary principle among Californians worried about their body burden of industrial chemicals

- Salmon of the Americas , for hiring third-party experts and setting up front web-sites, such as pcbsinsalmon.com, to misinform the media and the public about toxic chemicals in Heritage, Majestic and other brands of farmed salmon

- Subaru : for reclassifying the Outback from a car to a light truck, thus skirting fuel economy standards and violating the distinction in its marketing campaign between Outbacks and SUVs

- Monsanto : for donating $2 million to a well-known conservation organization in order to mask the negative environmental impact of herbicides which earn the company more than $1 billion each year, and for sponsoring "Look Closer at Biotechnology", an activity book published by the biotech industry for 3 rd and 4 th graders

0 Comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Suscribirse a Comentarios de la entrada [Atom]

<< Página Principal