INTERVIEW WITH GREENWASH GURU KENNY BRUNO

(This article originally appeared in The Green Life Seasonally, The Green Life's members' quarterly newsletter.)

THE GREEN LIFE: Lately, automakers have been aggressively advertising their hybrid and hydrogen vehicles, while oil companies tout their investments in renewable energy. Eco-friendly ads seem to promote environmental progress, so why are they a problem?

KENNY BRUNO: Oil and auto companies represent two of the most environmentally damaging sectors, and so skepticism is in order. I wouldn't go so far as to say that advertising a hybrid is greenwash, because a hybrid is a step forward. But in judging whether a given company deserves a green label, the fact that it produces a hybrid should be weighed against its overall record and position on environmental matters. Automakers have historically and consistently lobbied hard against better fuel standards, as well as other safety and environmental standards.

The incessant eco-ads of oil companies are exaggerated and misleading. When BP claims to stand for “Beyond Petroleum,” what they are mostly talking about is natural gas, a close relative of oil and only incrementally less potent than oil as a greenhouse gas. Like BP, Shell spends less than 1% of its R&D on renewables, yet from their ads you would think they have all but abandoned oil.

Some people think that even rhetorical advances by these companies help by raising public awareness. Yet there is also a danger that these very effective ads will cause people to believe that the oil and car companies and the public interest are all on the same side. The collective message of all the oil company ads on renewables is that the problem is being addressed, and so we can all kick back, pop open a brewski and watch the game. Who wouldn't like to believe that? But in fact, public pressure is the thing most needed.

TGL: Surely there are some genuinely green businesses out there whose processes and products really do protect the environment. How do we distinguish between them and the greenwashers?

KB: Sometimes greenwash is like jazz – you know it when you hear it. Other times you have to study a bit. If a company spends more on advertising its greenness than on investing in green R&D, that's greenwash. If the vast majority of a company's business is damaging, but it has one or two little environmental programs that it touts highly, that's greenwash. If a company's ad firm writes movingly about nature, but the company's lobby firm spends millions to avoid environmental regulations and contributes to anti-environmental politicians, that's greenwash.

As individuals, we should assume that green ads – like all ads – are guilty until proven innocent. That is, we must train ourselves not to believe advertising. That's a good basic practice. Then we need to think through some basic assumptions. For example, what does it mean for a product “to protect the environment?” No car, no power plant, no chemical factory and no detergent actually protects the environment. Some damage it less than others. So if a company says its car protects the environment, that is nonsense. Still, you can't drive around in an organically grown t-shirt like you can in a car, so you have to think about what to buy, what is really necessary for you, and then choose the least damaging options. Some people find this a burden, but I find it interesting, because you start to think through the life cycle of everything around you, and you learn about manufacturing processes, labor, trade and environment issues, and also about what's important to you.

TGL: What can companies do to avoid making their ads misleading to consumers, and how can consumers create incentives for openness?

KB: Companies should just be honest. Of course that means not telling lies, but it also means not exaggerating. You can't count on that happening anytime soon. Consumers and consumer groups should sue companies that mislead, should complain to the Federal Communications Commission, should write to the companies directly and to their local newspapers to expose dishonest ads, should do greenwash awards to embarrass misleaders, and, when possible, should avoid buying from companies that mislead.

TGL: You've written that companies use greenwash ads "for placating the general public. The real work is influencing the politicians." The public can learn not to be appeased by ads, but what can it do to resist the political power of corporations?

KB: That's the million dollar question. As your question implies, countering greenwash means taking action not only as a consumer, but on the political level. This cannot be done solely as an individual, no matter how assiduously you separate glass from paper. It means joining the wider campaigns to get corporate money out of the political process, to separate corporation and state. It means looking at our politicians and our political system to find leaders with some independence from corporations - leaders that will rule in the public interest, not the private interest. Unfortunately, that is a long-term task, because at the moment, we are actually going in the opposite direction. But it is a just cause, and a necessary one, which everyone interested in the environment must eventually join. Environmentalism means both personal responsibility and collective action. We can't just shop our way out of this problem.

TGL: Since the early 1990s, corporations have launched more than 200 voluntary environmental programs, such as the chemical industry's Responsible Care. With these programs in place, maybe corporations don't need environmental regulation?

KB: No one is against a company or groups of companies voluntarily deciding to improve their practices or do the right thing. They should do it and we should applaud it. But there are many studies showing that voluntary programs simply do not work very well, and of course they do not cover industries that decide not to participate. The other issue is that voluntary measures, which are sometimes trivial and are not independently evaluated, are used to argue that regulation is not necessary. For example, in the ’80s the head of Rhone Poulenc stated publicly that Responsible Care was necessary to head off new regulation. The collective campaign by so-called business leaders for voluntary measures, while they simultaneously lobby against real accountability, is what I call “deep greenwash.”

TGL: You wrote the book on greenwash - literally - almost ten years ago. Has the reality behind corporate environmentalism changed at all?

KB: If you look at the big environmental picture, not very much has changed in the last 10-15 years, in the sense that we see incremental, piecemeal progress and large-scale deterioration of the environment. The philosophy of corporate environmentalism – namely that the free market will lead to improving environmental practices – remains the same, and has spread. Corporate environmentalism has not been successful in reversing environmental deterioration, but has nonetheless become a dominant approach of governments.

TGL: Are there signs that positive change is on the way?

KB: I knew you were going to ask that. It's a good question, and yet I always hate this question. Everyone wants good news, but if we are honest we have to admit that while there are positive things happening on the environmental front, they are overwhelmed by the negative. To be "negative" is an occupational hazard of environmentalists, because the natural world is perfect to begin with, and large-scale industrial society is unlikely to improve upon it. So we must always be on guard to protect our natural world, and not to be complicit in its destruction. This involves saying no to a lot of things, a lot of products, practices and companies. Saying no sounds negative, but in fact in this context it is positive.

Now that I've got that bit of philosophizing off my chest, there are some very positive developments. First is the widespread recognition that publicly-traded companies with consumer products must watch out for their image, and that means, ultimately, improving their practices. Second is the rise of environmental awareness in developing countries and global alliances on environment and development issues. Another is the awareness of the need to get corporate money out of the political system, though admittedly that will not be easy.

On the critical issue of individual awareness in our country, I don't find the news to be very positive. We have known about global warming since 1988, and in that period the popularity of SUVs has skyrocketed. While we as a society like to shop, we tend to roll our eyes at the idea of shopping with a conscience. Of course that's not true for everyone, and so the readers of this publication must take it on themselves to make the news better.

TGL: Any closing thoughts?

KB: I like the little catchphrase of your annual report on greenwash, “Don't Be Fooled.” It's a good motto for children, who hate to think they've been tricked. It's good for urbanites who hate to think anyone can get one over on them, and for rural folk who like straight talk. We can work on not being fooled. As BP would say, it's a start.

home > guide to the green life > features > kenny bruno interview