|
Public Relations During the Climate CrisisAn exploration on the ethics of promoting consumption.
|
by Kaitlyn E. Clark, 2022
As ethical public relations practitioners, it is important to be aware of current events and issues. Of course, the rapid rate of climate change is one considerable factor for individuals everywhere. I propose that public relations, advertising, and marketing communicators should have a unique perspective and an acute awareness of the impacts the brands they represent will have on the environment. When engaging in promotions or campaigns that are intended to directly drive sales and consumerism, we should be especially aware of the implications this has for the future of our planet.
The ultimate goal of these communicators is to promote consumption. Whether we are promoting the launch of a new product, raising awareness for a special event, or attempting to reach new audiences, we are encouraging consumers to continue spending money and using resources. Some of the most successful marketing campaigns have resulted in the wholly unsustainable rate of consumption of most modern 1st world countries. Just think of Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Black Friday; holidays that companies capitalize on to generate spikes in sales. These were not always holidays of consumption; companies and their communicators have made them this way.
Furthermore, our rate of consumption is the key factor in the rapid acceleration of climate change. The severity of the crisis can not be stressed enough. If our use of natural resources continues at its current rate, we will find humanity woefully underprepared when the Earth’s capacity for human population severely decreases in the next 20 years. As population, pollution, and production increase, the issue gets worse. In fact, a one point growth in our country’s GDP correlates with a a .5-.08% increase in carbon emissions. As an industry that is inherently meant to support the growth of businesses and brands, we are facing competing interests.
This conflict of interest is something businesses and consumers alike are already aware of. Companies in all sorts of industries have starting launching campaigns to make their consumers aware of their efforts to protect the environment. Dea Pratt, a sustainable business marketing professional, discussed with me the challenges that all product based companies have in this day and age. They explain in the video linked below that when we are engaging in business to consumer campaigns, it is difficult to be ethical about it. Furthermore, PR practitioners walk a fine line with promoting the impression of environmental friendliness. My intention is to provoke some reflection on this, and to say that we have a unique responsibility
The ultimate goal of these communicators is to promote consumption. Whether we are promoting the launch of a new product, raising awareness for a special event, or attempting to reach new audiences, we are encouraging consumers to continue spending money and using resources. Some of the most successful marketing campaigns have resulted in the wholly unsustainable rate of consumption of most modern 1st world countries. Just think of Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Black Friday; holidays that companies capitalize on to generate spikes in sales. These were not always holidays of consumption; companies and their communicators have made them this way.
Furthermore, our rate of consumption is the key factor in the rapid acceleration of climate change. The severity of the crisis can not be stressed enough. If our use of natural resources continues at its current rate, we will find humanity woefully underprepared when the Earth’s capacity for human population severely decreases in the next 20 years. As population, pollution, and production increase, the issue gets worse. In fact, a one point growth in our country’s GDP correlates with a a .5-.08% increase in carbon emissions. As an industry that is inherently meant to support the growth of businesses and brands, we are facing competing interests.
This conflict of interest is something businesses and consumers alike are already aware of. Companies in all sorts of industries have starting launching campaigns to make their consumers aware of their efforts to protect the environment. Dea Pratt, a sustainable business marketing professional, discussed with me the challenges that all product based companies have in this day and age. They explain in the video linked below that when we are engaging in business to consumer campaigns, it is difficult to be ethical about it. Furthermore, PR practitioners walk a fine line with promoting the impression of environmental friendliness. My intention is to provoke some reflection on this, and to say that we have a unique responsibility
|
I’ve spoken before on the fact that conscious consumerism, intentionally purchasing sustainable products, is a flawed practice because most people are being mislead by companies and their advertisers. Brands are becoming more clever with their tactics to make buyers believe their products are environmentally friendly when they have often made little to no change to their product or business plan. Green labels, packaging, and trendy names are all intended to trick the consumer into grabbing the most environmentally friendly looking option on the shelf. These are some forms of green-washing; like using green buzz words or adding beautiful botanicals to packaging. We see this type of marketing on all sorts of products today from lightbulbs to chocolate chips. You’ll recognize terms like organic, paraben free, or natural flavoring, and you’d be surprised how loose the regulations on these terms are. What is remarkable is the strong impact these small tactics have on consumers.
|
|
As the people in the room making decisions about our consumers psyche and habits, we should be considering the ethics behind using these green washing tactics. We might all think that adding some flowers and making the text green on a product is just a clever way to boost public image, but is this ethical when we know that the product is doing nothing to protect the environment? In these cases, are we playing off their concern for the environment, or just trends in aesthetics?
These small details might still seem minute to most communicators, but much worse examples are still common practice. Many brands have faced consequences from advertising regulators or even lawsuits because their advertising crossed a certain threshold of dishonesty. One very well-known example was the 2013 lawsuit involving Nest Thermostats. This brand was directed to discontinue advertising claiming that their product saved the 20-30% of energy that their competitors were wasting. These claims were found to be unbased and while we know the legal implications for this, consider the ethical lenses this advertisement must have been developed through. Consider again that consumption itself is the driving force in the deterioration of the environment, and ask if it is ethical to play off someone’s concern for this worsening crisis.
One of the worst examples of a deceptive campaign was one that did not receive any legal backlash and continues to remain unrecognized by most of the public. The most common measurement of personal environmental impact is our “carbon footprint”. You might hear someone suggest biking over driving or turning off appliances more often in order to “reduce your carbon footprint”. You'd be surprised that the concept of measuring our carbon emissions on an individual basis was the idea of none other than an advertising agency working for BP oil. This campaign has been so successful that the term carbon footprint has become an integral part of the conversation surrounding climate activism. In the process, the brand has been able to completely remove itself from the conversation, allowing this stealthy campaign to be executed without many accusations of hypocrisy. While BP has been encouraging you to shave a few minutes off of your shower, they've been using 275 million tons of water yearly.
One might argue that BP is helping with this campaign; after all they are providing a metric by which we can measure and compare our responsibility in this issue. However, this is an extremely damaging perspective to have applied to this crisis. Candidly, this is propaganda made to distract people from the almost 300-400 million tons of greenhouse gasses BP releases annually. The average American, for comparison, releases about 16 tons per year, and this is the highest rate in the world. This campaign could have set us back decades in the fight against climate change by pushing the focus away from the corporations that are rapidly depleting our resources. Thus, this is the worst example of unethical eco-marketing, much worse than even a lie or false data.
I would argue that many campaigns include elements on unethical practices. The most essential part of this argument is the fact that consumption itself is the driving force of climate change. If we are promoting unnecessary consumption, especially when we are being misleading or untruthful, we are failing to do what is objectively best for the environment. But that leaves almost every American in the same unethical position. Where we should really direct our concern is if our campaigns are directly harmful. As Dea put it, we can choose to seek out brands that were created out of a want to fix this problem.
My intention is not to say that the communications industry as a whole is unethical, but to provoke some thought on the scope of our conversation. In the coming years, many companies will be forced to adapt to a new infrastructure and potentially a new economic structure. As we get closer to these most critical years, our industry will need to establish a set of best practices and ethical principles. I believe we are lacking consideration for some of the fundamental parts of this problem when we limit our conversation to green washing and psychological marketing. There is something much more concerning at hand, and the threat the climate poses to life as we know it can not be stressed enough. We, as communicators, have the opportunity to shape and drive this conversation on a global level. I hope you will weigh this as a consideration during the development of your future campaigns.
These small details might still seem minute to most communicators, but much worse examples are still common practice. Many brands have faced consequences from advertising regulators or even lawsuits because their advertising crossed a certain threshold of dishonesty. One very well-known example was the 2013 lawsuit involving Nest Thermostats. This brand was directed to discontinue advertising claiming that their product saved the 20-30% of energy that their competitors were wasting. These claims were found to be unbased and while we know the legal implications for this, consider the ethical lenses this advertisement must have been developed through. Consider again that consumption itself is the driving force in the deterioration of the environment, and ask if it is ethical to play off someone’s concern for this worsening crisis.
One of the worst examples of a deceptive campaign was one that did not receive any legal backlash and continues to remain unrecognized by most of the public. The most common measurement of personal environmental impact is our “carbon footprint”. You might hear someone suggest biking over driving or turning off appliances more often in order to “reduce your carbon footprint”. You'd be surprised that the concept of measuring our carbon emissions on an individual basis was the idea of none other than an advertising agency working for BP oil. This campaign has been so successful that the term carbon footprint has become an integral part of the conversation surrounding climate activism. In the process, the brand has been able to completely remove itself from the conversation, allowing this stealthy campaign to be executed without many accusations of hypocrisy. While BP has been encouraging you to shave a few minutes off of your shower, they've been using 275 million tons of water yearly.
One might argue that BP is helping with this campaign; after all they are providing a metric by which we can measure and compare our responsibility in this issue. However, this is an extremely damaging perspective to have applied to this crisis. Candidly, this is propaganda made to distract people from the almost 300-400 million tons of greenhouse gasses BP releases annually. The average American, for comparison, releases about 16 tons per year, and this is the highest rate in the world. This campaign could have set us back decades in the fight against climate change by pushing the focus away from the corporations that are rapidly depleting our resources. Thus, this is the worst example of unethical eco-marketing, much worse than even a lie or false data.
I would argue that many campaigns include elements on unethical practices. The most essential part of this argument is the fact that consumption itself is the driving force of climate change. If we are promoting unnecessary consumption, especially when we are being misleading or untruthful, we are failing to do what is objectively best for the environment. But that leaves almost every American in the same unethical position. Where we should really direct our concern is if our campaigns are directly harmful. As Dea put it, we can choose to seek out brands that were created out of a want to fix this problem.
My intention is not to say that the communications industry as a whole is unethical, but to provoke some thought on the scope of our conversation. In the coming years, many companies will be forced to adapt to a new infrastructure and potentially a new economic structure. As we get closer to these most critical years, our industry will need to establish a set of best practices and ethical principles. I believe we are lacking consideration for some of the fundamental parts of this problem when we limit our conversation to green washing and psychological marketing. There is something much more concerning at hand, and the threat the climate poses to life as we know it can not be stressed enough. We, as communicators, have the opportunity to shape and drive this conversation on a global level. I hope you will weigh this as a consideration during the development of your future campaigns.
“The whole point of marketing is to get people to buy something that they otherwise wouldn’t… how can we solve an over consumption problem with more consumption?” |
|
|
|
