Eco Do-Goodism

It's Getting Crowded on the Environmental Bandwagon
By CLAUDIA DEUTSCH | The New York Times | December 22, 2005

ENVIRONMENTAL do-goodism.

Customers can't buy it. Shareholders can't invest in it. But a growing list of big-name companies appear to be spending ever-bigger chunks of their advertising budgets to promote it.

A General Electric elephant, for one, high-stepped on national television right after the company introduced its Ecomagination line of products last May, dancing for joy at how G.E. is "in step with nature." It has been followed by four product-specific environmental ads and a spate of print ads, and the company has a fresh Ecomagination campaign planned for next year. (BBDO, owned by the Omnicom Group, is the agency.)

Then there's BP (it stopped being British Petroleum in 2000). "BP on the Street" interviews on energy and environment-related topics have been part of its corporate advertising since 2001. This month, BP set up an Alternative Energy unit, and it is now running two- and three-page ads in major newspapers devoted just to that. (the WPP Group's Ogilvy & Mather unit in New York does these ads.)

Even companies tarred as "dirty" by environmentalists are braving the inevitable catcalls and running green ads. Ford Motor - like other automakers often castigated by environmental groups for making gas guzzlers and opposing many proposed state laws aimed at fuel efficiency - has been running advertisements promoting its planned lines of hybrid and flexible-fuel cars. (These ads are an effort of Ogilvy & Mather Detroit and Penn Schoen & Berland, both units of WPP.)

And Exxon Mobil, which is still plagued by references to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska waters in 1989, has made environmental issues the cornerstone of the "advertorial" columns it pays to run on newspaper op-ed pages. The company has also run several new commercials and print ads created by the TM Advertising unit of the Interpublic Group.

"The energy challenge is a critical societal issue, and we feel that it's our responsibility as the industry leader to communicate about it," said Russ Roberts, an Exxon Mobil spokesman.

Companies have reached that decision for various reasons: Oil companies, under attack for reaping windfall profits from soaring fuel prices, are trying to position themselves as part of the solution to energy problems rather than the cause. Manufacturers of fuel-efficient automobiles, jet engines or other green products are recognizing that they can burnish their image even as they promote their products. And companies in all industries are trying to make socially conscious investors and customers comfortable about buying their products and shares.

As BP's expensive image-building PR campaign continued, in 2006, BP's Alaskan pipeline oil spill was caused by cost-cutting negligence. On Jan.17, 2007, the 374 pp Baker inestigation report found BP management at fault for cost-cutting the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion which killed 15 employees.

"Investors choose whose stock to buy; consumers choose whose gas they buy; and governments choose who gets their contracts," said Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, which alternates "Beyond Petroleum" and "It's a Start" as its tag lines. "We're going to invest $8 billion in alternative energy in the next 10 years, so, of course, we're advertising that."Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a nonprofit group, said, "It seems that major corporations have finally decided that environmental consciousness is an important part of building their image and their brand."

Some environmentalists are heartened by the spate of green advertising, as long as the hyperbole is tempered. "When BP says 'It's a Start,' it's acknowledging that even the positive steps they are taking are not enough, so we really can't criticize them for not doing more right away," said Michelle Chan-Fishel, program manager for green investments at Friends of the Earth. "In that sense, it's really a clever campaign."

Conversely, environmentalists do turn gimlet-eyed when they think a surfeit of boasts masks a dearth of action. "Too often, it's just greenwash," said Michael J. Brune, executive director for the Rainforest Action Network. "Sure, some companies can justifiably advertise their good actions," said Mr. Brune, mentioning G.E.

"But too many," he said, "are seeking maximum accolades for minimum change. You look beyond the green sheen, and Ford's actions don't match its rhetoric."

Ford, of course, takes umbrage at that. "We are extremely committed to the environment, because we are committed to providing affordable transportation in every sense," said Becky Sanch, a Ford spokeswoman.

Few companies will divulge the sums that they are devoting to green advertising, but they seem to be sizable. Since May, for example, G.E. has run two prime-time Ecomagination campaigns, several print campaigns, and continues to rotate four commercials on CNBC, its own cable channel. The Ecomagination ads are part of G.E.'s "Imagination at Work" campaign, and next month they will probably go on hiatus while G.E. focuses advertising on its health care innovations. But new Ecomagination ads are already in the works.

"We are delivering a new message with Ecomagination, so we are putting a significant budget around it," said Judy L. Hu, global executive director of advertising and branding.

Even companies that normally shun self-laudatory environmental campaigns are making exceptions these days. Goldman Sachs has never advertised its investment in wind farms or its involvement in the carbon emissions trading market. Nor does it plan to advertise the firmwide environmental policy it adopted in December. "Clients don't come to us because we have an environmental policy," said Lucas van Praag, managing director in charge of global communications.

Still, this year Goldman ran $600,000 worth of newspaper ads, created by Ogilvy & Mather, promoting a gift of land it made in Chile's part of Tierra del Fuego, in partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society. "We were proud enough to have done it that we just wanted it known more broadly," Mr. van Praag said.

Alcan, the giant Canadian aluminum company, has also been breaking with its usual stay-mum tradition. "If we spend $400,000 in total on advertising in a year, that's a lot," said Daniel Gagnier, senior vice president for corporate and external affairs.

Nonetheless, Alcan in the last few months has run ads in The Globe and Mail in Toronto showcasing its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. It has also run ads in environmental publications seeking applicants for the $1 million Prize for Sustainability it began awarding last year (the first one went to the Forest Stewardship Council). Ads in Quebec newspapers noted that it had planted 100,000 trees in that province - to offset the additional greenhouse gas emissions that it thinks inevitably resulted when 10,000 people converged on Montreal this month for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change.

Mr. Gagnier does not pretend that the ads, all of them created by CGCom in Montreal, will help Alcan sell more aluminum. His primary audience was internal. "Every time we survey our 70,000 employees, we hear that they want to be proud of our environmental leadership," he said. "Outsiders may not remember the Alcan ads a few months down the road, but our employees will remember them with pride."