Monday 30 April 2012

Seminar-Design and Social Change


dissy = 8000 words.. four chapters..  1500 words each... then conclusion.

Propose a topic that have four separate angles on it..

needs to include primary and secondary research.. and a methodology=semiotics..ecological.etc posssible to blend methodologies..

Find as many books as possible.. then read and think about where your primary research is going to come from.. then think about four solid topics with in the topic.

Design for Social change..

Design Activitsm- design that wants to change something or design that wants to be political.. you could figure that action political..

Baldwins- visual communication from theory to practice.. all design is political..

even if the design doesn't have the overt politics.. graphic design is political as it will always support on stand point.. weather consciously or sub consciously.

Relations of produiction..
Dialectical materialism

All society is based on a base and a super structure.. . the base is the econmonic structure of society.. forces and relations of production.. the relationship between bosses and workers.. balance of power... young and old.. rich and poor..

all forms of live.. culture...politics..etc.. is produced out the balance of power in the base..

Men are the dominant.. men have control of the mass media.. as a result the types of things produced by the mass media reflects mens dominance over society.. page 3.. etc. as result legitimizes the ideology that men are dominant over women.. as society excepts it.
all design is political as design... has to choose weather it will destroy these ideolgies or simply goes with it....

ideology=political programme/fase consciousness.

a system of believes that becomes dominate.. that is normally created by the dominate class in society and becomes naturalised and becomes dominate in society.. =THIS CREATES FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS.

N. Klein- No logo.

Adbusters - culture jammers.

subculture/culture. culture produced by dominate class.. sub culture produced by lower classes.

victor papanek..design for the real world.





Monday 26 March 2012

Final Essay





How has the increased awareness of ethical production affected brand identities?



When creating a brand identity the initial stages involve specifically targeting an audience, whether this is an age group, social class or a profession. Pursuing an exact audience allows a company to change its brand identity accordingly, which is crucial in making a success of the product itself.

It is a fact that in the modern world target audiences have developed, changed fragmented and their loyalty in most cases is short lived, much like the means of reaching these audiences, therefore, for companies to stay relevant they have to be flexible in how they adapt to current and future trends and imminent changes.

One current phenomenon is that the modern consumer relates to a company that is perceived to have a high moral and ethical standpoint. Consumers seem to put higher moral expectations our brands than on themselves especially in regards to social and environmental issues.

“ Recent years have seen rising expectations of business to behave responsibly towards society and the environment both among consumers and stakeholder group”   (Jenny Dawkins, Page 74 fundamentals of branding)

It is whether a brand portrays these belief systems that is a deciding factor for many consumers. Brands now must adopt an ethical approach to their identity if they want to be successful in attracting new customers, maintaining loyalty and differentiating themselves from the norm. This often comes in the form of charitable collaboration environmental campaigning and perceived ‘green’ manufacturing.

Due to new importance on appearing environmental and ethical companies are often accused of “Green washing” their products or production values, this is simply when a companies apparent ‘good deed’ is not reflected across the entire company or indeed in many cases not at all. The consumer is just given the illusion of the improved morality through the company’s brand identity. The main body of the essay will begin to explore this as a theory.

Perhaps the biggest exponents of green washing are the oil companies, purely due to their direct association with their product causing global warming. Recently BP have been quoted saying that there logo which was commonly known to stand for British Petroleum has now been changed to beyond petroleum. This in itself gives the brand identity of BP a green face lift, suggesting to the consumer market that the main priority of BP is to focus on finding alternative energy sources. A quote from the BP website reads:

“In response to increasing demand for energy with a lower-carbon footprint, we have made a major commitment to develop low-carbon sources of energy,”
(oil companies and greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/ )

Chevron the American oil multinational oil company has a current television advertisement, which uses the same narrator as global warming documentaries and the same kind of speech within the advert as the trailers for the Inconvenient Truth, which is a film addressing green issues and highlighting these issues to the general public.  A quote from the advert:

“Our live demands oil. Oil, energy, the environment” (oil companies and greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/ )

The tone of voice used within the advert is like that used with in propaganda and to a certain extent it is. It is trying to convince the consumer that oil is a necessity for the development of humanity. The advert goes on the list facts about the demands we have for oil, which again backs up this story of necessity. The green washing approach by Chevron here is quite unlike that of other oil companies who try and convince consumers that they are making the difference and the air we breathe is getting cleaner, which was a strap line used by ExxonMobil. Chevron don’t try and create this idealistic brand identity in the mind of the consumer but instead try and convince them that they, as a corporation, are doing the best thing for humanity, which in itself is green washing.

ExxonMobil is yet to launch an advertising campaign like that of the other oil companies mentioned, however on there website it reads:

“Through continued investments in energy supplies and ever cleaner technologies that help secure America’s economic future.”
(oil companies and greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/ )


Despite the identity of these big oil companies being based around strong environmental policies and alternative fuel, the reality is they are doing very little to develop the use of alternative forms of fuel or have greener policies with in the company, this is according to the 2007 senate document. The oil industry spent ninety eight billion dollars on alternative fuels but:

“Very little of the 98billion was spent on these technologies was invested in renewable or alternative energy sources”
(oil companies and greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/ )

The money was instead spent on developing existing technologies for example solar energy. This as a result would only strengthen the individual companies hold on the market, but give the impression to the consumer that indeed they are searching for alternative forms of energy by creating this positive brand identity through green washing. Other controversial issues with in the oil industry included an article from Mother Jones magazine in 2005, which suggested that Exxon spend over 16 million from 1998-2005 on employing scientist to speak  up against the global warming theory. This quote is an example of the level of green washing, in this case, specifically Exxon are trying to send out to the consumer public.

“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,”
(oil companies and greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/ )

This quote by Alden Meyer of the union of Concerned Scientist goes on to say

“A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as big as Tobacco did for 40 years” (oil companies and greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/ )

This quote undoubtedly proves that green washing is present with in the oil industry, but perhaps on a level unknown to the general public, as the companies went as far as to try and green wash the general ideologies of the global population by creating doubt in there minds of the legitimacies of the hard facts that were previously excepted globally. Then how does this affect the brand identity of these companies? You could go as far as to say that the brand identity of these oil companies are based around lies, as they give and idealistic or incorrect portrayal of the reality of there work. Through the medium of green washing in advertising and thus their brand identity is a false identity in itself.

It is not only the natural resources industry that is constantly accused of green washing there product, it can be seen in all of the big corporations across the world. Perhaps the most recognisable corporation in the world, McDonald’s is guilty of green washing their products and there brand identity as a whole. On the McDonalds website there is a central quote that reads:

“At McDonald's we recognise our responsibility to protect and preserve the environment for future generations to come. Our goal is simple, to achieve continuous environmental improvement across all areas of our business”
(2012, www.Mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome accessed via Google)

This quote suggests that McDonalds are greatly concerned about the environmental issues, which are now such an important part of a corporate identity. In 2009 McDonalds announced plans to change the famous golden arches with a red backdrop, perhaps the most recognisable brand identity in the world, to golden arches on a green back drop.  This drastic logo change would occur in 400 franchises across Europe specifically Germany, Britain and France. Unsurprisingly these are countries in which there inhabitants hold environmental issue in paramount importance. With a quarter of all Britain’s saying they would choose a product over its competitor if it was more beneficial to the environment.

Obviously this change in logo is not because McDonalds felt obliged to change, the most recognisable identity in the world, it’s due to the green connotations that come with it. You would assume as a consumer on seeing a green brand logo or identity; they would be an environmentally friendly fast food restaurant, in an industry that is not well known for its eco heroics.
Perhaps unsurprisingly McDonalds is a prime example of the green washing generation of companies.

On the 2nd of January 2008 McDonalds launched a campaign playing on the “eat fresh” ideology.  And this could be achieved by a selection of advertisement highlighting the source of there meat a potatoes production line, giving the impression of a big corporation supporting the “little guy”, by the little guy I think what McDonalds meant was British farmers.  McDonalds realised this quote on the day of the campaign release.

“We thought putting a face on the quality of the food story would be a unique way to approach this. We acknowledge that there are questions about where our food comes from. I believe we’ve got an opportunity to accentuate that part of our story.”
(2012 via google, www.ecopreneurist.com )

Putting a face on their food is meant to prove to the consumer public that McDonalds has a personal connection with its food suppliers, and thus creating a personal brand identity. In fact McDonalds has no personal connection with its food suppliers, they source all of there produce through middlemen or suppliers. An example of these companies would be Golden State Foods or Simplot, who in reality source thousands of farmers from around the country. In reality McDonalds have only become aware of a marketing ploy that has been born from the green revolution, that of consumers wanting to no where there food has come from and the consumer wants transparency in this production line. This is obviously not what McDonalds are doing.  This therefore suggest that like thousands of other corporations McDonalds have become aware of a marketing problem and instead of solving, the problem, by in reality sourcing natural food straight from the supplier.  They have green washed their brand identity through advertisements to again create a unrealistic appearance to the consumer.

It is apparent that green washing and unethical production happens across a great number of industries. Perhaps the most prevalent case study in recent years is that of Primark.. Primark made profit in 2008 of two hundred and thirty three million pounds and have a one hundred and eighty eight stores in the UK alone. In 2006 Primark was highlighted in a report called ‘fashion Victims’ the report focused on the Bangladeshi Garment industry and the appalling pay, working conditions and rights.

The report helped to raise the issue of the on going abuse of the workers in the garment industry and put the spot light on Primark to address the issue. The report also succeeded in provoking public outrage and a series of fresh media investigations in the wake of the original.

What this proves is the public awareness of the issues raised. This awareness, if following the modern theory, should have catastrophic effects on the brand identity of Primark. Primark appeared to react quickly to the claims announcing they were

“Keen to show enthusiasm to tackle unethical production in Bangladesh”

(War on want, fashion victims 2, 2008)

This is one of many quotes from the Primark’s web site announcing their eagerness for ethical production and sustainability. What has since come to light in the follow up report by ‘fashion Victims’ two years later is that nothing has changed.

Workers in Bangladesh continue to receive wages that are well below the cost of living, despite the huge profits being made by Primark. They still work grueling hours in order to earn enough to survive and feed their families, and continue to suffer harassment and intimidation as they struggle to meet unrealistic production targets”
(War on want, fashion victims 2, 2008)

Despite the claims that Primark have made since the report was published nothing has changed, which suggest that Primark are a classic case of green washing their brand. Unlike the other case studies in this essay sales at Primark have not been affected, so who is to blame?

The buying practices of the UK retailers undermine efforts made by Primark to appear more ethical as a brand. The term given to such buying practices is ‘fast fashion’. Fast Fashion has particular harmful effect, it gives shoppers the latest styles just six weeks after the first appear on the cat walk, at prices that allow the consumers to wear an outfit just once or twice before replacing it. This puts huge pressure not just on Primark to deliver the fashion in the time scale required by the consumer but on the Bangladeshi suppliers having to produce more garments in less time for the same pay. Which obviously results in the exploitation of the workforce. And there for proves that the brand identity of Primark is entirely based around green washing its brand image. What you really have to ask is will effect the brand strength in the consumer public eye? Which is obviously where Primark make their profits. The answer is simply no. Mum of three Katrina Reddie from East London says she can’t stop shopping at cheap stores.

“Of course I think its wrong that this goes on”

Despite the fact that she knows these unethical connotations come with Primark as a brand, she will continue to shop here.

To conclude I must analyses the initial question posed, how has increased awareness of ethical production affected brand identities? What is extremely obvious is that in the case studies looked at in this essay, there brand identity is indeed of limited importance, the facts are that there sales are not impaired in anyway despite the consumer public knowing the ethical and environmental issues that are associated with these companies.  This is a prime example of the Marxist theory of commodity fetishism both in the sense of the consumer having such high necessity for the product that the ethical production of it has little or no importance and that in the case of Primark especially, peoples humanity is treated like a commodity itself therefore people are exploited because it is relative to the want of the western consumer. How does this affect the brand identity of these companies? As long as Green washing takes place, so companies are seen to be making an effort to address issues of unethical production, even though they may not be the consumers will continue to buy there products. Referring anaphorically to the initial quote I used, ‘being seen to behave responsibly towards society and the environment’ is indeed more important than actually doing so.









Bibliography


Quote 1

melissa davis. (2009). The changing brand audience . In: the fundamentals of branding. South Africa: Ava . 74-75

Quote 2

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

Quote 3

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012

Quote 5

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012

Quote 6

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012

Quote 7

McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. 2012. McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome.html?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=mcdonalds&utm__content=Exact&utm_campaign=Brand_-_Pure&gclid=CODh5aza6K0CFVAhtAodqm595Q. [Accessed 24 January 2012]


Quote  8

McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With Its Fries. 2012. McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With Its Fries. [ONLINE] Available at: http://ecopreneurist.com/2011/12/27/mcdonalds-serves-up-greenwash-with-its-fries/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]


Quote 9

Home. 2012. Home. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.primark.co.uk/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

Quote 10

The alternative movement for resourch and freedom society,London, 2008, Fashion Victims 2, http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii

Quote 11

The alternative movement for resourch and freedom society,London, 2008, Fashion Victims 2, http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii

Quote 12

Primark child labour: Is ethical shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. 2012. Primark child labour: Is ethical shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/23/primark-child-labour-is-ethical-shopping-a-luxury-we-can-t-afford-115875-20617831/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]



Other References

Victor Papanek, 1991. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. 2nd Rev Edition. Thames & Hudson

Michael Braungart, 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. 1st Edition. North Point Press.

Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2012. Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [ONLINE] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

melissa davis. (2009). The changing brand audience . In: the fundamentals of branding. South Africa: Ava .

Michael.j.Phillips . (1997). manipulative advertising and consumer choice . In: Ethics and Manipulation in advertising . london: Quorum Books. 77-106.

Wally olins . (2004). Brands on a Global stage. In: wally Olins on Brands . London: Thames and Hudson. 90-110.

Initial Essay




How has the increased awareness of ethical production affected brand identities?

Since, Earth Day in 1990, in which millions of people from around the world came together to protest against the declining health of the planet, there has been increased awareness of green issues. This awareness has not just been realised by the political elite but by the average individual. These environmental issues were further more bought into the public eye, when in 2006 Al Gore co directed a film called the Inconvenient Truth.  This film was quoted as being the:

“The most terrifying film you will ever see”


This was due to the film blaming humanity for the unstable shape the global environment is in today specifically looking at global warming. This was not just a film seen by the few; it grossed over forty nine million in the box office and won 2 Academy Awards. As a result this increased public awareness of the environment has emphasised the moral issues involved with the subject. The consumer markets are defiantly more aware of the environmental issues when purchasing a product, research carried out by ES magazine in 2000 suggests that a massive 75% of customers favour products with tangible environmental advantaged over the competitive products. As well as three quarters of people polled in the UK say that they chosen a product or company for their ethical reason.
It was this new found morality the general public had for green issues that has lead the biggest change in corporate budgeting in the last 15 years, with corporate social issues becoming the second largest aspect of there budgets. What this money is being spend on is the re design of there public image, or there brand identities of the corporations. It is this that I am going to focus on in this essay, how have the brand identities of these companies changed due to the increased public awareness of green issues?
Green washing is the term given when a corporation has changed its public image through PR or green marketing to appear more environmentally friendly within its product or policies. While certain companies make legitimist changes to there green policies, it is very apparent that this is often not the case and it is these companies I will look at first.
Perhaps the biggest exponents of green washing are the oil companies, purely due to their direct association with their product causing global warming. Recently BP have been quoted saying that there logo which was commonly known to stand for British Petroleum has now been changed to beyond petroleum. This in itself gives the brand identity of BP a green face lift, suggesting to the consumer market that the main priority of BP is to focus on finding alternative energy sources. A quote from the BP website reads:

“In response to increasing demand for energy with a lower-carbon footprint, we have made a major commitment to develop low-carbon sources of energy,”

Chevron the American oil multinational oil company has a current television advertisement, which uses the same narrator as global warming documentaries and the same kind of speech with in the advert as the trailers for the Inconvenient Truth. A quote from the advert:

“Our live demands oil. Oil, energy, the environment”

The tone of voice used within the advert Is like that used with in propaganda and to a certain extent it is. It is trying to convince the consumer that oil is a necessity for the development of humanity. The advert goes on the list facts about the demands we have for oil, which again backs up this story of necessity. The green washing approach by Chevron here is quite unlike that of other oil companies who try and convince consumers that they are making the difference and the air we breathe is getting cleaner, which was a strap line used by ExxonMobil. Chevron don’t try and create this idealistic brand identity in the mind of the consumer but instead try and convince them that they, as a corporation, are doing the best thing for humanity, which in itself is green washing.
            ExxonMobil is yet to launch an advertising campaign like that of the other oil companies mentioned, however on there website it reads:

“Through continued investments in energy supplies and ever cleaner technologies that help secure America’s economic future.”

            Despite the identity of these big oil companies being based around strong environmental policies and alternative fuel, the reality is they are doing very little to develop the use of alternative forms of fuel or have greener policies with in the company, this is according to the 2007 senate document. The oil industry spent ninety eight billion dollars on alternative fuels but:

“Very little of the 98billion was spent on these technologies was invested in renewable or alternative energy sources”

The money was instead spent on developing existing technologies for example solar energy. This as a result would only strengthen the individual companies hold on the market, but give the impression to the consumer that indeed they are searching for alternative forms of energy by creating this positive brand identity through green washing. Other controversial issues with in the oil industry included an article from Mother Jones magazine in 2005, which suggested that Exxon spend over 16 million from 1998-2005 on employing scientist to speak  up against the global warming theory. This quote is an example of the level of green washing, in this case, specifically Exxon are trying to send out to the consumer public.

“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,”

This quote by Alden Meyer of the union of Concerned Scientist goes on to say

“A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as big as Tobacco did for 40 years”

This quote undoubtedly proves that green washing is present with in the oil industry, but perhaps on a level unknown to the general public, as the companies went as far as to try and green wash the general ideologies of the global population by creating doubt in there minds of the legitimacies of the hard facts that were previously excepted globally. Then how does this affect the brand identity of these companies? You could go as far as to say that the brand identity of these oil companies are based around lies, as they give and idealistic or incorrect portrayal of the reality of there work. Through the medium of green washing in advertising and thus their brand identity is a false identity in itself.
            It is not only the natural resources industry that is constantly accused of green washing there product, it can be seen in all of the big corporations across the world. Perhaps the most recognisable corporation in the world, McDonald’s is guilty of green washing their products and there brand identity as a whole. On the McDonalds website there is a central quote that reads:

“At McDonald's we recognise our responsibility to protect and preserve the environment for future generations to come. Our goal is simple, to achieve continuous environmental improvement across all areas of our business”

This quote suggests that McDonalds are greatly concerned about the environmental issues, which are now such an important part of a corporate identity. In 2009 McDonalds announced plans to change the famous golden arches with a red backdrop, perhaps the most recognisable brand identity in the world, to golden arches on a green back drop.  This drastic logo change would occur in 400 franchises across Europe specifically Germany, Britain and France. Unsurprisingly these are countries in which there inhabitants hold environmental issue in paramount importance. With a quarter of all Britain’s saying they would choose a product over its competitor if it was more beneficial to the environment.
Obviously this change in logo is not because McDonalds felt obliged to change, the most recognisable identity in the world, its due to the green connotations that come with it. You would assume as a consumer on seeing a green brand logo or identity; they would be an environmentally friendly fast food restaurant, in an industry that is not well known for its eco heroics.
Perhaps unsurprisingly McDonalds is a prime example of the green washing generation of companies.
            On the 2nd of January 2008 McDonalds launched a campaign playing on the “eat fresh” ideology.  And this could be achieved by a selection of advertisement highlighting the source of there meat a potatoes production line, giving the impression of a big corporation supporting the “little guy”, by the little guy I think what McDonalds meant was British farmers.  McDonalds realised this quote on the day of the campaign release.




“We thought putting a face on the quality of the food story would be a unique way to approach this. We acknowledge that there are questions about where our food comes from. I believe we’ve got an opportunity to accentuate that part of our story.”

Putting a face on their food is meant to prove to the consumer public that McDonalds has a personal connection with its food suppliers, and thus creating a personal brand identity. In fact McDonalds has no personal connection with its food suppliers, they source all of there produce through middlemen or suppliers. An example of these companies would be Golden State Foods or Simplot, who in reality source thousands of farmers from around the country. In reality McDonalds have only become aware of a marketing ploy that has been born from the green revolution, that of consumers wanting to no where there food has come from and the consumer wants transparency in this production line. This is obviously not what McDonalds are doing.  This therefore suggest that like thousands of other corporations McDonalds have become aware of a marketing problem and instead of solving, the problem, by in reality sourcing natural food straight from the supplier.  They have green washed their brand identity through advertisements to again create a unrealistic appearance to the consumer.
            It’s very apparent that through out this essay, I have highlighted sources of unethical production through green washing. However there are other areas of unethical production that have not been exposed. For example Primark is a company that on its website have the strap line:

“fair is important to us, a fair deal for all”

Primark keep true to this promise in once sense a fair deal for all its consumers, with the cheapest price on the high street. However in 2010 panorama exposed Primark for using child labor in India, paying them less then 60p a day.  Although this is a shocking statistic, that may affect Primark’s brand identity with negative connotations on the issue of equality and other humanitarian issues. You have to ask will it affect their brand identity in the consumer public eye? Which is where Primark make their profits. The answer is simply no. Mum of three Katrina Reddie, 34 from East London, says that she can’t stop shopping at cheap stores.

“Of course I think its wrong that this goes on”

Despite the fact that she knows its wrong, she will continue to shop here. Even though the brand identity of Primark is proved to be unethical.
            This leads me to my conclusion, you have to ask why do people continue to shop at Primark or Buy Burgers from McDonalds, despite the negative connotations that come interlinked with there brand identity?  Looking at Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism could give you the answer. Analyzing and applying this essay to his theory, Marx’s would say that the negative Brand identity that these companies may have is not relative to the need of the consumer. The consumer chooses to ignore the negatives with in the brand to satisfy their personal wants or needs. Who is to blame? Perhaps the capitalist society we live in.







References

Quote 1

An Inconvenient Truth (2006) - Taglines. 2012. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) - Taglines. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/taglines. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

Quote 2

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

Quote 3

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012

Quote 5

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012

Quote 6

Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012. Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012

Quote 7

McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. 2012. McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome.html?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=mcdonalds&utm__content=Exact&utm_campaign=Brand_-_Pure&gclid=CODh5aza6K0CFVAhtAodqm595Q. [Accessed 24 January 2012]


Quote  8

McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With Its Fries. 2012. McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With Its Fries. [ONLINE] Available at: http://ecopreneurist.com/2011/12/27/mcdonalds-serves-up-greenwash-with-its-fries/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]


Quote 9

Home. 2012. Home. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.primark.co.uk/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

Quote 10

Primark child labour: Is ethical shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. 2012. Primark child labour: Is ethical shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/23/primark-child-labour-is-ethical-shopping-a-luxury-we-can-t-afford-115875-20617831/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

Other References

Victor Papanek, 1991. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. 2nd Rev Edition. Thames & Hudson

Michael Braungart, 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. 1st Edition. North Point Press.

Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2012. Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [ONLINE] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism. [Accessed 24 January 2012]

Two books missing from list, will be added.