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”
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.”
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
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.
