Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts

Using Insurance Costs to Advance Action on Climate Change

One of the best ways of changing public attitudes on climate change is by letting people bear the real costs of insurance. This argument suggests that higher insurance costs may be the best way to advance action on climate change.

According to a report by Ceres titled, "Inaction on Climate Change: The Cost to Taxpayers," climate change already costs every American taxpayer $300 and going forward the costs will be debilitating. The report further indicates that every dollar spent on prevention saves four dollars in damages.

The Ceres report called for new laws that would remove government insurance subsidies, it further suggests phasing in of premium rates that reflect climate change associated risks. This should also apply to the federal crop insurance programand taxpayer-funded federal and state wildfire protection.

The absence of cheap insurance would auger more responsible behavior and heighten political interest in mitigation.“Continuing to ignore these escalating risks may be more comfortable than confronting the challenges of climate change, but inaction is the far riskier and more expensive path,” the report stated.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Insurance Company Acknowledges that Extreme Weather is Caused by Climate Change
Hurricane Sandy is a Powerful Reminder for those who Ignore Climate Change
Extreme Weather and the Costs of Climate
The Costs of Global Warming
Extreme Weather Makes a Convincing Case for Climate Change
New Types of Insurance Reduce Premiums
A Greener Insurance Company
Insurance Companies Sustainability Pledges at Rio+20 UN Forum
Policies Contributing to More Robust Climate Risk Disclosure
The Financial Value and Costs Associated with Biodiversity
Bill McGibben: The Planet Wreckers
Hurricane Irene Illustrates the Staggering Costs of Ignoring Climate Change

Event - Summit on Private Environmental Governance (Eco-labels and Seals)

The Summit on Private Environmental Governance will take place on Monday, June 10, 2013 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. The Summit on Private Environmental Governance engages stakeholders across Industries. This unique conference initiates dialogues on eco-labels and seals. Consumers and companies alike are overwhelmed by an explosion of eco-labels in the marketplace. Industry fragmentation, consumer confusion and a lack of consensus over criteria for sustainability threaten to hamper the sustainability initiatives of businesses and erode consumer trust.

On Monday, June 10, the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council and Environmental Law Institute will present a first-of-its-kind conference: A Summit on Private Environmental Governance. The Summit will initiate a dialogue among stakeholders about the legal issues taking shape amid emerging private environmental governance. The Summit will explore how sustainability initiatives, standard-setting, consumer protection and competition law work together in this important and rapidly developing area. There currently are more than 400 standards.

Deborah Platt Majoras, the Chief Legal Officer at consumer products giant Procter & Gamble Company, will keynote the event. Ms. Majoras is a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.

Panels

- The Emergence and Implications of Private Environmental Governance
- Supply Chain Management, Contracting and Enforcement
- Best Practices for Voluntary Standards
- Navigating the Intersection between Private Governance and Environmental Law
- Avoiding a Red Card with Green Claims and Labels.

Who Should Attend

Summit content is geared toward the needs and interests of sustainability professionals, in-house attorneys, marketing executive, non-governmental organizations - including third-party certifiers, trade associations and environmental groups; government agencies and academics.

Advertising Industry Self-Regulation

The Advertising Self-Regulatory Council establishes the policies and procedures for advertising industry self-regulation, including the National Advertising Division (NAD), Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU), National Advertising Review Board (NARB), Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) and Online Interest-Based Advertising Accountability Program (Accountability Program.) The self-regulatory system is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

According to the event organizer self-regulation is good for consumers. The self-regulatory system monitors the marketplace, holds advertisers responsible for their claims and practices and tracks emerging issues and trends. Self-regulation is good for advertisers. Rigorous review serves to encourage consumer trust; the self-regulatory system offers an expert, cost-efficient, meaningful alternative to litigation and provides a framework for the development of a self-regulatory to emerging issues.

For more information or to register click here.

Related Articles
Video - Cradle to Cradle: Certifying Products to Create We Want for our Children
The History and Value of Environmental Labeling
Standards are Required to Combat Eco-label and Eco-Certification Libel
Technology Certification
ISO Principles for Environmental Labels and Claims
ISO 14020 Series: Three Types of Environmental Certification
ISO 14001 Certification in the Solar Sector
Green Lumber Certification Standards
A Model for the World: Interface's Environmental Product Declarations and Standards
Organic Standards: Certified Labels
Standards are Required to Combat Eco-Label Libel
The New 2012 CEC Sustainability Standards
GHG Protocol and Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard
Canadian Guidelines on Environmental Claims

SourceWatch on Greenwashing: Definitions, Allure and Detection

This January 10th 2013 article offers a great summary of greenwashing as well as an explanation of why greenwashing occurs and rough rules of thumb to detect it.

Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.

The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwash as "the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment." This definition was shaped by by the group's focus on corporate behavior and the rise of corporate green advertising at the time. However, governments, political candidates, trade associations and non-government organizations have also been accused of greenwashing.

The 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defined greenwash as "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash."

In 2008 the environmental group Greenpeace launched a website Stop Greenwash to "confront deceptive greenwashing campaigns, engage companies in debate, and give consumers and activists and lawmakers the information and tools they need to ... hold corporations accountable for the impacts their core business decisions and investments are having on our planet."

The allure of greenwashing

TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company, conducted a study which found that almost all of the environmental claims made for consumer products are false or misleading. Organizations are attracted to engage in greenwashing for a wide range of reasons including:

1. attempting to divert the attention of regulators and deflating pressure for regulatory change;
2. seeking to persuade critics, such as non-government organisations, that they are both well-intentioned and have changed their ways;
3. seeking to expand market share at the expense of those rivals not involved in greenwashing;
4. this is especially attractive if little or no additional expenditure is required to change performance;
5. alternatively, a company can engage in greenwashing in an attempt to narrow the perceived 'green' advantage of a rival;
6.. reducing staff turnover and making it easier to attract staff in the first place;
7. making the company seem attractive for potential investors, especially those interested in ethical investment or socially responsive investment.

It is worth mentioning that the Terrachoice study is possibly also a case of 'greenwashing.'

Rough Rules of Thumb for Detecting Greenwash 

Big budget greenwash campaigns are designed to defuse skepticism of journalists, politicians and activists. Some rough rules of thumb for testing whether the claims made by a company, government or NGO stack up are:

Follow the Money Trail: many companies are donors to political parties, think tanks and other groups in the community. Few companies actually disclose in their annual reports exactly whom they are donating to, even though it is shareholders money. Ask about all their donations, not just those they boast about in glossy documents such as the corporate social responsibility reports.

Follow the membership trail: Many companies boast about the virtues of their environmental policy and performance but hide their anti-environmental activism behind the banner of an industry association to which they belong. Find out what industry association companies are members of and check and see what their policies are. Assume that all individual companies support the trade associations policy positions until such time as they publicly state that they don't agree with them or they resign. (See the article on the third party technique, a central plank in most PR campaigns). Follow the paper trail: Most companies, or their trade associations, will make submissions to government and other inquiries on a wide range of issues. Often these submissions will be posted to a website. They will also send lots of letters to politicians and government agencies, which can be accessed by Freedom of Information Act searches. Ask about submissions made by the company and their lobbying on issues you are interested in. You will probably discover that instead of lobbying for tougher environmental standards, they are busy trying to weaken the ones that exist.

Look for skeletons in the company's closet: Every company has major problems that it doesn't want the public and regulators to know about. Some companies include information in the annual reports about problems that have been in the news in the last year. More often, there will have been problems, occasionally reported in the media, which they don't want to tell shareholders about. Check for information on the company with watchdog groups and in the media and compare that with what they disclose.

Test for access to information: Many companies will make lofty claims about their commitment to transparency and providing information to 'stakeholders'. Don't just take them at their word. In their reports they will probably refer to environmental impact statements, reviews, audits, monitoring data and other information. If it relates to an issue you are interested in, ask to see it. And remember that 'commercially confidential' is just corporate speak for 'no'. Test for international consistency: Most companies will operate to different standards in other countries. Check and see whether their operating standards and procedures are consistent or whether they opt for lower standards where they think they can get away with it.

Check how they handle their critics: Some companies go to extraordinary lengths to try and silence their critics. This can involve everything from legal threats (see the article on SLAPPs) to funding and collaborating with police and military forces.

Test for consistency over time: It is common for a company to launch a policy or initiative and then starve it of funds. Or a company will make promises when they are under public pressure but never implement them when the spotlight fades.

Source: SourceWatch

Related Posts
Video - Greenwash Coverage from TerraChoice: The Seven Sins (CBC Newsworld)
New FTC Green Guidelines for Marketers
Profiting From the New Rules of Marketing
The 8 C's of Sustainability
Using Trees to Generate Electricity is Not Green Energy
Earth Day Marketing Mayhem ROI
Profiting from the New Rules of Green Marketing by Jacquie Ottman
2012 Review of Forests and Trees

New FTC Green Guidelines for Marketers

In October 2012 the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) updated its Green Guides for marketers. The original draft of the updated guidelines were released in 2010. The changes that should be noted pertains to the FTC's interpretation of general environmental benefits, more specifically claims that a product is “eco friendly” or “green,”

There are at least two salient points to be made here. The first is that the FTC now requires proof of any stated environmental benefit and the second is what it calls “environmental tradeoffs.” The replacement employed in the greener offering must indeed be green. The net effect is that companies will have to work harder to prove the claims they make. The FTC also has new powers to act against those who contravene these guidelines.

These Green Guides will be used by the National Advertising Division (NAD), the advertising industry’s self-regulatory body, to settle disputes. NAD is charged with monitoring and evaluating truth and accuracy in national advertising. The new guidelines also give competitors more ammunition to take action to confront deceptive claims.

At the end of the day these guidelines fight greenwash and make it easier for consumers to get the truth from marketers. While this does entail more effort to prove green claims it should cleanup the marketing space and  enhance consumer trust.

To see the FTC's new Green Guides click here (pdf).



Related Posts
Profiting From the New Rules of Marketing
Profiting from the New Rules of Green Marketing a Book by Jacquie Ottman
Video - Greenwash Coverage from TerraChoice: The Seven Sins (CBC Newsworld)
The 8 C's of Sustainability
Using Trees to Generate Electricity is Not Green Energy
Earth Day Marketing Mayhem ROI
2012 Review of Forests and Trees