Do green and ethical claims need to be monitored? You know I like such questions.
Looking first at the headline, my immediate thought was 'isn't every claim monitored?'. I know the ASA site is alive with greenwash complaints, mostly upheld, which may explain the consumer reaction. Fool me once, shame on me... etc.
To the question in the body... er... which logo?
I made a joke a while ago that may yet turn out to be true, that soon my Smartie pack will have a CDR attached with all it is deemed I must know to 'assist' my purchase choice and disposal obligations contained therein. With of course, a CDR on that to 'assist' with its disposal in turn.
I believe we have already two health systems in place, no? And these are embraced - either legislatively or voluntarily - by some of the manufacturers and retailers but not all. In the wings we have Carbon Footprints and or food miles. Morrisons has already launched theirs (noted here, I believe), while WRAP is talking up another. And now this.
Am I going to have a clue what this is all about as I walk the aisles or watch an 8pt para scroll along the base of an ad? So... will it give advertisers credence? I don't think it will, no.
Nice use of funds though.
I also note that this initiative has been awarded an UnLtd grant. These guys are the ones who did not deem Junkk.com or RE:tie to have any social contribution or commercial application.
Brand Republic - Public distrustful of green claims in advertising
I'll repeat a bit from my answer to your other post question elsewhere.
How does this scheme fit into all the above? Extra, or instead of? And while costs need to be covered, there has to be an immediate concern on anything that is paid for by those it endorses, surely? No reason why I should I guess, but no word I can recall in the various trades of the industries involved either. Just how new is this? And how extensive?
The principle is fine, but I am unclear how it fits into the current industry and legislative frameworks already in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment