Samsung caught green washing

Greenpeace climbers scale the Benelux headquarters of the Korean electronic giant Samsung, displaying the message "Samsung = Broken Promises" in giant letters onto the front of the building. The peaceful protest is challenging the company for breaking its promises to eliminate key toxic substances from its products. (Image: Copyright Greenpeace / Philip Reynaers / Greenpeace.)

click to enlarge

Greenpeace report

The brochure, produced for its Samsung Home Appliances, purports to quote a Greenpeace report that found that:

• Samsung comes in at second place, according to Greenpeace, scoring well on chemicals and waste criteria;
  
• Scoring high (137%) for TVs, 12% for PCs and 2% for mobile phones;
  
• Scores well for the use of recycled plastic, “which is 16.1%, though only 0.2% is post consumer plastic with a goal to increase to 25% by 2009”.

Samsung also claimed several Eco-Labels were awarded to its home appliances, including the Samsung Eco Mark, Ecoflower EU, Blue Angel Germany, Eco Mark Korea, TCO Sweden and EPEAT US.

The complainant (LG) argued that the marketing material misleads customers into believing that the specific products featured in the brochure achieved the environmental standards upheld by the organisations awarding the eco-labels in question.

In its complaint, LG pointed out that Samsung's claims relates to the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics - which does not cover home appliances. The eco-labels in question were awarded to a limited number of Samsung home appliances, while its placement made it seem that the division or the majority of the products featured were awarded.

For example, Samsung only received the Ecoflower EU for its LCD TV models; EPEAT US is only relevant to computer products; and the Blue Angel Germany label was awarded only to its printer product.

Never appears

The best defence Samsung could come up with was that the word "home appliance" never appears in the paragraph quoting Greenpeace and that therefore the average consumer would not assume that the quote in a booklet headlined “HOME APPLIANCE” actually referred to home appliances.

The ASA found that "[t]aking into consideration the brochure as a whole and the headline on the front cover ‘Home appliances' the hypothetical reasonable person reading the brochure will expect that the contents therein have reference to home appliances as indicated in the front cover. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that this paragraph by implication includes home appliances as indicated in the front cover, and the fact that it does not is misleading."

The ASA also found that placing eco-labels in a brochure labelled "Home Appliance" would lead most of us to assume that, in fact, the labels were granted to Samsung's home appliances.

Approached with four questions

Samsung was approached with four fairly straightforward questions:

1. Does Samsung accept the ASA ruling or will it lodge an appeal (if so, on what grounds)?
   
2. Samsung has been accused of deliberately misleading consumers on its environmental credentials. What steps are being taken to restore customer and supplier confidence in your advertising?
   
3. On the matter of Eco-labels - why did Samsung use them in a brochure when they were not awarded to all the products in question?
   
4. Will Samsung put in place procedures to ensure that its advertising fairly reflects and does not mislead its environmental credentials and, if so, what will these processes consist of?
   

After a week, the response from Matthew Thackrah, divisional head of Samsung's home appliances division, was the following statement: “Samsung Electronics has noted the ruling made by the Advertising Standards Authority. It is currently studying the findings and will decide on the appropriate course of action.”

“Samsung affirms its commitment to design and develop products that are environmentally friendly,” Thackrah continues. “Samsung has received recognition by various independent entities in relation to its products in the context of international green standards.”

In its 2009 Sustainability report, Samsung states that it is pursuing eco-design and environmental certifications as part of its 'environmental' strategy. It also states it will respond to environmental regulations for all products. The report further notes that, during 2008, Samsung acquired six global environmental certifications.

“Along with our own environment-friendly marketing campaigns, we focus on omni-directional external communications,” comments Seung-Teak Oh, senior engineer of the ‘Corn Phone' at Samsung Electronics in the report.

Greenpeace reacts

Tom Dowdall, Greenpeace International campaigner and spokesperson, says it is unfortunate that Samsung used information relating to only parts of its product range and appears to have portrayed this information as applying to its household appliance products as well.

"Any misuse of Greenpeace information or other environmental information by a company such as Samsung undermines the credibility of Samsung future claims on environmental performance," says Dowdall. "We take very seriously any misuse of our information; in such cases we first issue cease-and-desist letters. Such cases are usually resolved at this point but if they persist we have started legal proceedings."

Dowdall says that, fortunately, such misuse of green labels is generally on the decline as the public and media become more aware of environmental products and independent measures of company/product performance. This is often thanks to closer scrutiny from competitors and the media.

Greenpeace launched a campaign targeting Samsung beginning of March 2010 after Samsung allegedly failed to live up to a promise to faze PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) out of its products. Campaigners scaled Samsung's Benelux headquarters and pasted a giant sticker reading “Samsung = broken promises” atop the building. According to Greenpeace, PVC is the single most environmentally damaging of all plastics.

Often business as usual

Going green, being sustainable, being a good corporate citizen. Today, too many corporations attempt to present themselves as all these. In truth, it seems it is often business as usual for many large organisations.

How long clever marketing campaigns will allow companies to go on pretending is an open question. The Internet and social media mean closer examination of these messages by consumers. If you get caught, good luck to you in rebuilding your ‘green' reputation.

Latest: Samsung has responded to the ASA ruling with the following statement:

Samsung remains committed to environment-friendly practices

Samsung Electronics South Africa (Pty) Ltd has noted the recent ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) and believes that the ASA has adopted a different interpretation to what was intended.

Samsung denies attempting to mislead consumers on its environmental credentials. The awards highlighted in the brochure in question were awarded to Samsung as an organisation and not to one individual division. It serves as a global statement and recognition of Samsung's commitment to innovation and design of environmentally friendly products.

Samsung believes the messages communicated are clear and consistent and as an organisation does not feel that it is misleading in any way. Herman Manson, in a recent article on the issue in Bizcommunity correctly noted that the eco-labels in question were awarded to a limited number of Samsung home appliances.

Samsung will ensure to be mindful of the interpretation of the ASA when devising future campaigns.

Samsung Electronics makes a consistent effort to develop environment-friendly products that minimise the negative impacts on the environment in every aspect of its products, from raw material procurement, production, transportation, usage and final disposal. Concerns for the environment are at the core of each product development. Samsung's environment-friendly technologies and recycling programmes have received global approval, receiving well-known awards and recognitions worldwide.

For more:

• Marklives.com: Samsung responds to greenwashing story