Talk:Professionalism/Greenwashing

The content here needs a lot of editing and clarification. In some places it seems that support is lacking though this may result from content delivery rather than the content itself.

The BP Brand History section is wholly unnecessary. I propose we get rid of it.

The chapter lacks participant perspectives. We could add a lot through consumer responses to greenwashing. They mention consumer tendencies, but they are unsourced.

As well, government perspectives could add a great deal. Or perspectives of company officials. (This might be best, considering that this is a case study on professionalism) Here is a great TED talk by a man who completely overhauled his business to save the environment: http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_anderson_on_the_business_logic_of_sustainability?language=en

Contrasting professional motives, perspectives, and strategies (greenwashing v. not) could add greatly to the understanding of greenwashing and to the book, in general.

I'm honestly not sure what this chapter currently adds to our understanding of Professionalism. I think addressing this deficiency should be our main goal.

Edornbush (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting thought:

Wendell Berry writes (see link) that consumers have become lazy in their food purchasing habits (I think this could be made more general). In any case it raises the question: should consumers in general be conscious of every impact they have (knowing the sources and means of getting their food, to Berry) or should the companies make the ethical decisions for consumers? Perhaps another way to ask that: what distinguishes an ethical professional and an ethical consumer? And what are the implications of having one without the other?

http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/bmntbrown/CSU_Politics-of-Food_Reading_v2_FINAL.pdf

Edornbush (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Like Erik mentioned, we need to bring in the participants. The article gives lots of examples, but does not go into great enough detail about the major players involved therein, except in the case of the BP example.

We need more primary sources.

I agree that the BP brand history can be taken out. On the other hand, the investments section is good.

The ‘Ecolables’ subsection should not be part of the case studies section. It gives a broad overview of an area that likely contains many cases. We should add at least one other case in the article – we can look at sources cited for other examples in the text as a starting point.

Similarly, if we keep the tested green section (which I am in favor of) it should be expanded. Furthermore, it needs a heading like the othe the BP case study section has. As of now, it and Ecolables look like subsections of the BP section.

There are lots of grammatical errors throughout the text.

I also agree that relating the article to professionalism should be a top priority. It seems the article implies that companies employing greenwashing are not professionals, but we could state that more clearly. Furthermore, we could give examples of companies who had opportunities to greenwash but didn’t, and possibly identify them as professionals. We can talk about this in the conclusion, which in its current state needs a lot of work.

Cgrochmal (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the examples in the introduction could be expanded and used as case studies.

For background information, if a more recent survey like like 1990s survey could be found, it could help us establish that greenwashing is still an important concern.

Another company we could look into: Exxon Mobil and their $100 million investment into research for algae biofuels, which seems like it wasn't really about changing their business but more about the marketing campaign and positioning themselves as leaders in green technology research.

I also agree that BP brand history should be removed and that the breakdown of the section "Greenwashing Cases" needs to be fixed or split into two. BP doesn't need multiple subsections. BP also needs more primary sources. We could break them into subsections by participants like "BP" and "Tested Green", or we could break them down by strategies, like "Investments" and "Ecolabels." Using both in one big section is confusing.

Generalizing Wendell Berry's case about food consumers and addressing the roles of ethical companies and ethical consumers would be interesting. Perhaps we could also ask what role the government or other regulatory agencies should play to ensure ethical decisions, and whether that affects how ethical companies and consumers need to be.

In addition to what Chris said about identifying as professionals companies who didn't take opportunities to greenwash, we could find companies who pursue green initiatives without the intention of advertising them.

I'm also in favor of adding more participants, contrasting perspectives, and connections to professionalism to this chapter.

TArthornsombat (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)