A Rebuttal: Green is the New Brown

Source: PriceofOil.org

Shell is no stranger to controversy in the public eye. In the last few years it has been at the epicenter of alleged tax evasion, anti-climate lobbying and even, murder. But even when Shells' CEO was given the chance to speak out positively for his company, Ben van Beurden still look a less favorable stance...

"I pump everything that I can pump," he said in an interview with the NOS in early 2016 regarding whether or not Shell would limit its' fossil fuel usage and be more compliant to new renewable energy practices.

What's confusing is that, internally, Shell has made moves towards promoting a more sustainable image and working towards a "green future" (as you can see in its' Sustainability Report)—but, let's remember, talk does not constitute action.

In a recent blog post, Wessel de Vries tackled this issue—but with a different stance. His take on the issue is there needs to be more internal communication within the company. Further, the actions of CEO van Beurden do not reflect the public stance of the company it portrays through external communications like the Sustainability Report. 

But at the end of the day, the CEO is the face of the company—so it doesn't matter what reports the company released in early 2017, the media will remember and report on what the CEO is publicly doing and saying. This point is supported by research that shows, in the face of crisis, the public's interpretations of the crises are more highly influenced by prominent sources than by "normal sources." In other words, important actors (like CEO's) are quite important during crises in developing public opinion around an issue.¹

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

In that sense, maybe it's better the CEO isn't bullshitting in his speeches if he can't (yet) follow up with action that reflects a green-friendly strategy. 

Research shows "greenwashing," or when green PR or marketing is used deceptively to promote the idea a company is environmentally-friendly, has had overwhelming negative effects on consumers.²

Further, a separate research study found companies using the greenwashing approach were worse off than companies that took a "silent brown" strategy or were absent from environmental claims and environmental performance in the public eye.³

Source: treehugger.com

So, while warranted, Wessels' recommendation should (for now) be trumped by a another strategy (the silent brown)—to avoid talking to the public altogether until a solidified plan and proof of action are present.

Because, let's be honest, van Beuren is no Elon Musk. He knows what he's saying and doing—it's just not very compliant with what the public wants. So, van Beuren, next time skip the interview and have your communications strategy mirror the way you want the world to look—brown.

_______________________________________________________________________

About the Author: 

Nicole Ares is a Political Communications Master's Student at the University of Amsterdam. She has previous experience in journalism as well as strategic communications work for governmental organizations. 

Scholarly Sources For This Article: 

Point 1: Van der Meer, T.G.L.A. (2016) Public Framebuilding: the role of source usage in times of 

crisis. Communication Research 2016

Point 2: Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2018). Misleading Consumers with Green Advertising? An Affect–Reason–Involvement Account of Greenwashing Effects in Environmental Advertising. Journal of Advertising,47(2), 127-145. doi:10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652

Point 3: Jong, M. D., Harkink, K. M., & Barth, S. (2017). Making Green Stuff? Effects of Corporate Greenwashing on Consumers. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,32(1), 77-112. doi:10.1177/1050651917729863