The results of the GiveActions ethics committee/June 2022
Summary
5 companies and their campaign were analysed. One was accepted straight away, three others received a conditional yes and the last one was refused. Below you will find a summary, and all the details further down. The entire discussion of the committee has in fact been transcribed, for the sake of transparency. Note that the names of the companies that were refused are not disclosed. The same goes for the brands that obtained a conditional yes. This article will be updated once we have obtained the additional information required.
- Too Good To Go (TGTG) for the promotion of its application. TGTG is a committed company that has obtained the BCorp label. Everything the company does has a societal mission: limiting food waste.
There are no refused activities according to our charter and the activity being highlighted therefore clearly has a positive impact on the ecological level.
The committee therefore decided to grant the positive advertising label to Too Good To Go.
- Sebio, to highlight its e-shop. Sebio is an e-commerce of ethical, ecological and sustainable products. They therefore sell products that have a reduced impact compared to classic products. The only limit raised was on the selection of partner brands. There remained a vagueness on this subject, we do not know exactly on which criteria these are selected. The committee therefore decided to give a conditional yes. If this brand shows us precisely what its selection process is, then they will be able to obtain the positive advertising label. Update: Sebio provided us with all the information about its selection process. They therefore received the approval of the committee.
- Teatower, to highlight their shop (and e-shop) of organic teas and herbal teas. Their teas and herbal teas are organic. But the raw materials necessarily come from various distant countries. It is difficult to do otherwise, but the committee would like to make sure that working and environmental conditions are respected throughout their value chain. The committee therefore also gave a conditional yes. If this brand gives us the certainty that everything in their power has been put in place to respect these two elements, then they will be able to obtain the label. Update: Teatower gave us all the necessary information to receive the approval of the committee.
- Back Market to highlight their online site of refurbished products. The committee agrees that the positive impact of refurbished is obvious, compared to buying new products. However, the committee is of the opinion that we must not fall into a trend of advocating overconsumption. Or at least of putting very few things in place to encourage people not to overconsume. A recent complaint from a consumer association goes in this direction, moreover. The committee therefore decided to give a conditional yes. If the advertisement mentions a message that does not only talk about consumption (typically a message along the lines of “think about repairing your device first before buying a new one”), then this brand will be able to obtain the label. Update: Back Market entirely agrees with our vision and therefore accepted without any problem to add a message to prevent unreasonable consumption at the end of the advertising spot.
- The last brand was refused. It is precisely the activity being highlighted that was refused. Their new product, a photo album to put the photos of young children in, does not have enough added value on the social, environmental, cultural or health level according to the committee. The latter therefore decided not to grant the label to this product.
Find all the details of the debate and the analyses below.
Full analysis
The ethical committee for the selection of positive advertising met in mid-June. It analysed 5 companies to determine whether they could use the concept of positive advertising.
As a reminder, the positive advertising label is characterised by two aspects:
- A selection of advertisers based on their positive impact
- A % of the budget finances an association
For the selection, we have therefore set up an independent ethics committee, composed of experts from various sectors (academic, social entrepreneurship, sustainable finance, marketing). This committee analyses two elements in particular.
- Whether the company does not carry out so-called refused activities. In other words, activities that have an unacceptable negative impact on the planet or society. For example, water privatisation, failure to respect social rights, oil extraction, etc. The objective is to refuse any brand that carries out such activities. The committee therefore analyses this and proceeds to a vote. A majority is required to move on to the second stage.
- Whether the activity that the company wishes to highlight (in its advertising) has a positive added value for the planet, society, culture or health. We want the advertisement to present a product or service that has a positive impact in the broad sense. Circular economy, fair remuneration for farmers, organic products, soft mobility, green energy, etc. You will find a non-exhaustive list in our charter. In a similar way, the committee proceeds to a vote. If it is also positive, the brand can then use positive advertising to highlight the activity in question.
For more information on the operating process of the committee, consult our article on the subject.
The committee therefore accepted one company, gave three conditional yeses and issued an unfavourable assessment for the fifth. Here is the explanation and the report of each case.
Note that the names of the companies refused or having received a conditional yes are not disclosed. The objective is not to give bad press, that is not the role of the committee. On the other hand, this article will be updated and the names will be disclosed if the brand in question finally obtains the label. If it does not obtain it, then we will say that it was refused, but without disclosing its name.
Too Good To Go
Too Good To Go (TGTG) helps shopkeepers and restaurateurs as much as consumers to fight against waste. Today, ⅓ of food is thrown away in the world. We therefore need mission-driven players like them. Everything happens via their application. On which consumers can buy the unsold items (so products that will no longer be sellable the next day) of restaurateurs and shopkeepers.
The committee agreed that there was no refused activity. And the discussion was fairly quick for the activity being highlighted. Because it clearly has a positive impact: the fight against food waste.
The only limit raised was the use of surprise baskets. If the consumer does not like what they receive, they will probably end up throwing away what they have received. But the committee was of the opinion that this phenomenon is limited and does not change the positive impact of the company in any way.
Too Good To Go therefore obtained the positive advertising label to highlight its application, unanimously. Well done to them!
Sebio, the e-shop of ethical, ecological and sustainable products
All sorts of products are sold on their site (this ranges from cosmetics to children's toys).
At the level of refused activities, there are none to our knowledge. We nevertheless asked to have confirmation that working conditions are respected for all the products sold. Some come from more distant countries (China for example) and we want to make sure that there are no potential hidden problems.
We also asked to have more information on the shareholding. This is linked to Teatower, the next company that was analysed. Because these two firms belong to the same group. In order to check whether governance is also respected.
In relation to the activity being highlighted, their e-shop in this instance, the products sold seem very correct and to have a positive impact. By analysing a little more in detail, we notice that the products certainly all have advantages on the ecological or sustainable level, but we do not know on what basis they were selected. Are certain criteria required? Or is there a list of criteria and do you have to tick a minimum of them to be accepted? We do not know, there is not enough information available on this subject. As a consumer, we do not in fact understand why this or that product is more ethical or more sustainable.
A recommendation that the committee therefore wishes to give to this company is to communicate about their selection process. This would allow consumers to make informed choices. And to have maximum transparency.
In conclusion, the committee agrees that this company has a business that is going in the right direction. Apart from this remark, everything is very good. The committee would like, on the other hand, to make sure that a selection does indeed exist. And therefore a selection grid or an internal selection process. To check that this brand is not going about it blindly. This is why the committee gave a conditional yes. If they show us that a real selection process exists, then they will obtain the positive advertising label. The objective is not to check whether this process is good or not (we can always debate that), but to make sure that it exists.
Update: Sebio gave us all the necessary information proving that there is indeed a selection process. There is simply a lack of communication towards the general public. But Sebio is aware of this and wishes to work on this aspect.
To give more information, they work on the basis of different elements:
- the system of “Sebio's little pluses” that can be found on their site in the criteria. Each little plus has a score out of 5. And they have a grid that they use to obtain a final score.
- The official labels (vegan, fairtrade, etc.)
- The origin of the brand (they favour Belgian, French and European brands)
- The places of production
Teatower, shops (and e-shop) of organic teas and herbal teas
They have two shops in Wallonia. For the rest, they sell online on their site and on other online sites. The teas and herbal teas are packaged in Belgium, but the raw materials necessarily come from abroad. Several commitments are made such as selling in bulk, the use of natural and biodegradable envelopes, etc.
At the level of refused activities, the committee asked to have confirmation that everything had been put in place to respect working conditions, both in Belgium and by the companies that supply them with raw materials.
As with the previous brand, information on the shareholding was also requested.
At the level of the activity being highlighted, the committee is of the opinion that the impact of their products is positive. It is not possible to have tea (or herbal teas) with Belgian raw materials, and a maximum is put in place to reduce their impact. The committee therefore gave a conditional yes. If Teatower can assure us that working conditions are respected everywhere (and that governance is good), then they will obtain the positive advertising label.
Update: Teatower gave us all the information requested. They showed us that their working conditions were respected. Their premises are located in Baillonville (Namur) and all their workers are under contract. Their recipes come from suppliers in the European Union who also respect the working conditions requested and assure us that they work with companies respecting workers' rights in each respective country.
And at the level of the shareholding, everything was explained in a transparent manner. They therefore received the approval to use positive advertising.
Back Market, sales site of refurbished products
Back Market sells refurbished electronic products (mainly smartphones).
The committee of course agrees that the positive impact of refurbished is obvious. This makes it possible to reduce CO2 emissions, the use of water and materials, while not exploiting local populations for extraction. In short, the smartphone and electronic device sector is far from positive. And refurbished makes it possible to improve that.
However, Back Market is not perfect either. A complaint was recently filed by a consumer association. It was therefore taken into account in the analysis of this case. This complaint was mainly about governance problems. For example, the warranty must be 2 years and not 1. The price of the new smartphone is crossed out, but this gives the impression that you are entitled to a discount, whereas that is not the case. In short, these are complaints to protect the consumer. We will have to follow up on whether these complaints are founded and whether they prove to be correct, of course.
Another criticism stated and raised by the committee is that it is not always very clear where the refurbished smartphones come from. This site is in fact a marketplace. Refurbishers can therefore sell their devices on this site and consumers buy them. It is therefore not the company analysed that refurbishes (although they recently launched this activity in France). There is nevertheless a selection of refurbishers, but one that operates mainly on quality.
In any event, this adds to already existing criticisms about the fact that this brand, although a company with a positive impact, advocates a consumption that is not measured. The debate is of course complex. But by encouraging frequent purchases, without any form of sobriety in its communication, the problem of overconsumption will not be solved. Even if a refurbished smartphone is better than a new one.
On the other hand, this company is transparent about the calculation of its carbon footprint, which they have shared publicly. It has also stopped all communication during Black Friday and any setting up of “flash sales” that encourage buying right away. So not everything is negative, far from it. Moreover, as mentioned previously, the committee agrees that refurbished is a good initiative in a sector that is mostly harmful.
The committee therefore decided to give a conditional yes. The condition is that in the advertisement, there must be a message that is not solely linked to consumption. And that there is either an awareness-raising message, or a passage for example at the end of the advertisement saying that you must first repair your device before buying a new one. Or that the most ecological smartphone is the one you already have. In short, a message that proves that the advertisement is not solely consumption without any thought of sobriety behind it.
One of the roles of the positive advertising label is to show the way, the way to behave. It therefore seemed important to us to impose this condition here for obtaining the label.
To structure this, the committee is therefore of the opinion that there are no refused activities that deserve this brand to be refused. Rather points of attention, mainly at the level of governance. And that the activity being highlighted (their site and their refurbished products) has a positive impact on the ecological (and social) level compared to new devices. With nevertheless a reservation at the level of communication, hence the conditional yes.
Update: Back Market's feedback on this subject was excellent. They entirely share our vision and accepted to add a sentence about reasoned consumption at the end of their advertising spot. More precisely, the text “Switch to refurbished, but only if you need to buy”.
Advertising campaign refused
One company, and more precisely the product being highlighted, was refused. We do not cite the name of the brand when it is refused. The objective is not to give negative press.
The product in question is a photo album for young children. Concretely, parents create a photo album online with the photos of their young children. They then receive the album with the photos every month. The objective is to keep memories and to follow the evolution of the baby. As well as to show them their photos as they grow up.
The committee judged that there were no refused activities.
On the other hand, it decided that the activity being highlighted did not create enough added value on the social, ecological, cultural or health level. Yes, the product/service is nice. It is very emotional. But it is a “gadget”, an “extra”. There is not really a positive impact. In itself, it would even be negative since it involves storing photos and printing them in a monthly album. The objective is not even to reduce the storage or the printing. Just to have memories. That is certainly important, but to have memories, we can have a lower impact than printing an album every month while also storing them online.
The committee, unanimously, therefore decided not to grant the positive advertising label to this project.
Do you want to be kept up to date with the latest news in advertising with a positive impact? And receive the reports of the committee meetings? Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.
Members present: François Scarnière, Elodie Dessy, Catherine Janssen, Stéphanie Fellen, Fred Dorsimont and Maxime and Gaspard from the GiveActions team (who shared one vote).
