Comment porter plainte contre une publicité qui fait du greenwashing?
Summary
Three companies were accepted by the committee, and one was refused. Below is a summary. You can find all the details below. The entire discussion has in fact been transcribed, for the sake of transparency.
Find all the details of the debate and the analyses below.
Full analysis
The ethical committee for the selection of positive advertising met at the beginning of May. He analyzed 4 businesses to determine if they could use the concept of positive advertising.
As a reminder, positive advertising is characterized by two aspects:
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.
For more information on the committee's operating process, see our article on the subject.
The committee therefore accepted three companies and gave a negative rating for the fourth. Here is the explanation and the report of each case.
Decathlon and its new rental service
Two points in particular were analyzed. Production in Asia and the use of pesticides. For this 2nd point, our charter mentions it by saying that exclusion is not systematic, but analyzed on a case-by-case basis. These points are therefore put into context in relation to the actions and commitments (actually) taken by the company.
According to our analyses, the measures taken by Decathlon are sincere and credible. There is a real desire to change things. They develop numerous sustainable activities: second hand with product repair, eco-designed products and now the rental service.
In terms of production in Asia, they are in the process of relocating their production. And above all, they have put everything in place to ensure that their producers and suppliers respect social and environmental rules.
In terms of pesticides, the entire textile industry should then be refused. But Decathlon is aware of the problem, they are completely transparent about it. And they are putting in place measures to gradually reduce their use.
Another point raised by the committee is that Decathlon makes it possible to democratize sport, without disrupting the planet (and while respecting workers). And we know the importance of sport on health (physical and mental).
A final point analyzed is the fact that Decathlon belongs to a large group, the Mulliez group, which controls Auchan and Leroy Merlin, among others. But since it is a family group that is not listed on the stock exchange, they have more incentives to create a real long-term approach. And not to aim for short-term profits. This is a positive way to implement genuine and sustainable initiatives.
The conclusion is that Decathlon is far from perfect. There are several things that need to be improved. But there is a real desire to improve their processes. Decathlon wants to be a responsible company. And they prove it by their actions. The committee therefore voted unanimously that Decathlon has no refused activities.
For the 2nd vote on the activity highlighted, here their new rental service, the committee agrees that the economy of functionality is positive in terms of ecology. An economy based on use rather than possession. When you know that most of the Co2 footprint comes from the manufacture of objects, you realize the importance of this approach.
However, it still depends on how this rental service is managed. So we asked for more information to make sure that the activity was actually positive.
After use, the rented products are reconditioned and then rented again. Decathlon is committed to having a minimum of 150 days of use of the product. The aim is to keep it for as long as possible in rental use. When the product is no longer in good enough condition to be repaired and rented again, it is then put on sale second-hand. If the condition is no longer good enough, it is then sent to a recycling or upcycling cycle.
If the product is damaged, broken or dirty, it is analyzed, reconditioned, cleaned and/or repaired each time. The aim is to extend the life of the product as much as possible. Inevitably, in case of misuse by consumers, the costs are at their expense. If not, they are for Decathlon.
Decathlon estimates that the Co2 impact of a single product will be reduced by 50% with this system if it is used for 150 days. Inevitably, this data is variable and depends on the product and the use of the product that a consumer buys. For a very regular user who takes care of the product in question (for example a regular cyclist), buying is of course preferable. But for the vast majority of uses (typically camping vacations once a year), this system is better.
A final point analyzed was the advertising put forward. This one is simple and only introduces the new rental service by talking about vacations. Therefore, there were no contraindications at this level.
The second vote was therefore also unanimously positive. This is why Decathlon can use positive advertising to highlight its rental offer.
Fairphone & Proximus
Here, communication is shared between Fairphone and Proximus. Fairphone is a producer of sustainable and fair trade smartphones. They sell in Belgium mainly via Proximus stores. Hence this shared communication.
The committee came to the conclusion that Proximus did not carry out refused activities. They are not doing anything that has an unacceptable negative impact on the planet or society. The same goes for Fairphone, which is a committed company and whose raison d'être is to have a positive impact.
The only point of discussion was around 5G. The Committee is of the opinion that a telecom operator cannot be judged on this point. It is in fact a social debate to have. Certainly, the committee is of the opinion that we should be sober. And that 5G should be limited to professional uses. However, the committee cannot take on the role of the legislator. That is out of its role here. Hence the decision not to analyze this point in the acceptance or not of a telecom operator.
The vote was therefore unanimously positive on this first point (the fact that companies do not carry out refused activities).
For the second vote, since the ad highlights Fairphones, the committee also voted unanimously yes. The committee is keeping a critical eye on the telephone sector. Because it is at the root of too many problems, both ecological and social. The committee also issues a note of attention on the promotion of Proximus in its advertising, which is often oriented towards unreasonable consumption. But it is positive that Proximus is promoting smartphones like Fairphones. It is better for consumers to buy these smartphones rather than those from other brands.
Fairebel
Fairebel is a cooperative that protects the rights of farmers and ensures them a fair remuneration. Fairebel sells fair trade milk, fruit and meat. In this case, the two votes were closely linked because the promotion is based on the very concept of Fairebel, their products in this case.
The Committee is of the opinion that there are no refused activities (unanimously). On the other hand, the committee expressed reservations because meat and milk are products that emit a lot of CO2. However, it is preferable for consumers to buy such products that clearly have a positive social impact. And who are local. Fairebel is therefore an excellent player in a sector that needs to improve and evolve. The committee is in favor of the best practices that Fairebel integrates into this industry. Without being 100% favorable to the products sold.
In any event, Fairebel was unanimously accepted by the members of the committee.
Business refused
We are not listing companies that received a negative vote during a committee. However, we would like to explain the reasons for the refusal of the industry in question in this case. The company analyzed is an animal park/zoo. Which clearly puts in place numerous positive practices at the ecological level and for animal welfare. However, the Committee decided not to accept such businesses. Because it's too polarizing a subject. Some people are fans, others are completely against it. The committee was unable to reach an agreement. This shows that the debate is complex. That is why the committee decided to vote against it.
Do you want to be kept up to date with the latest news in advertising with a positive impact? And receive minutes of committee meetings? Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.
Members present at the May committee: Patrick Somerhausen and François Scarnière (from the Funds For Good team, who shared one vote), Catherine Janssen, Elodie Dessy and the GiveActions team (which also shared a voice).
.webp)
