Shell found itself in hot waters this week after a complaint, filed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), regarding a newspaper advertisement that claimed that Shell was building a ‘profitable and sustainable future’, was upheld.
The ‘misleading’ claims that two of its schemes, its controversial tar sands project and a second plan to build North America's biggest oil refinery, were environmentally sustainable were made to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA). In fact, both projects are set to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
WWF accused the Anglo-Dutch energy giant of what it called ‘greenwash’, meaning that Shell were attempting to show the company as a ‘green’ organisation, while in reality it was not living up to such credentials.
The advert in question was carried in the Financial Times on, February 1st, to accompany Shell’s financial results, claiming that: “We invest today’s profits in tomorrow’s solutions”.
The advert continued: “A growing world needs more energy, but at the same time we need to find new ways of managing carbon emissions to limit climate change. Continued investment in technology is one of the key ways we are able to address this challenge, and continue to secure a profitable and sustainable future.”
The ASA actually accepted claims that Shell were helping to control carbon emissions - a product of processing oil sands, which are composed of sand, silt, clay, water and bitumen to be turned into synthetic crude - at their US Port Arthur plant. The fact that the plant’s facilities are set to be expanded though, and are set to produce 325,00 barrels per day (bpd) more then their current production levels, will increase total emissions, not reduce them.
The advert was ruled as being misleading in nature on the grounds that it had breached rules on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.
In its response, Shell said the aim of the advertisement was to highlight their investment in technology that would help them meet the global energy challenge in a responsible way. It also maintained that new technology was reducing pollution from their Athabasca Oil Sands Project in Alberta, in which it owns a 60% stake.
However the firm said the mistake it was a ‘one-off’, and would not be repeated.
"The ASA's decision to uphold the WWF's complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that ‘greenwash’ is unacceptable." Said David Norman, the WWF’s director of campaigns.
In this instance it appears that Shell has built its greenhouse on sand, while the ASA built theirs on rock.
