A lot of hot air

If marketing was a form of acting, Ford should be holding the Oscar. It really plays the caring green company quite well. New efficient engines, a social media campaign, and even, wait for it, community service. But the car manufacturer's green halo is little more than a cloud of smoke, or carbon monoxide fumes, to be exact. Because its new initiative actually encourages people to drive around a lot and then cash in on free petrol - generously provided by that other environmental steward, Shell.

The Facebook-based contest serves to showcase Ford's new F-150 Ecoboost engine, which apparently gets 22 miles per gallon (in metric terms, that's just less than 10 kilometres a litre).

In a valiant quest for brand endorsement and new customers, eight drivers from eight different US cities will compete in a cross-country challenge to get the best mileage. Fans hoping to catch a glimpse of the hyper-economic action can visit Ford's Facebook page to see their favourites race around in a blaze of butane-fuelled glory. You can practically hear the dull burp of carbon dioxide being emitted.

And here comes the kicker: in return for pumping even more GHGs into the atmosphere to show just how efficient we are these days, the winning driver will get a year's supply of Shell “nitrogen-enriched” petrol. But wait, there's more. Two Shell stations in the winner's city will offer free regular-grade petrol for two hours, 22 minutes on 2 September, as a friendly reminder of the F-150 Ecoboost's sterling mileage.

Some may argue that Ford doesn't actually promote this as a green campaign, rather as a fuel efficiency one. But let's face it, green “Ecoboost” branding and marketing copy that punts lower CO2 emissions are clearly suggestive of some sort of environmental benefit.

Yet, Ford is encouraging a group of people to drive as much as they can in CO2-emitting trucks and then giving the winner petrol produced through polluting processes, as well as holding a two-hour petrol free-for-all... and marketing all this as a good thing?

Add to this the fact that Ford announced a delay in the roll-out of its Focus Electric earlier this month, which will now only be released in California and New York. Ford's remaining 17 markets will have to wait until next year for the electric version.

Another car company with the greenwash setting on spin is Kia, which has a radio ad out at the moment where a farmer whose backyard resembles Noah's Ark is somehow linked to the Picanto's economical petrol consumption. Fuel efficiency is great and all, but marketing petrol-based cars is by no means green, and trying to create the idea that you're environmentally responsible, because a car's size and engine make it fuel efficient, is misleading at best.

I'm not against making engines more efficient - the fact is most of us have to drive and if we can do it using less petrol that's at least a step in the right direction. What I do take issue with is car companies trying to make this out as some sort of wonderful green initiative on their part, when it's done for competitive reasons, plain and simple.

What's even more worrying is the way Ford is going about the campaign, which demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what sustainable transport is all about. Instead of running a competition encouraging people to drive more with more efficient engines, and rewarding them with petrol, how about finding ways for people to drive less, or rewarding those who find novel alternative means of transport.

It's never going to happen of course - it's like a butcher punting veggie meals - and fair enough, these companies want to sell cars. But you can't have it both ways; either demonstrate an actual commitment to clean energy and tell people about it, or go ahead and skimp on changes, but then have the good grace not to lie about your efforts.

The greenwash issue is compounded by the fact that companies should know better. A rash of accusations dogged BP, Shell and Chevron in the late noughties, so there's a sense that corporates have moved on. Largely, they haven't. Most have just gotten smarter about dodging the more obvious greenwash crimes and finding ways to be economical, with the truth.

Shell's “Let's go” campaign, for example, talks about the demand for clean energy and Shell's drive to unlock new energy sources, lower its emissions, and build a better energy future. Meanwhile, it rakes in $9.8 billion in profit, while the people in the Niger Delta have to drink polluted water thanks to its activities there, as pointed out in a recent Amnesty International ad. The company is also aggressively campaigning for deep drilling in the Arctic.

Go ahead and skimp on changes, but then have the good grace not to lie about your efforts.

Lezette Engelbrecht, online features editor

Then there's Chevron's “We agree” campaign, which harps on about how the company “hears” what people have to say about oil companies needing to support renewables and job creation, and that “it agrees”. So what? It's a convenient place for Chevron to pause and reflect, to play the caring corporate with earnest-looking profile shots and employee signatures - to talk soothingly about being part of the conversation and working together and “the power of human energy” (a handy little phrase that can be twisted any which way without actually meaning anything).

Because that buys time - it makes people feel like they're being acknowledged, without Chevron actually giving details about concrete steps it is taking.

There's a big difference between saying “I agree, this issue is important”, and “I am doing XYZ about this issue”. The truth is, Chevron may say it's behind renewables, but the $2 billion it plans to spend on alternative energy technologies over the next three years is dwarfed by the $26 billion of spending just this year to drill for oil, build gas-export terminals and repair refineries.

The company, which reported second quarter profit of $7.7 billion, has invested hundreds of billons on oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, New Orleans (yes, site of the disastrous BP spill last year), western Africa, Australia, Canada and Brazil, to name a few.

These companies refuse to accept that repackaging old motives in shiny green CSR campaigns will not work. Tweaks here and there are not enough - not if you're planning for the long-term. The next century will require a whole new approach in consumption patterns, and this is what they fail to grasp and implement.

What's perhaps most worrying is that these companies - the ones with the resources to make changes to their sourcing of materials, processes, distribution chains, and life cycle management - are detracting attention from the hundreds of companies that are actually focused on making strides in clean energy and greener solutions.

These emerging players may not make billion-dollar profit, or possess the lobbying power and marketing skills of their multinational counterparts. But they are authentic, and that's not something you don't have to spin to sell. While the Fords and Shells spend millions trying to present their paltry efforts in the best possible light, the real future leaders are working quietly in the background, finding solutions to global problems. Those like Better Place or Abellon Clean Energy or the many special interest groups and innovation hubs around the world.

They know the power of the mantra drilled into every beginner journalist's head - precisely because it's so effective - the power of “show, don't tell”.