It’s trendier than ever to shop for eco-conscious clothing, and thanks to Greenpeace, it’s also becoming a heck of a lot easier.

In 2011, Greenpeace launched a call for clothing companies to make a commitment to toxin-free fashion by 2020, and so far, 76 brands have joined the movement — accounting for about 15 percent of global textile production. Four years short of the deadline, Greenpeace decided to check in with 19 of them and see how things were going.

The brands were evaluated on their progress towards eliminating hazardous chemicals from their lines along three vectors – transparency of their production lines, elimination of poly-fluorinated compound (PFC), and individual detox plans.

Brands to Love

Only three of the 19 brands surveyed really dressed to impress Greenpeace.

“We applaud H&M, Zara and Benetton for leading the way and setting a new standard in toxic free fashion,” said Kirsten Brodde, Head of the Detox My Fashion campaign at Greenpeace Germany. “These companies prove that cleaning up the fashion industry is possible – both for large and medium-sized companies.”

H&M

Swedish H&M is a detox star, praised by Greenpeace for being the first brand to eliminate dangerous PFCs from its products and for showing support for transparency in its supply chain.

“We apply the precautionary principle – meaning that we preventively restrict chemicals even where there is scientific uncertainty,” writes H&M of its sustainability commitments. “Accordingly, our requirements usually go further than the law demands.”

Regular tests, intensive training with regards to the handling of chemicals, and ever-increasing limits on the use and discharge of hazardous chemicals are all elements of H&M’s policy that make it a surefire green fashion star.

Zara

Inditex, the company behind Zara, the world’s largest clothing retailer, has made good on its 2012 commitment to eliminate PFCs by the end of 2015, one of the fastest eliminations of this hazardous group in the industry.

It has also worked closely with its Global South suppliers to increase transparency with regards to the use of hazardous chemicals and any possible resulting contamination.

Benetton

Since Benetton announced its commitment to non-toxic fashion in 2013, the Italian company has made improvements in leaps and bounds. This year, Benetton completely excluded 11 potentially harmful chemical groups from its production and implemented stringent tests on wastewater to ensure the true cleanliness of its production cycles. The company continues its efforts, increasing transparency and progressively eliminating PFCs.

“We congratulate Benetton for the way it drives the entire industry and imposes a new, worldwide standard for a fashion free from toxic substances,” said Giuseppe Ungherese, pollution campaign manager of Greenpeace Italy. “The company is showing for a fact that ridding the fashion industry of toxic substances is already possible.”

Brands to Watch

These brands are making strides toward true eco-conscious clothing production, but they’re not quite there yet. With a bit of encouragement, these companies could become rising stars before Greenpeace’s 2020 deadline.

Adidas

Adidas once ranked much lower on this list, but thanks to its commitment to move away from poly- and perfluorinated chemicals by 2017, this sneaker manufacturer is moving up in the detox world (and far past former rival Nike).

Burberry

Burberry is quickly moving up in the detox fashion world since the 2014 report that proved the brand guilty of hazardous chemical contamination in eight of nine tested children’s clothing items. Increased cooperation with Greenpeace and efforts in transparency mean that Burberry isn’t totally out of fashion when it comes to eco-conscious clothing.

However, the company is reportedly still relying on the flawed chemical list from the industry group Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC), which is missing important dangerous substances like PFCs, so this English company still has a few more strides to take before it reaches the green catwalk.

Levi’s

Levi’s is slowly working toward the goal of full detox, agreeing to publish discharge data from its supply chain facilities in the Global South and requiring its largest suppliers to disclose pollution data for increased transparency. It has also begun communicating with suppliers about eliminating APEOs, phthalates, and PFCs from its products. That said, this denim brand needs to do quite a bit more work if it intends to meet its 2020 goals.

Brands to Skip

While many of the brands that committed to eco-conscious clothing by 2020 are taking the appropriate steps to meet their goals, some seem to have forgotten that they made the promise at all.

“There are still many uncommitted toxic addicts that have failed to take responsibility for their toxic trail and have yet to make a credible, individual Detox commitment,” says Greenpeace.

Nike

Nike is the only brand on this list to completely fail in all three assessed categories. Nike “paints itself as a detox leader but is way behind on transparency,” according to Greenpeace, and is thus a no-no for those in favor of green fashion.

Nike has made a few small steps, such as its partnership with Bluesign Technologies for sustainable innovation, but it is way behind other brands on the way to true eco-conscious clothing before 2020.

Victoria’s Secret

While Limited Brands – owner of Victoria’s Secret and La Senza – vowed to eliminate all hazardous chemicals from its supply chain in 2013, it hasn’t made as many steps as Greenpeace would like to see towards this goal.

When Greenpeace first investigated Victoria’s Secret in 2012, the organization was shocked to discover the presence of a hormone-disrupting phthalate at levels that would have led to the product being banned in the EU had it been a toy. Victoria’s Secret quickly jumped on the detox bandwagon after consumer pressure, but as of July, moves to fulfill its commitment for change have been paltry at best.

While the company has improved its transparency slightly, it has done “absolutely nothing” to reduce its environmental impact and “has no concrete plan to do so in the future,” Cosmopolitan reported in July.

Gap

Gap is one of a handful of companies that continually refuses to make a commitment to non-toxic, eco-conscious clothing production.

In 2013, Gap was linked to PT Gistex, an Indonesian supplier known for its pollution of the local water supply, and Greenpeace claims that Gap has turned a blind eye to the issue. As of March of last year, nothing had been done to resolve this, to the extent that when Gap opened its first Taiwanese store, activists from Greenpeace East Asia dropped a banner demanding that Gap say no to toxic fashion.

For now, that means that eco-conscious shoppers should avoid not only Gap but also Old Navy and Banana Republic.

Of course, opting for greener big fashion brands is only the beginning of the fight for more eco-conscious clothing options. Choosing smaller sustainable designers and rejecting the fast fashion mindset are great ways to contribute to more eco-conscious clothing options.

Related on EcoSalon
5 Organic Materials Helping to Counteract Pollution from Big Fashion
Your Online Shopping Habit Could Be Destructive [Video]
20 Funny Shopping Quotes that Are Oh-So-True

The post 3 Eco-Conscious Clothing Brands Changing the Game (and 3 that Aren’t) appeared first on EcoSalon.

When you hit the gym or the concrete to go on your daily run, you do so to stay fit and sweat out toxins. Well, it turns out that that whole toxin-sweating goal could be moot. Why? Because all sorts of lovely little toxins could be hiding in your sportswear.

According to The Guardian, Greenpeace, along with European regulatory bodies that monitor chemical safety, are concerned about the link between sportswear and cancer, developmental disabilities, and obesity. Now, most new clothing poses a risk to wearers as most conventional pieces contain toxins. But “sportswear is a particular problem because sweat and friction can prompt more rapid absorption of toxins into the body.”

The event that spiked concern about toxic sportswear was last month’s release of a Greenpeace report. The report discussed “how apparel companies are failing to regulate the chemicals in the sportswear they manufacture,” reports The Guardian.

Although it was the recent Greenpeace report that got people all riled up, The Guardian reports that there has been plenty of other research over the past few years that detail the dangers of chemicals used in sportswear. The main chemical culprits are dyes, solvents, and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs).

Another nugget of information that appeared in Greenpeace’s report was a few rankings it gave companies concerning their practices. According to the organization, Adidas is classified as a trendsetter and Nike, a greenwasher.

Adidas received this title because the company underwent some changes after previously receiving the greenwasher status.

“The company [Adidas] sat down with Greenpeace and committed to eliminating hazardous chemicals by 2020 and being 99% PFC-free by 2017. Manfred Santen, toxics campaigner for Greenpeace International in Germany, called this ‘a big step in the right direction,'” reports The Guardian.

Nike, however, disputes greenpeace’s claims and says the company “phased out long-chain PFCs at the beginning of this year, requiring that all materials meet the standards laid out in Nike’s Restricted Substances List.”

So, it probably goes without saying, but next time you look for sportswear, try to find some organic options.

Related on EcoSalon

How to Prevent Wrinkles? Lace Up Your Runners

The Major Workout Clothing Mistake You’re Probably Making

Calling All Marathon Runners: 2015’s Guide to the Best Spring Races in the Nation

Shutterstock image of woman running

The post Toxic Sportswear May Negate Your Healthy Workout appeared first on EcoSalon.

This week’s link love gives you 75 reasons to get in the garden. It’ll make you happy and we’ve got the scientific proof of how that works. Louis C.K. is finally back. The Met Gala stunned and Annie Leonard takes the helm at Greenpeace.

75 Gardening Ideas to Kickstart Your Food-Growing [via Eat Drink Better]

How to Get Happy, Scientifically Speaking [via Well+Good]

This Way Back to His Discomfort Zone: Louis C.K. Returns With His Brand of Dark Comedy [via New York Times]

With hits like these, we don’t have time for misses: Vogue’s look at the best of the Met Gala. [via Vogue]

A happy ending! Annie Leonard of “Story of Stuff” will be new head of Greenpeace USA [via Grist]

Related on EcoSalon

Link Love: Turn Tea Into Dye + ‘Mean Girls’ Turns 10 + Designer Agnes B Makes Her Directorial Debut

Link Love: Stella McCartney Goes All Out for Animals  + Yoga Dates + How to Shop Vintage Like a ProA

Link Love: Diane von Furstenberg’s Morning Routine  + Vegan Cinnabon + Snails are Basically the Cutest Ever

Image via Vogue

The post Link Love: The Science of Happiness + 75 Gardening Ideas + The Met Gala’s Hits appeared first on EcoSalon.

Is sustainable consumption an oxymoron? Forward-thinking companies are increasingly using storytelling as a branding device to educate and engage consumers who want to know the impact of their purchases.

Another fire in another factory. The murder of a labor leader fighting for garment worker’s rights. Rivers turned indigo by waste water from denim manufacturing. How long can we keep yet another worrying headline separate from our love for cheap clothing?

As we recognize what consumption is doing to our planet, changing consumer patterns reflects both a yearning for simplicity and an expectation of transparency – especially among the younger consumers companies covet. That quality of wholeness we prioritize in our food – the connection to the handmade, local and distinctive, quality ingredients, and the story behind the artisan and the passion for her craft – is beginning to inform all of our purchasing decisions.

One way brands are beginning to respond is by using video to simply and powerfully communicate the story of sustainability behind the products and services they’re selling.  While the ability to reach out to style-lovers without negating fashion’s design and feel-good focus can be challenging, evocative visual stories can be a powerful tool in sharing the importance of a more considered approach. Here are some of our favorite video visions for the future of fashion:

Honest Us from Vinícius Bobsin on Vimeo.

1. Honest By founder Bruno Pieters tells the story of his enigmatic brand and what it means to live an authentic life in ‘Honest Us.’ Directed by Vinicius Bobsin and lasting only a few seconds, the mesmerizing short captures the mood of the innovative Honest By collection perfectly.

piece x piece from Elizabeth Brunner on Vimeo.

2. In this video, San Francisco-based designer Elizabeth Brunner shares the inspiration and process behind her visionary line, Piece x Piece. Bringing to life the story behind her innovative garments – which take months of collaboration, exploration and experimentation to make – she illustrates the power of how a simple decision skillfully executed can create meaningful change.

Organic Cotton – Grown in the USA from Patagonia on Vimeo.

3. An industry trail blazer, Patagonia was one of the first companies to tell consumers about the eco impact of its product line via the ‘Footprint Chronicles.’ In their latest video, they document the characters involved in the Texas Organic Cotton Marketing Cooperative (TOCMC) one of the company’s first suppliers of organic cotton grown in West Texas.

Detox Fashion by Greenpeace.

4. Greenpeace effectively used Anime to describe a futuristic warning of things to come their latest  for their Detox Fashioncampaign. Overcoming difficult messages by using a fun, comic book style, the film remains a thoughtful and provoking on-topic perspective on why beautiful fashion shouldn’t cause toxic pollution.

Top Image: Piece x Piece

The post 4 Sustainable Fashion Films: The Power of Storytelling to Captivate & Convince appeared first on EcoSalon.

H&M takes the lead in eliminating a group of hazardous and hormone-disrupting chemicals from global clothing manufacturing.

According to the Environmental Working Group, global contaminants Perfluorinated Compounds (PFC’s ) are a collection of “highly toxic, extraordinarily persistent chemicals that pervasively contaminate human blood and wildlife of the world over.” Used widely in household and industrial products, the slippery, heat-stable properties of this group of chemicals are utilized in the fashion industry to create water repellent fabrics, stain repellant clothing and high performance rainwear.

Environmental campaigning organization Greenpeace‬ has welcomed H&M’s decision, praising the fast fashion giant’s leadership role on eliminating the hazardous and hormone-disrupting chemicals from clothing manufacturing.

“We expect all other clothing brands that care about their customers’ safety and the environment to respond with equal ambition and urgency and immediately ban all uses of PFCs. This landmark commitment should catalyze wider change within the industry and send a clear signal to global suppliers, such as W.L. Gore, the makers of ‘Gore Tex,’ to create PFC-free alternatives.”

H&M stated in a press release announcing the news that it had been actively working to reduce the use and impact of hazardous chemicals since 1995, and that during 2011 more than 30,000 chemical tests were carried out. “As a brand, we have since some time already worked on restricting and phasing out perfluorinated substances, and a full ban on this has been an important part of our individual action plan.”

H&M is also a part of AFIRM, an international working team of leading companies within the textile and footwear industries, educating the suppliers to achieve good chemical management. The group’s common aim is to reduce the use and impact of harmful substances in the apparel and footwear supply chain.

The post H&M to Ban Toxic PFC’s from products appeared first on EcoSalon.

Anagha, 20 years old, makes clothes for Marks & Spencer, Tesco, and Mothercare.

Environmental campaigner and sustainable fashion blogger Esther Freeman wants you to know the faces behind the world’s cheapest and most available fashions. A new east London photography exhibition, launched by Freeman’s Fashion Mob campaigning organization, features photos captured by some of the world’s leading NGOs such as Greenpeace, ActionAid, and Anti-Slavery International.

Despite the ethical and green initiatives touted by many of the UK’s major chains, human rights and environmental abuses are still the rule rather than the exception. Freeman is critical of initiatives like Marks & Spencer’s ‘shwopping’ and she doesn’t think it goes too far to call them an example of greenwashing.

Boarding house for workers who manufacture school uniforms for M&S barely make enough money to live on.

“We obviously do have a massive problem with waste in this country and M&S is a big company, so if they can reach an audience that is throwing their clothes away and reduce that, that’s really important,” Freeman said. “But these women are being kept like slaves and M&S refuse to even look at the issue; it’s quite two-faced of them to not address these other issues at the same time and just go for the easy wins.”

While she doesn’t use the approach of telling people to avoid ubiquitous fast fashion chains all together, Freeman hopes the images in the exhibition will encourage conscious consumers to be persistent in asking major chains tough questions.

Greenpeace campaigner takes a river sample for testing.

Factories in China making products for Nike, Adidas, Puma and H&M dump waste into the river in Yinzhou district, China.

“At the very least put a visible message on their Facebook page, ask them what they’re doing about sweatshops. We have so much power to change them if we just use it.”

Image: Anti-Slavery International, Michael Hughes/ActionAid, Qui Bo/Greenpeace, Qiu Bo/Greenpeace

The post ‘Fashion’s Dirty Secrets’ Photography Exhibition appeared first on EcoSalon.

Sometimes compromise can result in “copping out.”

Award-winning filmmaker Emily James is something of a sensation in the United Kingdom. Originally from Berkeley, California, James moved to Britain to get her professional degrees in film and television at Cambridge University. While her work covers a variety of subjects, some of her most lauded projects focus on the subject of climate change. For example, 2009’s The Age of Stupid, on which she worked as an executive producer, stars Oscar-nominee Pete Postlethwaite as an archivist living in the year 2055. Alone on our devastated planet, he watches old film footage and wonders why we didn’t do something about climate change when we had the chance.

Her latest film, Just Do It: A Tale of Modern-Day Outlaws, covers a year in the life of British direct-action activists — passionate young people who are willing to do just about anything to draw attention to some of the most pressing environmental issues of the day. Through a combination of commitment, respect and crowd-funding, James was granted almost unprecedented access into the planning and executing of some of Britain’s most high-profile protests.

After touring the United Kingdom, James is preparing to bring her crowd-funded, community-edited piece to the United States. Organizations like Greenpeace and Rising Tide have already held screenings, and the film can be watched for free online (to schedule a screening in your town or university, contact Just Do It here). EcoSalon spoke with James about her commitment to the cause and the challenges of producing a controversial film.

Do you think climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing young people today?

It is certainly an issue that could eclipse all other problems. But it’s an issue that can’t be addressed in isolation. I think we have to look at these things holistically. In Just Do It, the characters come to this realization that the reasons for climate change start to go into economics and politics. There’s a moment in the film when the activists have been to Copenhagen. They’ve been heavily repressed in the street, and are incredibly disappointed with the decisions that were made. Sophie, one of the main characters, says that she went to Copenhagen talking about climate change, and she came back talking about capitalism and control. It comes back to money and power. The people with the money and the power have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. It was interesting that we filmed all this pre-Occupy, pre-99% discussions. We’re all saying, “Let’s save the environment!” But the people that are preventing us from doing it, are doing it for economic reasons, not ideological ones.

Who were the people that you filmed?

Most of them were reasonably young. The people that I chose to focus on did maybe six or seven actions that year. They really committed themselves at that point in their life. That’s a self-selecting thing; once you have children, people tend to shift gears. Sophie is in her 30s and was born and raised in east London. She supports herself as a waitress, but is also a fine artist and activist. Marina is amazing. She used to be a journalist, then she was a homemaker. She got involved in local politics in Brighton, on the south coast of England, and led a campaign to stop an incinerator from being built near them. She lost the vote and chained herself to the bench in the council building. She hadn’t really participated in that kind of thing before, but felt so empowered that she felt it was the way she wanted to participate.

The movie was funded entirely through donations, correct?

Not entirely, no—it was a combination of donations and foundation grant support. I’ve been working for broadcast television for a long time on commission. I thought this would go a similar route. No one had ever convinced direct action activists to be filmed in the process. It was quite a coup to get people to agree to participate. When I took it to broadcasters, I was surprised by their cynicism and their desire to do a very tabloid version of the story. I felt like I couldn’t keep the promises that I made to the people who were participating, if I did it the way the broadcasters insisted. I couldn’t start crowd-funding [while filming]. I had to keep quiet until I’d finished filming. I’d done a lot of prep work with lawyers to help me figure out how to keep people safe, and there wasn’t much case law to say whether authorities could get materials off me or not. We were able to start crowd-funding in 2010, when we finished filming actions.

Emily James with her equipment.

You were following people with criminal records, watching as they planned and committed technically criminal acts. How were you able to avoid legal liability?

I had an extensive amount of input from two different legal firms. What I worked out was that if the authorities were going to get a subpoena, they’d have to name the footage specifically, and they had to be able to tie it to a case they were working on. The lawyers suggested that I keep no written records. A written record would make it really easy for them to say, “We want that one, that one and that one.” Also, don’t label any [tape] in a way that’s meaningful. That added a little bit of extra fun in the cutting room. If I were to be arrested while filming an action—and it was reasonably likely that I’d be arrested—it would be easy to get a warrant to confiscate material. I kept everything in a safe house, the whereabouts of which were known only to me and to the person whose house it was.  I made it clear to the activists that I would not tell the authorities where the house was, and I was prepared to be held in contempt of court. It became clear with that promise that I was prepared to put my neck first on the line. The other point where the authorities could get my materials was while I was filming an action. I used an extensive system of tape runners. If I was filming that evening, I’d send a tape runner to a drop box, start filming another thing, and run off another tape. I never carried anything in the camera, or on me, that would be incriminating. You had to be very, very cautious.

No one will argue that we need to do something about climate change. But how effective do you actually think direct action protesting is?

These actions don’t work in isolation. They’re part of an ecology of people pushing for change. You need to have more established campaign groups inside talking, as well as the people outside agitating on the streets. Those two work symbiotically. One of the things that’s really strong about groups like Climate Camp is that they’re the people who are reminding us, not of what we can get, but of what we need to get. They haven’t begun the process of compromise: “This is where I’m going to draw the line.” It’s a really hard line. We need to do this.

The post Interview: Documentary Filmmaker Emily James on Direct Action Climate Change appeared first on EcoSalon.

Don’t click this link!

The best way to get a small child to want something is to tell them they can’t have it. And since we’re nothing but grown-up children, it works on us too. “Wet Paint – Don’t Touch!” usually elicits a poke with a finger. The more disinterested in us someone appears, the more attractive they usually become. We are fickle creatures, and we easily fall prey to reverse psychology.

In recent weeks Greenpeace has been making a huge number of people feel very stupid. In June they launched a website called Arctic Ready, a spoofed Shell publicity campaign (complete with near-identical website design) built around a user-generated advert competition that went in exactly the direction you’d expect…

What’s really fascinating is that after Greenpeace owned up to the stunt (including a fake Twitter account that is still remaining “in character”) and the stories faded from the front page of new sources, the website managed to fool an entirely new batch of readers and it went viral again. For Travis Nichols of the Greenpeace media team, the message was clear:

People wringing their hands over what is an obviously satirical campaign that rubs them the wrong way for a few seconds before they realize it’s fake pales in comparison with what Shell is doing, the hoax they’re perpetuating on the American public. It’s a creative campaign and we’re giving our supporters a voice to tell Shell what they think.   –  (Forbes) 

Of course that’s what he’d say – but it’s also a campaign designed to whip the public into a mud-slinging frenzy by lying to journalists and media outlets and then, via faked Shell social media accounts, threaten writers with (false) threats of legal action. Where’s the line over which it becomes flat-out defamation? Martin Robbins at the New Statesman thinks Greenpeace has scored such a huge own-goal that the smartest thing Shell could do is ignore it – which is exactly what it appears to be doing.

For a more elegant example of reverse psychology advertising, look to the city of Troy, Michigan. Last year its treasured public library was on the verge of running out of money, a situation a 0.7% citywide tax hike could remedy. In stepped the anti-taxation forces of the Tea Party, putting their substantial weight behind a “No” vote.  With the local election less than a month away, things looked grim. What the library needed was “something attention-getting, something audacious – maybe even vile.”

If you’re not cheering by the end of that video you’re not human – but why is this story far more palatable than Greenpeace’s stunt?

And in either case, do the ends really justify the means?

Image: Rghrous

The post Greenpeace Pretends It’s Shell: Lying And Threatening For A Good Cause? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Ad agencies often work both sides of the spectrum, creating campaigns for the greenest companies as well as the biggest polluters.

While there are some advertising agencies that carefully select their clients based on a certain vision, like social good or environmental friendliness, most simply follow the money. What else but financial motivation could lead to a single agency crafting advertising campaigns for both Monsanto and one of its biggest detractors – Greenpeace?

Let’s take a look at five of the biggest advertising agencies handling some of the world’s top clients, noting the good – campaigns that work to protect the environment or promote social welfare, and the bad – ads for companies that tend to be irresponsible.

Leo Burnett

Leo Burnett’s mission statement focuses on the effects that its advertisements can have on the world at large. “Creativity has the power to transform human behavior. This is the core belief of what we call HumanKind. It’s not about advertising or brand propositions or selling products. It’s about people and purpose. It’s an approach to marketing that serves true human needs, not the other way around. That’s why everything we do for brands is designed with a human purpose in mind… A brand with a true HumanKind purpose can change the world.”

    The Good

• WWF’s Earth Hour Campaign – Leo Burnett won Best International PR Campaign at the Cannes Lions in 2009 for its work with WWF for Earth Hour. The agency set a goal of reaching over 1 billion people across 50+ nations, and managed to turn Earth Hour into the largest social movement in history.
• Amnesty International’s Tyrannybook – Leo Burnett’s Lisbon, Portugal office created a campaign based on a social network dedicated to naming and shaming the world leaders who violate human rights.

    The Questionable

• McDonalds  – Leo Burnett is one of three agencies currently working on international campaigns for the fast-food giant.  While McDonald’s isn’t an egregious polluter or human rights violator, they’re not exactly promoting health and environmental responsibility either.
• Proctor & Gamble – The world’s largest producer of consumer packaged goods, Proctor & Gamble is aggressively greening its operations. However, its product range is full of junk food, toxic artificial fragrances and other products that aren’t exactly eco-friendly, so whether this account belongs under “Good” or “Questionable” is anybody’s guess.

R&R Partners

The CEO of R&R Partners, a Las Vegas, Nevada-based advertising agency, was also an adviser to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. But Billy Vassiliadis’ partner at that same agency, Pete Ernaut, is a staunch Republican. The combination has created a political monster of sorts – a message machine that pits one side against the other in a fight wherein, for R&R’s bottom line at least, there is no loser. Maybe that explains how they can simultaneously promote both human rights and “clean coal.” Tellingly, their “philosophy” reads simply, “We just love to win. Almost as much as we hate to lose.” Their most successful campaign is the now-infamous “What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas.”

The Good

• Human Rights Campaign – Working to establish civil rights protection for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community in Nevada, the HRC’s advertisements are managed by R&R Partners.
• Flip the Script Anti-Bullying Campaign – This campaign encourages teens to “flip the script” on bullying by pledging to speak out and address the problem in their own schools and communities. The campaign was inspired by the suicide of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, a victim of cyber-bullying.

    The Questionable

• The Clean Coal Campaign – R&R is the agency responsible for the entire ‘Clean Coal’ spin on the polluting, health-draining coal mining industry. Funded by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), which includes big mining and utility companies like Peabody Energy, the multi-million-dollar campaign spreads disinformation about the effects of coal.
•  Utility and mining companies galore – R&R handles advertising campaigns for BP America, Couer D’Alene Mining, Johnson Utilities, the Nevada Mining Association, Newmont Mining and Ridgeway Oil.

BBDO

The “Most Awarded Agency Network in the World” for 5 consecutive years, BBDO is one of the biggest players in the industry with an extensive list of clients including PepsiCo, FedEx, Chevrolet and Nike. They’re the creative folks behind those super-weird Skittles “Taste the Rainbow” ads. BBDO is an international conglomerate with individual agencies located on nearly every continent.

    The Good

• General Electric’s Ecomagination Campaign – BBDO New York spearheaded the interactive ads for GE’s Ecomagination, a portfolio of eco-friendly innovations that meet environmental challenges while also driving economic growth.
• Doppelganger Human to Canine Pairing Software – BBDO is responsible for a fun campaign for Pedigree, Doppelganger. The Doppelganger website connects homeless dogs to their human “doubles” using face-matching software.
• PETA – Say what you will about this controversy-loving animal rights organization, but at least we know that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is looking out for the non-human creatures of the world. BBDO actually aligned with PETA to create an internal awareness program that advocates for the humane treatment of animals in the advertising industry, winning a PETA award for its efforts.
• Greenpeace – BBDO Moscow produced a series of ads for Greenpeace called “Do You Know What You Eat?” The ads are a direct challenge to Monsanto, advocating the labeling of genetically modified ingredients.

    The Questionable

• ExxonMobil – Are the conscious, world-improving campaigns that BBDO produces canceled out by its involvement with one of the world’s most notorious polluters? In November 2011, BBDO won the bulk of ExxonMobil’s global creative business including the management of its corporate image. It’s a highly profitable account that will inevitably require some creative spin and damage control.
• Monsanto – Interestingly, in addition to the Greenpeace ads, BBDO has produced a number of ads for Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Roundup has been found to kill human cells and seriously damage the health of all of those animals that PETA cares so much about.

Ogilvy & Mather

With an agency this big, perhaps there’s always bound to be some overlap between smart, conscious advertisements and promotions for some of the world’s most frighteningly unscrupulous corporations. Ogilvy & Mather has 450 offices in 120 countries with more than 18,000 employees and helps craft public personas for companies like American Express, Ford, IBM and Unilever.

    The Good

•  Greenpeace – Ogilvy & Mather has spearheaded a number of campaigns for this renowned environmental organization including “Save Our Seas,” “Disposable Forests,” and a heartstring-tugging ad depicting sinking polar bears in place of glaciers in the Arctic.
• Hopenhagen.org – This global initiative to support climate change action at Copenhagen in 2009 was created for the United Nations, in the hopes of creating a movement. While we all know how little was actually achieved at that summit, the campaign was quite striking.

    The Questionable

• Monsanto – In the past, Ogilvy & Mather has created ads for the Monsanto-owned Equal and NutraSweet artificial sweeteners. Granted, the ads were produced by a small Ogilvy & Mather office in the Philippines, and sweetener ads are not quite the same as promoting the agricultural monopoly’s ads for genetically modified foods and toxic Roundup herbicide. But it’s still Monsanto.
• Nestle – Ogilvy & Mather handles international marketing for Nestle, a brand mostly known for its slave-labor chocolate. Nestle also produces bottled water by exploiting and monopolizing pristine springs in rural communities. The company’s pumping has significantly added aquifers in a number of cities including Mecosta, Michigan.

Draftfcb

Another one of the world’s largest advertising networks, Draftfcb is perhaps best known for its many fast food and junk food advertisements for brands like Oreo, KFC and Taco Bell. It also handles the promotions for a number of massive pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.

    The Good

• The Shelter Pet Project – Created for the Ad Council in partnership with the Humane Society of the United States and Maddie’s Fund, this campaign aims to encourage the adoption of pets in shelters.

    The Questionable

• Dow – How can anyone make a notorious polluter look good? Draftfcb is charged with that daunting task, and has produced a number of advertisements that attempt to brand Dow as a scientific innovator. Dow Chemical is responsible for toxic environmental pollution in a number of communities such as Midland, Michigan, where rivers downstream of its plant are contaminated with chlorinated furans and dioxins. Plus, Dow has refused to take any responsibility for the health and environmental effects of the deadly Bhopal gas disaster after acquiring the Union Carbide company.
• Merck – This pharmaceutical company may just balance itself out in the long run. Though it recently had to pay a $1.5 million penalty for violations of federal environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, and paid a $20 million penalty for polluting drinking water in Philadelphia, it’s also gaining a lot of positive attention for its efforts to green itself internally and make its operations more sustainable.
• Pfizer – This pharmaceutical giant has come under fire for keeping its HIV/AIDS-related drugs out of reach of the world’s poor, violating the Clean Air Act and allegedly testing its drugs on poor, critically ill Nigerian children.
• Nestle – Draftfcb is another ad agency handling ads for this food and bottled water producer.

The post Ad Agency Awareness: Who’s Conscious About Their Clients? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Hormone disrupting chemicals, found by Greenpeace, can affect immune systems and alter sexual development.

Greenpeace recently reported that clothing items bearing the logos of 14 global brands – including Adidas, H&M, Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch – have been found to contain nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), chemicals that can break down to form the hormone-disrupting substance nonylphenol (NP). Just this morning, Reuters released the news that Nearly 300 Cambodian workers fell sick this week at a garment factory producing goods for Swedish fashion brand H&M.

“Workers smelled something bad coming from the shirts,” said 26-year-old Norn Leakhena, a worker at the factory.

Greenpeace also reports in their findings that “Of the 78 articles of clothing bought and manufactured in locations all over the world, two thirds (52) tested positive for these chemicals – demonstrating that the use and release of these substances is a global problem affecting the entire textile industry, and further reinforcing the findings of the first Dirty Laundry Report, published 6 weeks ago.”

We caught up with Tommy Crawford, Communications Manager for Greenpeace International to help us break down what this means for us in terms of personal as well as ecological safety.

Are the hormone disrupting chemicals coming from finishes on the clothes?
Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) are used as surfactants in textile production. They subsequently break down into the toxic nonylphenol (NP) in the manufacturing process in wastewater discharges, as well as when finished clothes are washed by the consumers. This means that the persistent, hormone-disrupting NPs end up predominately in rivers and waterways in the countries of production but also in the countries of sale – including countries where use of the parent compounds (NPEs) is banned.

Would you say these are brands targeted mostly at a younger demographic who could care less about toxic clothing?
Toxic chemicals are a concern for everyone, regardless of their age. Greenpeace is not looking to discourage people from buying these brands, but we are interested in empowering their consumers to challenge these brands to produce their clothes in a way that does not come with a high price for people and the environment. A toxic-free future is possible, and concerned and empowered consumers have already played a massive role in convincing Nike and Puma to commit to the total elimination of all hazardous chemicals from their production by watching and sharing the campaign video and signing the petition. Over 600 supporters and activists even took part in the world’s biggest coordinated striptease to send a clear message to the brands to “Detox” our future.

The Greenpeace report says that chemicals are entering waterways and altering organisms. Why should we care?
We should care as we are talking about very problematic toxic chemicals entering into our water and our environment and having harmful and often unknown impacts. Chemicals that have no safe levels. Chemicals that stay in our environment for a long time (persistent), build up in the food chain (bioaccumulative), and that are hormone disrupting and toxic.

The substances Nonylphenol ethoxolates (NPEs) that we found in the clothes breakdown into the toxic nonylphenol (NP) once released into sewage treatment plants or directly into rivers (such as in manufacturing wastewaters, or during normal washing by consumers). NPs have the ability to mimic natural estrogen hormones. Scientific studies have found that exposure to NP can lead to altered sexual development in some organisms, particularly fish and other aquatic organisms. Lab testing on animal cells has also observed NP impacting immune system cells. Many of these effects can occur at relatively low levels.

With 13 countries involved in the supply chain for all these tested brands, how can they be regulated to ensure change? Is it too big a project?
No it is not. Suppliers in all these 13 countries are supplying big international clothing brands. By campaigning on the clothing brands, urging them to take responsibility for the toxic discharges in the manufacture of their clothes and becoming part of the solution by cleaning up their supply chains we can witness positive results for people and the environment in all production countries. It is not an impossible task, we have already seen both Puma and Nike committing to a toxic-free future by 2020.

Following its commitment last Wednesday Nike immediately took measures to start the elimination of NPEs in their supply chain by informing all of their suppliers around the world that NPEs need to be eliminated. Nike immediately moved NPEs from their list of ‘future restricted substances during manufacture’ to their existing list of ‘restricted substances during manufacture.’ This means that by encouraging the brands to commit to creating a toxic-free world, we can bring about positive and widespread change in all the countries of manufacture – very important for all the millions of people living in the countries of production who are dependent on rivers and other waterways for their drinking water.

Will you be checking back with Puma and Nike regarding their commitment to change?
Yes, both companies have publicly committed to come back with a Plan of Action with a road map detailing how they will get to zero discharges of hazardous chemicals by 2020. Nike, for example, wrote last week in its public commitment: ”Within eight weeks Nike Inc. will announce it’s action plan for the goal of eliminating hazardous chemicals within our supply chain addressing transparency, chemical management, including how we will address the need for industry disclosure in line with the right to know principles and a time-line for the highest priority hazardous chemicals.” Puma has also committed to publishing an action plan detailing how they will deliver their commitment within the next eight weeks.

Greenpeace will be closely watching this process and reviewing the plans of action to ensure they will indeed lead to the brands and their suppliers achieving toxic-free production by 2020.

Images: Greenpeace

The post 14 Fashion Brands Test Positive for Hormone Disrupting Chemicals appeared first on EcoSalon.