One of the exciting yet challenging aspects of the whole “business purpose” agenda is that pretty much every issue we consider is complicated. As in our recent articles on de-forestation and tree planting, sometimes even seemingly clearcut and positive ideas or processes come with hidden complexity.
That is one of the reasons why greenwashing and other forms of misleading behaviour by firms is prevalent across these ESG areas. The classic greenwash examples (discussed in more depth in our Procurement with Purpose book) include energy firms making unfounded claims about the “greenness” of their processes, and food manufacturers using terms such as “fat free” - without mentioning the huge quantities of sugar, additives and preservatives in their horrible, processed products.
Another aspect of greenwashing is firms making claims that aren’t substantiated or just bend the truth somewhat. That can even apply to those whose products are fundamentally good in environmental or social terms. Swedish firm Oatly, one of the major business success stories of recent years, has been banned by the UK advertising watchdog from making misleading statements about its product. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has stopped Oatly from calming that cutting dairy and meat from our diets was the single biggest lifestyle change people could make to reduce their environmental impact.
One climate expert had provided this quote, but had qualified his statement, and Oatly could not otherwise back up the claim. (Surely it very much depends on the individual – if I fly transatlantic twice a month and heat my house with a dozen coal fires, I suspect there might be more significant changes I could make…)
In another claim, Oatly said that 26% of greenhouse gases are generated by the food industry, as opposed to 26% of human-created emissions, which is a subtly different statistic. The firm also included fishing and egg production in with meat and dairy when they quoted emissions about that category.
It's rather unnecessary in this case to twist the data, we suggest, because Oatly does have a good story to tell. For instance, the ASA allowed the firm to claim that if everyone adopted a vegan diet, annual emissions from food would be almost halved, which is a powerful argument.
In a statement, the ASA said: “We told Oatly UK Ltd to ensure that the basis of any environmental claim was made clear, including what parts of the life cycle had been included and which excluded. We also told them to ensure they held adequate evidence to substantiate environmental claims made in their ads as they would be understood by consumers.”
But if you are thinking about replacing all the dairy milk in your catering supply chain with oat milk, there are other reasons for caution. Cow’s milk is richer in protein than oat, which might be an important factor for some people – perhaps children, for instance. Commercial oat milk products may well have added nutrients (good), but they can also contain preservatives, sugars and even thickeners and emulsifiers (not so good), which weakens the health case. (There is a very interesting article here if you want to get into the pros and cons of oat milk).
Other plant-based alternatives exist of course, including soya, rice, hemp and almond milk. There is even a new potato milk product at Waitrose which got some publicity this week! But some alternatives have their own drawbacks. Almond in particular has fallen from favour because of the need for large amounts of irrigation during cultivation, which is both expensive and not very environmentally sensitive.
Clearly, there are complications in this as in other areas in terms of what is really good for us and the planet, and in relation to the claims being made by various interested parties. So as you implement any procurement with purpose strategies, do your research, don’t believe everything you read and hear, and above all, use your own brain to make decisions.