ASA Innocent Ban Reminds Us That Plastic Is Less Than Fantastic

“Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” is arguably one of the most successful advertising slogans ever created. Teachers, neighborhood busybodies and unimaginative politicians have been rolling out this mnemonic for over 30 years since it became popularized way back in April 22, 1970, at the first-ever national Earth Day.

It’s not hard to see why it’s so popular: It’s catchy; it pleasingly has three “things” and it makes an extremely complex and insidious topic feel slightly more manageable.

The issue with Innocent

A more recent member of the “Three Rs Club” is drinks brand, Innocent, as part of its “Little Drinks, Big Dreams” campaign, launched last year. While we watch generic receptacles bouncing into green bins, an environmentally conscious otter reminds us: “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Because there is no Planet B. If we’re looking after nature, she’ll be looking after me.” 

In the nine months since the spot first aired, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has received 26 complaints about this optimistic little otter, including strong criticism from environmental protest group Plastics Rebellion, who accuse Innocent of overexaggerating the environmental benefit of their products. This week, the ASA banned the ad, concluding that it “implied that purchasing Innocent products was a choice that would have a positive environmental impact when that was not the case.”

And let’s be real, there are exactly zero environmental benefits to purchasing Innocent products. The world is not better off because Innocent harvests a ton of fresh food, extracts a small percentage of the matter and then pours the result into millions of small plastic bottles (bottles that are, at least in part, made from nonrecycled, virgin plastic). The planet would unequivocally be better off if we left the crude oil where we found it and instead we picked an apple from a tree and then ate it. So claiming, or even insinuating, any environmental benefit is extremely misleading.

But then, of course, there are zero environmental benefits to most products we consume today. These products do have a load of other benefits, though, from reducing poverty and food inequality to creating convenience and delivering affordable, scalable healthy eating. We can’t, and shouldn’t, stop mass-producing and packaging food. We can start getting serious about making that packaging significantly less damaging.

What’s staring us in the face?

The answer to this problem is staring us in the face. It’s stated at the top of this article, in fact: “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” Only, this time, don’t read it as a Cosmo magazine multiple choice quiz; read it as a list of priorities. 

First and foremost, reduce. Whether the drink is packaged in recycled or virgin plastic, the best possible solution for the planet is to buy less of it. Anything that implies otherwise is greenwashing. 

Greenpeace Opened a Vintage Pop-up Store with Plastic Products That Have Lasted Decades

If you just can’t resist a “Lean Green Machine,” the second-best option would be reuse. So maybe you make a smoothie at home and use an old bottle to take it to work.

Finally, at the very bottom of the pile, if you really, really must, you can recycle your virgin bottle.

When reading the mnemonic in this context, it’s easier to see that, although it’s truly great to see Innocent—and the rest of the Coca-Cola portfolio—investing in recyclable plastic, they are actually only addressing the least favorable option. 

The recycling message

In spite of this, campaigns about recycled plastic have become much more prevalent in the last few years. From PepsiCo committing to eliminating all virgin plastic to Unilever’s ambition to collect more plastic than it sells, 2020-something plastic commitments are suddenly in vogue. But how do we differentiate progress from obfuscation? 

We can’t, and shouldn’t, stop mass-producing and packaging food. We can start getting serious about making that packaging significantly less damaging. 

—Amy Williams, CEO, Good-Loop

An example of this messaging executed extremely well is Nature Valley. Its new fully recyclable wrapper not only brought new polyethylene polymer technology to the category, but General Mills also purposefully did not patent the innovation, welcoming other brands to employ it, too. While pushing the category forward, this campaign educated consumers about recycling and empowered them to make greener choices.

Even in this example, the planet is still probably better off if you don’t buy loads of Nature Valley bars. But when consumers really need a sweet and crunchy snack on the go, Nature Valley does not greenwash or mislead, they simply communicate the steps taken to reduce its negative impact with integrity and authority. 

The carbon offsetting debate

This debate draws close parallels with another area on the frontline of the sustainability “culture wars”—carbon offsetting. Carbon offsetting has been dismissed by many as a lazy Get Out of Jail Free card, enabling big polluters to continue their business as usual.

This is fair criticism and, just like recycling, it no doubt sits at the very bottom of the “good ideas” pile. Firstly, we should not do things that push carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Secondly, we should all work to reduce our carbon footprint. And finally, as a last resort, we can offset the carbon we must emit.

Cleanhub is a fantastic organization that has taken this line of thinking to its natural conclusion, offering big businesses an opportunity to minimize their “plastic footprint” and offset their plastic emissions. Its platform connects brands with local collection partners who collect non-recyclable plastic in the coastal regions of developing countries.

So there are some impressive initiatives out there that can help big plastic producers like Coca-Cola to move the needle from negative to neutral impact—which is progress worth celebrating. We just also need to be diligent about them overpromising, avoiding any claims of positive impact without concrete evidence or proof of action.

Carbon offsetting is like drinking 10 pints on a night out and then compensating with a very healthy smoothie the next morning. But I’m now left wondering, perhaps the smoothie in this analogy isn’t quite so innocent.

Why Innocent Was Found Guilty of Greenwashing and Why it Matters