LEGO Issues Tepid Response to Shell Controversy; Greenpeace Issues Mock PSA

One has to admire Greenpeace’s dedication to solid production values. Check out this mock PSA, which came out today:

The org might not be so great with money, but it certainly jumped on the opportunity to criticize LEGO’s new partnership with big bad Shell a week ago, writing that the decision to include the Shell logo on some products (and reap the retail rewards) meant that the company was putting cold, hard cash “above its commitment to the environment and children’s futures.”

There’s also the expected petition complete with an image of a polar bear balancing on a LEGO ice block in a sea filled with oil and what looks like a pirated rig. All of those things and LEGO’s weak response after the jump.

Lego shell

These guys and their graphics.

Here’s LEGO’s response, issued one week ago when the news first broke:

See, that’s the textbook definition of “tepid corporate reaction to controversy”. It’s essentially a long-winded/tweeted version of “We are not responsible for the actions of our business partners.”

But is LEGO really being “used as a tool” in a dispute between Greenpeace and Shell? Which claims does the third tweet reference? And could there possibly be a more passive phrase than “we were saddened?”

We doubt that Greenpeace’s campaign will lead LEGO to reconsider the partnership (supposedly worth at least $116M per year to Shell) or cause Shell to strengthen its own sustainability initiatives, but we assume there will be an additional response to this video.

On second thought, maybe silence would have been more effective.