A study by The New Scientist found that consumers' perceptions of a company's "greenness" are frequently wrong. Particularly when it comes to food:
Some of the greatest confusion surrounds the food and beverage sector. Of the 115 firms we analysed, producers of food and drinks stood out as having the highest environmental impact - significantly different from media firms, retailers, technology companies and manufacturers of personal and household goods. Yet there were no significant differences in consumer perceptions between the sectors. In general, US consumers fail to recognise the high environmental costs associated with agriculture and food processing. [emphasis mine]
The article goes on to say that Whole Foods has a very green reputation but it ranked no higher in actual greenness than conventional supermarkets like Safeway. However, that assessment comes with a BIG caveat:
That doesn't mean Whole Foods isn't doing what it says it is. Rather, the company has not disclosed all its key environmental data, forcing Trucost to model its impact from an analysis of its overall operations - including sourcing produce, distribution and running its stores - which will be similar to other food retailers. "We cannot update our data without disclosure from a company," says James Salo, Trucost's vice-president for strategy and research.
Once Whole Foods does publish a full inventory of its greenhouse gas emissions - which it promises to do this year - its score may improve, but only slightly. That's because "it will be hard to match the performance of retailers selling goods other than food, which don't have to account for the high environmental costs of agriculture in their supply chains."
If you want to have some fun, check out the interactive graphic showing perception vs. reality. Rather notable in the graphic is how BAD Del Monte ranks and how GOOD Green Mountain Coffee Roasters ranks. |
