After a brief hiatus for a family visit to the UK, Greenwash of the Week is back. This example is from the signage outside a restaurant in London. The beef I have with this is literal: it's an Argentinian steak restaurant. Now, in this context, we obviously wouldn't expect all sorts of disclaimers and substantiation. If you do go to their website, you can see the restaurant does have a clear social and environmental sustainability strategy; from targets on employing members of disadvantaged communities to MSC-certified seafood and choosing locally-sourced produce. There is also an acknowledgement that beef production is in itself a huge issue, and they have a commitment to measuring the restaurant's carbon emissions through the supply chain. This is addressed through 'various offsetting projects' (not specified). These efforts are important, but I still feel that advertising a restaurant that sells beef (and imports it half way across the world) as 'one of the most sustainable' options is disingenuous. These kind of simple messages stick, and it'd be easy to latch onto this thinking that you really are making a more sustainable choice by eating there. Perhaps you are, compared to some other beef producers, but as a category, it will never be 'one of the most sustainable.' I know demand for beef won't die overnight, and to ensure a just transition, nor should it. But the science is very clear on the devastating environmental impacts of the beef industry, and that we should be consuming less. A net zero commitment without a clear, realistic plan on how to achieve it (from a highly problematic sector) shouldn't be advertised to consumers as an example of sustainable practice. Perhaps we need a kind of universal disclaimer that in general, animal products have a higher environmental impact than others - at least to put claims in context of the bigger issues. I'd love thoughts on this – am I being too harsh? How do we balance the need to consume fewer animal products with the needs of the people currently working in the industry? #sustainability #greenwashing #greenwashoftheweek
My first question is what framework, criteria and governance Delicious Magazine had in place to come to this conclusion. As it's kind of a biggie.
Sarah Rhodes
4mo
It’s a very hard one to reconcile. I think they need to tone down their claim, as you say it seems incongruous with what they do. Yes, they should keep doing the good things they do and keep improving buuuut… that doesn’t make them the best, it’s what all businesses should be doing as a baseline in this day and age.
Jennifer Rudd
4mo
Perhaps “one of the most sustainable beef restaurants” might be more accurate, although still a bit of a stretch 😅
Jeremy Thomas
3mo
Well said I say...
Impact Entrepreneur | Sharing sustainability updates | B Corp Certified | 2024 AFR Sustainability Leader | Total geek of all things brand, media, marketing and greenwashing | LinkedIn Top Green Voice
4moIt’s a NOPE from me. Disappointing though, based on what you just described about their efforts, they have reason to share and to be acknowledged for their action. If only they’d written something more accurate, it would educate their customers on what ‘can’ be done even if you are a beef restaurant. There’s a healthy conversation in this for that restaurant, but an unsubstantiated, out-of-context quote from an unqualified magazine is not it.