Back in September 2007 Jeffrey Swartz, the CEO of the outdoor wear company Timberland, explained on a conference call said that he didn't want the company's latest corporate social responsibility (CSR) report to come across as "corporate cologne." Swartz said that he wanted to "seduce consumers to care." Jeffrey Ballinger, a labor rights and anti-sweatshops advocate, took up the challenge and began posting comments on the "Earthkeeper" section of the company's website about labor standards in Thailand, where the company sources its boots from. "So, I just started plunking things down on their web page ... And I can't get a straight answer,” he told Corporate Crime Reporter. Following publicity about his concerns, Timberland's Vice-President of CSR, Gordon Peterson, promised to respond to each specific issue and identify "gaps" between Ballinger's "view of what should happen, and our view of what we are capable of achieving."

The $70 billion Australian junk food industry is now applying PR strategies originally developed by the tobacco industry in a bid to avoid government regulation. Australia's federal government is readying a report about reducing obesity, which could lead to higher taxes on unhealthy foods and a ban on junk food advertising. In anticipation, junk and snack food companies are playing down the health risks of their products, adopting voluntary advertising codes, producing "healthier" smaller and lower-sugar versions of candies and chocolate bars, arranging for food industry representatives to sit on regulatory boards, and funding educational programs to try to look like good corporate citizens. For example, McDonald's started providing free online math tutorials for children, similar to cigarette companies' youth education and prevention programs, launched to blunt the push for regulation. One leading health source noticed the resemblance between the food industry's tactics to those employed by Big Tobacco: ''Deny the evidence, delay, infiltrate yourself into governments, have big lobbying outfits, work through voluntary codes. It's the same techniques."

The Australian logging company Gunns is reviewing its corporate sponsorships as it struggles to deal with a dramatic slump in sales of woodchips to Japanese customers. In an interview, the company's new chief executive, Greg L'Estrange, flagged that the company would be cutting back its sponsorships. "We haven't finished our discussions but certainly you would say our appetite for some of these areas has diminished. Life is a two-way street. People keep wanting us to keep putting money back into the community but they need to want us as well," he said. Gunns has encountered strong opposition to its proposal for a pulp mill and been humiliated in court over its pursuit of a legal action against leading environmentalists.

J. Scott Trubey reports that documents, obtained under Georgia's freedom of information laws, revealed that Fleishman-Hillard (F-H) had been hired by Georgia Lottery to sell the concept of the state's first casino to legislators, business leaders and the public. Underground Atlanta, a shopping complex, was mentioned as a possible site for the introduction of a casino. Georgia law bans video card games, but video lottery terminals (VLTs) -- which the October 2008 F-H plan referred to as "Velvet" -- may not be. Georgia Lottery revenues are currently used to fund state educational programs, such as the HOPE (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) Scholarship Program. F-H proposed that the casino adopt the positioning statement that "Velvet secures HOPE for Georgia" and claimed that "it’s clear that the supply of HOPE and pre-K funds run the risk of falling behind demand." F-H proposed that the lottery's CEO, Margaret DeFrancisco, visit newsrooms to sell the proposed project. In January the operator of Underground Atlanta, Dan O'Leary, unveiled his proposal to Georgia Lottery for a $450 million redevelopment of the site, which includes a casino.

The Australian alcohol industry is taking a leaf from the tobacco industry and has promised to voluntarily devote ten percent of its advertising space to promoting web sites that discourage binge drinking, particularly among youth. The strategy is an exact copy of that used by the tobacco industry to defuse the youth smoking issue. The formula is: 1) lament the problem, in this case alcohol use and binge drinking; 2) define industry as part of the solution, to avoid being seen as part of the problem; and 3) assure the industry gets a seat at the policy table, where it can then influence the "solutions." Another tactic is funding public health groups to carry out educational programs, thereby winning their cooperation and rendering them unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. The industry-financed ads portray alcohol use as an individual choice rather than a public health problem, and do not mention policy measures proven to be effective at actually reducing alcohol consumption, like restrictions on advertising, licensing and retailing, or tax increases.

"The world's best-known oil companies are pouring on the charm as they get ready this week to parade another round of fat profits before a public that is feeling suddenly poorer. The spotlight will shine on Exxon on Thursday and Chevron on Friday. Such advertising makes sense after a summer with oil at nearly $150 a barrel and a fall likely to bring renewed scrutiny of their investments and tax breaks. But when oil companies spend their money, it's less about you and me than about their shareholders. In many respects, industry experts note, what's good for Big Oil's bottom line isn't necessarily good for Joe Q. Jetta. 'That's a game that oil companies have been playing for a while, but they've been pumping more money into it lately,' said Sheldon Rampton, research director at the Center for Media and Democracy. 'They're hoping to mitigate their bad reputation rather than become beloved.'"

"The ultimate selling proposition might just be saving the planet," said International Advertising Association (IAA) executive director Michael Lee. The IAA recently met with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to discuss how marketing firms might help address global warming. Lee added that marketers can "help change consumer behavior, influence public policy and help the UN make further progress on the issue." Also present at the meeting were executives from Publicis Groupe, Interpublic Group, Omnicom, Ogilvy & Mather and Euro RSCG, among other major marketing firms. Secretary-General Ban remarked, "As climate change affects everyone, everywhere, the UN needs partners in the private sector and in civil society to mobilize and spur action." Details of the UN-marketer partnership will be revealed at COP14, the next conference on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will be held December 2008 in Poznan, Poland.

The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI) is alarmed about the extent of corporate greenwashing. The authority's chief executive, Frank Goodman, explained, "You are not allowed to say your product is good for the environment unless you can prove this. Our code is very specific on this point." Of particular concern are claims by companies that they have become "carbon neutral" by buying carbon offsets for their greenhouse gas emissions. John Curran, the environmental executive for Musgrave Group, which markets leading retail brands, said, "It's easy to make the claim, but it is almost impossible to really be carbon neutral. ... Low carbon is the best you can aim for. But once PR gets a hold of things, being seen as green can turn into a crusade for some companies."