WWF-Coca Cola, Partnership Together for the Danube

Apparently good actions for the environment, such as cleanups or afforestation, are blamed simply because they are sponsored by "major polluters," as some environmental activists have called companies with a large carbon footprint.

A famous case of a partnership that raised questions is the one between WWF, one of the largest environmental NGOs globally, and Coca-Cola, one of the biggest polluters due to the large number of plastic bottles it puts on the market, from which it only manages to recover a small part for recycling.

This partnership, called "Together for the Danube," led to the creation of a new Delta in Romania, Garla Mare, in Mehedinti County, through the restoration of a wetland area. Wetlands are very important for restoring biodiversity and for fighting climate change.
A commendable initiative, therefore, which was also named "Partnership of the Year" at the Reuters Responsible Business Awards in 2020.

So, why is it controversial?

Vasile Lazar, sustainability consultant: “These partnerships are not viewed favorably because these companies have a history of delaying decisive actions aimed at reducing their environmental footprint. That's why the level of trust in such partnerships from activists is low.

I believe that companies' efforts to help rehabilitate rare areas, re-naturalize areas, clean beaches, riverbanks, and so on, are commendable, they are good things, and it's good that they are happening. However, we are somehow acting at the end of the pipe. These are "end-of-pipe" solutions. Of course, they are good and bring benefits to the environment. Any action, any piece of paper picked up and put where it belongs, is commendable, it's good. But we should be working upstream, at the cause, at the source of the problem.

In the United States, a program has been adopted for a long time, since the 70s, even before this thing appeared in Europe with the directive on waste prevention, pollution prevention, and clean production. And there, for years, they encouraged companies' practices to redesign, rethink the concepts, product designs, rethink packaging, rethink the products themselves, the services themselves, in such a way as to have the smallest possible impact on the environment.

I would like to see a partnership between any governmental organization and such a company that has a big environmental footprint on something like this: "Look, we've brought in sustainability specialists to sit down with us and look at our products and redesign them in such a way as to be more environmentally friendly."

So, here is the key in this apparently subtle distinction between a responsible action and greenwashing: measures taken more to rethink the business model, which causes the problems, and not just remedial measures for what can still be remedied.

These are not just the expectations of specialists from companies that are hell-bent on positioning themselves in the market as the most sustainable, the greenest. But also of ordinary people, who are increasingly starting to understand and reject deceptive communication tactics.