I just received this in my inbox and thought it appropriate to share here.
It’s from Saab Australia, their response to the recent to recent action announced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) with regard to their contention that the Saab Grrrrreen advertising campaign is misleading consumers:
——
GM Holden, and Saab, takes its responsibilities as an advertiser very seriously and we’re keen to speak to and resolve the matter with the ACCC.
The ‘Grrrrreen’ campaign in question sought to communicate Saab’s participation with Greenfleet’s carbon offset program.
The ACCC initially contacted Saab in August last year in relation to the wording of several ads in the campaign which ran for approximately 10 weeks between July and September 2007.
It was never Saab’s intention to mislead or confuse consumers in relation to its participation in this carbon offset program, and if there was any argument that our advertising was confusing, we were only too happy to promptly take steps to address any concerns. We did not hear from the ACCC until we were notified last week that they had filed proceedings against us. We were very surprised given we had believed that our response had indeed addressed those concerns.
Saab’s offset program through Greenfleet began in January 2007 and is ongoing. Greenfleet continues to plant 17 native trees on behalf of Saab for every new and demonstrator Saab vehicle sold in Australia, which is calculated to offset 12 months worth of carbon emissions produced by a vehicle.
The nature of the Greenfleet program itself is not being disputed by the ACCC. Saab, and other manufacturers, continue to purchase these ‘offsets’ to Greenfleet for its vehicles.
We are keen to discuss this matter and to resolve the issue with the ACCC as soon as possible.
Saab stands by the environmental leadership it has taken globally, and locally with the Greenfleet offset program across the range and the launch of vehicles such as BioPower.
Saab BioPower is a flex-fuel vehicle, and Australia’s first ethanol production car, which is capable of running on the renewable E85 fuel which is will available to commercially in Australia for the first time in the coming months.
——
That’s Saab’s official response and I think it’s very measured and composed.
What I find absolutely rediculous is the way the ACCC is going after a company that’s actually trying to do something positive in the area of environmental responsibility. Anyone with half a brain would have read Saab’s Grrrrreen advertising material and realised what was going on.
The ACCC’s contention is most likely fuelled by some Green lobbyists who are typically happy to whine about any big company and drive from protest to protest in a smoke belching Datsun 120Y.
That they’re having a crack at Saab, a company with a pretty good record of environmental responsibility, and having a crack to the point of dragging them to court rather than settling the issue in the metting room just indicates that they’ve got a point to prove and need a victim to do it with.
Its frustrating really, as you said they are attacking someone that is attempting to help the environment. Its counter-productive.
It would be nice if Saab launched a similar program here in the US, maybe if the BioPower and TTiD ever get released over here. With the release of those engines, they also introduce this new program.
I am very agree with one of the best economist of today, Xavier Sala i Martin, that says that many of those “ecologist” movements are the religion of the 21st century.
Its just pathetic the reaction of many of this people. Now it seems that only Toyota with its hybrid cars, that nowadays for the production of its electric batteries its less enviromentally friendly than producing a Hummer and the cost per mile of production of a Prius is 3,25 dollar, instead a Hummer is 1,95dollar and its damage is less than the Toyota in its overall life.
Saab demonstrated with technologies like Trionic, APC, turbo, new materials and so that has an enviromentally awareness since the 70′s, when nobody thinked about it.
For example, here in Catalonia, the Councillor of Enviromental affairs of the government of Catalonia, always had a Saab 9000(during the 90′s) as an official car, because it has over 85% of recyclable materials. Nowadays we have a coalition of three parties, one of those are the ecologist party, and now they have as official car the typical Audi A8.
regards
regards
This is outrageous. Is this Saab’s reward for being such an environmentally friendly company? Saab’s whole philosophy has always been “more from less”, even when this kind of thinking wasn’t in fashion. They couldn’t be less deserving of this honor. The ACCC needs to find a more worthwhile crusade and to think about who they are attacking. These are the same type of people (suffering from complete ossification of the cranial cavity) who drive around in 1970 Volkswagen busses plastered with various conservation stickers. You want to save the earth? Drive your bus over a cliff. Think of how much energy has been wasted on this slander campaign against Saab!
Whatever you do, it’s never enough for these people. If you complied with everything they demand today, they’ll sue tomorrow for more. If they didn’t, they’d be irrelevant. Which is what they make themselves anyway by being so darned annoying in the meantime.
Extremely well put, Eggs. They have to continue whining and pushing the envelope, or else they’d have nothing to do, and no cause to fight.
Obviously Saab should immediately suspend this program pending the outcome of the hearing.
And if that outcome is negative, then Saab should publicly thank the complaining party for helping it reduce its costs through the elimination of the program (and make sure the press release is printed on virgin pulp paper — no recycled content.)
How’s that for an “inconvenient” reality?
In the event people don’t remember, I believe that the original post on this indicated that it was the “Greens” party in Austrailia that originally complained and got the claim examined.
Ostensibly because they felt it didn’t go far enough.
I say, toss the baby with the bathwater and let them explain their tactics.