Part I should be a one or two page executive summary, summarizing your findings.
Part II should be the body of the paper. It should consist of about 12 pages -- about 2 pages for each company you analyze.
For every company, one page should be devoted to describing the company’s greenwashing initiative, why it was phony, and the consequences to the company of its being publicly exposed.
The second page should contain a graph that shows the impact of the exposure on the company’s stock. The graph should show how the stock was doing (a) 2 years before the greenwashing was exposed and (b) 2 years after the greenwashing was exposed. If the exposure occurred less than 2 years ago, then just show how the stock did to the present.
In your graph, the y axis should represent the $ value of the stock. The x axis should represent the amount of time elapsed.
Part III should be the conclusion. It should be about 2-3 pages. In this part you should use your six examples to draw larger conclusions about the impact of greenwashing on company stock price. If you found that the stock price generally falls, say something about the fall. Was it precipitous? Was it gentle? Was it long-lasting? Was it short? You should speculate about what factors might determine those various outcomes. If the stock went back up, you should say so and try to explain why.
Please cite all sources that you use. This is a research paper. So the more sources you cite, the better.
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.Part 1
Green washing occurs when companies convey false information to consumers with the aim of making them believe their products are environmentally conscious or engaging in corporate initiatives to make consumers believe they are socially responsible while they are not. This is influenced by the fact that more consumers are inclined to buying environmentally mindful products (Chen and Chang, 2013 p. 495). Green washing is often used as a green blanket to conceal wrongdoing or ulterior motives. As the world braces itself for the evolution of green products, the legal community is faced with suits on false environmental marketing. As more businesses strive to be more mindful of the environment there is bound to be more court cases on companies practicing false advertisement. Compliance with appropriate environmental practices is directly related to increased demand for products, services, and increase in the brand value. It is important to understand the relationship between a company’s sustainability programs in relation to brand value if an individual is to understand how green washing affects a company’s stock prices. A company’s motive for a charitable cause defines whether it is green washing or not. Principled products and services that help the consumers change behavior and live a more sustainable life are supposed to be reasons for advertising and sustainability initiatives. Each brand tries to be unique by providing distinct products leading to more purchasing. Therefore, more companies try to use labels such as “eco-friendly,” “natural, “organic” and “green” to lure more customers. Some of these companies genuinely use environmentally friendly products but others just use the labels for selfish purposes. One of the companies that genuinely implemented sustainability programs is Honda. The international car manufacturer claimed that it manufactured fuel-efficient Civics and Fits that contributed to an increase of 28% in their brand value. Companies blamed of green washing have often faced negative consequences such as fall of stock prices; this is influenced by the shareholders’ lack of confidence in the company. A company like SeaWorld experienced a 50 percent drop in its stock prices in 2013 after a documentary surfaced claiming that the company puts profits before ethics. The Coca-Cola Company was also in the spotlight following concerns that the plastics bottles they use for packaging are not as safe as the company’s adverts claim. This led to a fall in stock prices; the company’s brand value declined and consequently affected the share prices. The company decided to invest in an initiative to provide clean drinking water and sanitation in India; the initiative was however seen as a green wash project. It looked like Coca-Cola was helping the community but in the real, sense they were advocating for clean water to make their soft drinks. The impact the two companies experienced depended on how much publicity was involved when revealing the green wash initiatives.
SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment or SeaWorld are family themed parks formerly owned by Blackstone Group but they sold 37 percent of the company in an initial public offering in 2013. In 2013, a documentary titled Blackfish was produced; the film caused worldwide criticism resulting to trip and concert cancellation (Delmas and Burbano, 2011 p. 69). The film exposed how SeaWorld forcibly separated the young orcas from their families in the ocean and confined them to a lifetime of misery in cement tanks. The frustration made the orcas chew on the cement in the tank and eventually killed a human being...
By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files: