On this blog I have several times written about the questionable “research” that sometimes issues from the Greenpeace offices. To have a look at those other posts, simply click here. Today’s post is another entry in that series of articles.
Greenpeace’s latest installment in their string of sloppy research is their ranking of U.S. supermarkets in the debate over selling sustainable seafood. This “report” is entitled “Carting Away the Oceans” and may be seen by clicking here. This document devotes much space to critiquing various supermarket chains regarding their individual sustainable seafood policies (pages 12 to 34 of “Carting Away the Oceans“). The document also reserves quite a bit of room for Greenpeace to claim victory in this supermarket campaign which they have conducted for the last few years (page 4 of “Carting Away the Oceans“), even though those claims of victory are unsubstantiated.
On those pages referenced above, as well as on others in this document, Greenpeace mentions repeatedly the “red list species” and refers to them as unsustainable. Yet, in this document it does not comprehensively list the species on the “red list,” which is apparently a list of Greenpeace’s own making, nor, and most importantly, does Greenpeace demonstrate in the document why those “red list” species are “unsustainable” in an objective sense (i.e., in the opinion of third-party experts) or even in a subjective sense (i.e., in the opinion of Greenpeace). There is not a hint of scientific evidence, objective or otherwise, as to why Greenpeace thinks certain species are endangered. This document is not referenced and has no sources cited, other than the occasional mention of Greenpeace surveys which were used to rank the supermarket chains in the sales of sustainable seafood.
In other words, the reader is expected to accept, on face-value only, Greenpeace’s assertions and rankings in this document. The degree of that acceptance would, of course, vary by reader and, I think, be determined by the value of the Greenpeace brand held in that reader’s mind. The higher the brand image in the mind of the reader than the more believability this document would hold.
Given the transparency and information-rich environment that we now experience via social media, an environment that organizations like Greenpeace use to attack their corporate opponents, it will be interesting to see if the public catches on to the lack of substance in this Greenpeace document or in others produced by that organization.
