In the world of global corporations, few relationships illustrate the tension between profit-driven industry and environmental responsibility better than that of Unilever and Greenpeace. Unilever, a multinational conglomerate known for its consumer goods brands like Dove, Lipton, and Ben & Jerry’s, has long been a target of Greenpeace—a leading environmental organisation—for its environmental impact. Their contentious relationship, marked by both confrontation and cooperation, showcases the complexities of balancing corporate growth with sustainability goals.
Unilever: A Giant with a Green Promise
Unilever is one of the largest consumer goods companies in the world, with products spanning across food, beauty, and home care categories. Over the years, Unilever has positioned itself as a leader in corporate sustainability, with a high-profile commitment to reducing environmental harm through its Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. Introduced in 2010, this plan outlined ambitious goals such as cutting the environmental footprint of its products by half and sourcing 100% of its agricultural raw materials sustainably by 2020.
While Unilever has made progress on several fronts, its sustainability efforts have been met with both praise and scepticism. Greenpeace, in particular, has held the company accountable for its environmental claims, arguing that some of Unilever’s practices—particularly its reliance on palm oil—still contribute to deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and carbon emissions.
Greenpeace’s Lone Battle: Holding Corporations Accountable
Greenpeace is renowned for its campaigns that directly challenge corporations and governments on environmental issues. The organisation’s relationship with Unilever has evolved from outright protests to a more complex form of engagement, but the tension remains. Greenpeace’s primary concern with Unilever has revolved around the company’s sourcing of palm oil—an ingredient linked to widespread deforestation, particularly in Southeast Asia.
In the early 2000s, Greenpeace launched high-profile campaigns targeting Unilever and other companies for their role in deforestation through unsustainable palm oil sourcing. Unilever, which uses large quantities of palm oil in its products, was accused of contributing to the destruction of rainforests, endangering wildlife like orangutans, and fuelling climate change. One of the most iconic moments came in 2008 when Greenpeace activists scaled Unilever’s London headquarters, unfurling banners that read “Unilever: Stop Destroying Forests.”
The pressure from Greenpeace and other NGOs led to significant changes in Unilever’s approach to palm oil sourcing. In response, Unilever committed to sourcing 100% certified sustainable palm oil and became a founding member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Despite these steps, Greenpeace has often criticised the RSPO’s certification standards as insufficient, arguing that it fails to prevent deforestation and human rights abuses in the palm oil supply chain.
Recent Blockade in England: Escalating Pressure
Just last week, Greenpeace upped the ante once again, launching a direct action campaign against Unilever in England. Greenpeace activists blockaded Unilever’s UK headquarters in London, accusing the company of continuing to profit from deforestation. The protest, which involved over 100 activists, saw them erecting barriers, locking gates, and displaying large banners with messages like “Unilever: Stop Forest Crime.” This blockade was part of a broader campaign to pressure the company into going beyond its current deforestation-free commitments and taking stronger action to eliminate forest destruction from its supply chains.
The protest was timed to coincide with global calls for urgent climate action ahead of key environmental summits. Greenpeace argued that despite Unilever’s public commitments to sustainability, the company still sources palm oil and other commodities linked to deforestation, particularly in the Amazon and Southeast Asia.
Greenpeace UK’s spokesperson stated that the action was necessary to highlight the gap between Unilever’s promises and the reality on the ground, where forests continue to be destroyed to meet the demand for ingredients used in consumer goods. The blockade lasted several hours, drawing widespread media attention and putting Unilever in the spotlight once again for its environmental impact.
Unilever responded by reiterating its commitment to achieving a deforestation-free supply chain by 2023 and emphasised the progress it had already made. However, Greenpeace criticised this response as insufficient, calling for stricter measures and transparency to ensure that no more forests are destroyed in the production of Unilever’s products.
Ongoing Tensions: Is Unilever Doing Enough?
Despite Unilever’s public commitments, Greenpeace’s criticism has not subsided. In 2019, Greenpeace published a report titled “Countdown to Extinction,” in which it accused Unilever and other consumer goods companies of failing to meet their deforestation-free commitments. The report pointed out that, while Unilever had made strides in sourcing certified sustainable palm oil, the broader issue of forest destruction was far from resolved, with illegal deforestation continuing in many regions.
Greenpeace’s criticism also extends to the broader corporate narrative of sustainability. The organisation has accused Unilever of “greenwashing”—using its sustainability initiatives as a marketing tool while continuing to engage in practices that harm the environment. For Greenpeace, Unilever’s efforts, while significant, are often overshadowed by the scale of the environmental crisis, particularly as deforestation and biodiversity loss accelerate.
A Complex Path Forward: Cooperation and Criticism
In recent years, Unilever and Greenpeace have also found common ground. Unilever, recognising the need for broader systemic change, has pushed for more stringent industry standards on sustainability and deforestation. Greenpeace, while maintaining its critical stance, has acknowledged the progress that companies like Unilever have made in shifting towards more sustainable supply chains.
For example, in 2020, Unilever announced a new “Regenerative Agriculture” commitment, pledging to help rebuild critical ecosystems and ensure its entire supply chain is deforestation-free by 2023. While Greenpeace remains cautious about the pace and effectiveness of such initiatives, it continues to play a vital role in holding companies like Unilever accountable for their promises.
A Lone Battle for Environmental Integrity
The relationship between Unilever and Greenpeace highlights the delicate balance between corporate responsibility and environmental activism. While Unilever has made strides in sustainability, Greenpeace’s “lone battle” for environmental accountability serves as a reminder that progress is often incremental, and the fight for true sustainability requires constant pressure and vigilance.
The recent blockade in England underscores the ongoing tension between corporate commitments and environmental reality. Greenpeace’s campaigns have undoubtedly shaped Unilever’s policies, forcing the company to confront its environmental impact more directly. However, the underlying question remains: Is it enough? As the global environmental crisis intensifies, the clash between corporate interests and ecological preservation continues, with Greenpeace standing firm as a watchdog in a world that desperately needs change.
