How did Unilever penetrate Istanbul’s public spaces with its unique greenwashing strategy?
In 2020, Unilever, through its kitchen/bathroom cleaning sub-brand Cif, announced the launch of a corporate social responsibility (Burke & Logsdon, 1996; Carroll, 2008; Latapí Agudelo et al, 2019; Vallentin & Murillo, 2022) project called “Beautiful while Clean” in collaboration with the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and the Turkish Red Crescent. The project included the installation of +20 “çöpkapar (garbage trap)” along the shores of the Bosphorus in Karaköy, Eminönü, and Kadıköy. The busy pedestrian underpasses in Karaköy and Eminönü and a BRT station were renovated. On the Kadıköy shore, now known as Cif Kadıköy Park, was landscaped over an area of approximately 400 m2.
The primary objective of this study is to elucidate the evolving manifestations of phenomena such as neoliberal urbanization (Theodore et al, 2011), the commercialization of public space, and systematic dispossession during the 2020s. This exploration is facilitated through a focused analysis centered on Istanbul, which aims to underscore the significance of opaque relationships forged between corporate entities and public authorities within this transformative context. Additionally, the study seeks to underscore the pervasive influence of capitalist ideology on business practices. By delineating the shortcomings inherent in these phenomena, the study seeks to shed light on the gradual erosion of foundational democratic principles at the local level and advocates for the revitalization of citizenship, which is increasingly being relegated to a consumerist role.
This research is based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives from Unilever, the local government officials (including the Istanbul Metropolitan and district municipalities), and the former Red Crescent Beykoz brand manager and some workers. The research also encompasses the examination of contract and project documents, spatial planning decisions, on-site/map measurements, and consultations with experts and Istanbulites.
Before presenting the findings, it is important to contextualize the research process. Throughout the course of this research, I was confronted with instances of unethical behavior, including bribery, nepotism, and corruption, which often dismayed me. Consequently, I made a concerted effort to ensure that these scandalous events did not overshadow the primary objectives of the research. Maintaining focus on the research objectives amidst a deluge of information and documents that might otherwise be considered sensational was a significant challenge.
We have observed a multifaceted exploitation of both public space and its representation through off-site (TV, social media, etc.) advertising. Every day, 585 thousand pedestrians actively utilize the underpass, metro station, and park (Arman, 2021). When factoring in exposure to garbage traps, the physical impact area encompasses over 1 million people daily. For almost four years, a de facto shadow property right has been acquired in Istanbul’s most prominent public spaces, but the public is still unable to access information.
According to the Brand Audit, -as the sponsor of COP26- Unilever has ranked as the third-highest polluter among the top corporate plastic polluters globally for the last five years (BFFP, 2023). Despite ongoing investigations into one of Unilever’s greenwashing campaigns (CMA, 2023), which disguised itself as a social responsibility initiative, the project succeeded in bolstering company profitability as anticipated (see: Friedman, 1970). Utilizing guerrilla and viral social media ads featuring celebrities and influencers played a key role in this success. The capital-driven project bypassed normal bureaucratic processes and came to fruition in a matter of months. Directives were issued by the mayor after a personal meeting with the CEO of Unilever Turkey, bypassing traditional channels of municipal oversight.
Following the agreement, the Red Crescent Beykoz branch received a 3.5 million TRY donation (adjusted for inflation) from Unilever. The company also provided “gifts” to some municipal staff to expedite bureaucratic processes.
However, details of the municipality’s agreement with Unilever remain undisclosed, with information requests denied citing “trade secrets.” BİMTAŞ, a municipal company, was responsible for designing the renovation of the Eminönü and Karaköy pedestrian underpasses and the Cif Kadıköy Park. Surprisingly, the Red Crescent’s Beykoz (Eurasia) branch, which is not typically involved in construction, was in charge of project implementation. However, Unilever’s role in the design and implementation remains unproven. Unilever’s refusal to take responsibility for most of the post-implementation activities created a scenario that disadvantaged the public and potentially led to the mobilization of public resources for the company’s benefit.
The decision to undertake these low-cost spatial interventions along the shores of the Bosphorus, despite their usually negligible impact on municipal budgets, likely stems from the perceived benefits outlined in the Unilever-Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality protocol. The designated “park” in Kadıköy, which covers only 400 m2 and is conspicuously disconnected from its surroundings, epitomizes an extreme form of neoliberal space production. This case illustrates the commodification of public space (Rose-Redwood et al, 2019), as evidenced by the naming rights granted to the sub-brand Cif, which serves as a place branding initiative.
Apart from normal wear and tear, the panels and furniture bearing the Cif brand have remained remarkably free of vandalism. This phenomenon, described by Dekeyser (2021) as “subvertising,” suggests a unique protection of private property within the public realm. Over the past four years, none of the urban opposition elements typically associated with anti-capitalist sentiments have raised concerns about this project. In the academic literature, there are about a dozen articles supporting it, mostly in the fields of business administration and advertising. However, there is a notable absence of academic papers or even a single blog post offering critical perspectives on the project.
We need to reassess traditional research methods in social sciences and urbanism, considering mixed methods guided by empirical insights. Scientists now shoulder the responsibility of translating micro-level information into scholarly knowledge, displacing the traditional roles of journalists and reporters.
The notable silence of the urban opposition contrasts sharply with its strong activism ahead of the 2019 local elections, indicating a strategic adaptation to preserve local gains under an authoritarian central government. Interviews reveal a focus on consolidation among opposition voters currently in power locally. This situation makes it difficult for us to agree with the optimistic arguments expressed by Öktem (2021) when seeking an answer to the question: “Can subnational democracy survive or even flourish under the conditions of an autocratic national government?”
Social fault lines such as secular-religious, Turk-Kurd, or Sunni-Alevi become less important at the local level than at the national level. Despite being at opposite ends of the national spectrum, entities such as the “Red Crescent as an agent of the ruling party AKP” and the “CHP-affiliated municipality” can negotiate smoothly at the local level under a corporation’s interests. This underscores the dominance of pragmatic cooperation over imagined narratives. This parallels the argument that local governments often reinforce central authority (Hommes, 1995).
Municipal corporations, which are the product of neoliberal municipal structuring, perform a very important redistributive function with their informal set of tools, and this is a significant threat to local democracies. Löw (2013) highlighted the risks of local governments exceeding their bounds in partnering with private companies, as seen in her case studies on gated communities, illustrating the privatization of urban public spaces akin to a modern enclosure movement. It is imperative to recall that this emerging mode of governance, adopting market-like behavior and striving to generate revenue through commercial arrangements, frequently draws criticism from both mainstream and non-radical economists alike.
References
Arman, A. (2021). İstanbul Temizken Güzel, personal blog of a former journalist, https://www.armanayse.com/istanbul-temizken-guzel/ (erişim tarihi: 2 Jan, 2024)
BFFP (2023). The Brand Audit 2023 Report: World’s Worst Plastic Polluters, https://brandaudit.breakfreefromplastic.org/brand-audit-2023/ (erişim tarihi: 2 Jan, 2024)
Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495–502.
Carroll, A.B. (2008) A History of Corporate Social Responsibility. In: Crane, A., Matten, D., McWilliams, A., Moon, J. and Siegel, D.S., Eds., the Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
CMA (2023). Unilever’s ‘green’ claims come under CMA microscope, The Competition and Markets Authority, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/unilevers-green-claims-come-under-cma-microscope (erişim tarihi: 2 Jan, 2024)
Dekeyser, T. (2021). Dismantling the advertising city: Subvertising and the urban commons to come. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 39(2), 309–327.
FRIEDMAN, M. (1970). ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13 Sept. 1970: 32–3,124–6.
Hommes, R. (1995). Conflicts and dilemmas of decentralization, Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, edited by Michael Bruno, Boris Pleskovic, (pp. 331–350). World Bank.
Latapí Agudelo, M. A., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International journal of corporate social responsibility, 4(1), 1–23.
Low, S. (2013). How private interests take over public space: Zoning, taxes, and incorporation of gated communities. In The politics of public space (pp. 81–103). Routledge.
Öktem, K. (2021). Dilemmas of Subnational Democracy under Authoritarianism: Istanbul’s Metropolitan Municipality. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 88(2), 501–537.
Rose-Redwood, R., Vuolteenaho, J., Young, C., & Light, D. (2019). Naming rights, place branding, and the tumultuous cultural landscapes of neoliberal urbanism, Urban Geography, 40:6, 747–761,
Theodore, N., Peck, J., & Brenner, N. (2011). Neoliberal urbanism: cities and the rule of markets. The new Blackwell companion to the city, 15–25.
Vallentin, S., & Murillo, D. (2022). Ideologies of Corporate Responsibility: From Neoliberalism to “Varieties of Liberalism”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 32(4), 635–670.
