It will certainly come as no surprise to learn that Greenpeace has a problem with Shell. Environmental groups and oil companies are never usually in agreement, but now our favourite toy brand has been dragged in to the battle.
At Bricking Around we try and avoid topics that are known to cause comment sections to descend into chaos – such as politics – so we are going to do our best to keep this discussion factual. We don’t want to get into a climate change debate; that’s not what Bricking Around is about. It is also worth pointing out that this is a LEGO blog and our opinions are going to be somewhat biased. We will do our best to look at this objectively.
After releasing statements condemning the partnership between LEGO and Shell, Greenpeace has released the following video.
Regardless of whether you agree with the message, it is hard to argue that it’s not a well produced video. It is also getting a lot of attention from global media outlets.
Rather than getting involved in the emotionality of the subject, let’s look at each aspect in a bit more detail.
The Shell – LEGO Partnership
The key issue that Greenpeace are objecting to is this partnership, but what does the partnership actually involve?
In the early days of LEGO there were several Shell themed sets produced. One such example is the 1966 set 325 Shell Service Station. These sets continued to appear infrequently through the 80s and 90s. All up, our research found around 38 sets produced between 1966 and 1999. Over a 33 year period, that is not a lot of sets. LEGO generally prefer to use their own Octan branding for sets.
If the Shell sets are so infrequent, then why has Greenpeace decided to target LEGO now? One reason may be the recent Shell Ferrari Promotion. LEGO released a series of 6 sets in conjunction with Ferrari and Shell. These sets were made available exclusively at Shell retailers to promote their V-Power branded petrol.
We find the link between these sets and Shell’s drilling operations to be a bit distant. The sets were marketed more substantially as a Ferrari product, not as a Shell product. Consumers were required to go to a Shell service station to get the sets, but it is unlikely that people were buying more petrol than usual.
The only LEGO set that we could find with a link to drilling was the 1977 set 373 Offshore Rig with Fuel Tanker.
In an official response to the complaint Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, CEO of the LEGO Group, referred to a long term Shell contract that was started in 2011. We don’t know the specifics of the contract, but from our research there doesn’t seem to be a lot of Shell promotion done since 2011.
LEGO’s Halo Effect
The description of the Greenpeace video says the following
LEGO’s halo effect is being used to sell propaganda to children, especially by an unethical corporation who are busy destroying the natural world our children will inherit, we have to do something.
It is obvious to anybody looking at this issue that Greenpeace are engaging in the same tactic that they are accusing Shell of. Greenpeace are using the popularity of LEGO and The LEGO Movie to draw attention to their cause. The number of media articles about their campaign has skyrocketed since they made the decision to involve LEGO.
The Shell partnership is a minimal part of LEGO’s overall operation. The Greenpeace claim that the partnership is polluting the minds of children is dubious, and we would be very interested to see any evidence to support it. To a child, a Shell branded set isn’t an endorsement of Shell as a company. It’s just a petrol station. Children now, just as in the 60s, live in a world where their parents put petrol in cars. Petrol is a fact of life, and the LEGO-Shell partnership does nothing to alter that reality.
Part what makes LEGO appealing is that they produce sets that reflect the world. When electric cars are more common we should want/expect LEGO houses with electric charging outlets. A LEGO version of an electric car should be a safe future prediction, if the technology continues to progress.
Is LEGO Bad For The Environment?
The Greenpeace campaign talks primarily about marketing and branding issues, and does not directly accuse LEGO of poor environmental performance. Having said that, it is undeniable that the specifics of the message are going to become less clear as the story spreads. The attention is going to cause people to look at LEGO’s environmental credentials more closely.
As one of the worlds largest toy manufacturers LEGO is faced with a lot of difficult environmental problems. From statements that they have released, LEGO are aware of their global obligations and appear to taking actions to mitigate their impact.
- In 2013 LEGO reduced the impact of shipping by reducing the sizes of product boxes. Allowing more items to be included in each shipment.
- In 2012 the LEGO Group’s parent company KIRKBI A/S, announced an investment of approx. EUR 400 million in the development of an offshore wind farm.
- The LEGO Group has a long term ambition of ensuring that by 2020, 100% of our energy will be balanced by renewable energy sources.
It would be wrong for us to highlight these positive environmental initiatives without including one simple fact. LEGO products are made from Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and butadiene is a petroleum hydrocarbon. ABS is also recyclable.
The Arctic
Greenpeace campaign is about oil operations in the Arctic, and LEGO has just released a range of Arctic themed sets. Surprisingly Greenpeace don’t seem to make any mention of these sets.
If you have a look at the City Arctic range, it all seems very harmless. The minifigures are explorers gathering ice crystals.
The US version of The LEGO Club also has some great information about the region, targeted towards kids.
But everyone in Camp knows they mustn’t hurt the Polar Bear if they can avoid it. Polar Bears are a ‘vulnerable’ species because so much of their habitat is melting away!
We believe that LEGO’s City Arctic range does more to encourage education on the region than the negative effects of their Shell partnership. Perhaps that is why the theme was ignored by Greenpeace.
Should LEGO end their partnership with Shell?
We don’t think they need to; the production of 6 sets sold for a limited time at petrol stations isn’t influencing anybody. We don’t think that LEGO should be producing a range of Shell themed sets, but currently we don’t find anything particularly objectionable about their actions. As long as they stick to limited sets such as the recent Ferrari vehicles, the partnership seems harmless.
The Greenpeace campaign targets a partnership that no longer yields a large number of sets and they completely ignore the new range of sets that promote exploration and research of the Arctic region.
Nice work, a good balanced article.
Great article. Thanks for letting us know about this campaign. TBH I thought the artic sets looked eerily like the camp and vehicles from the movie the thing. Add a a set like 7693 and you can play out some movie scenes hehehe.
Greenpeace’s take on the shell relationship is pretty lopsided and not very solid.
In discussing the point about the impact of LEGO bricks on the environment, the LEGO group has tried to find sustainable alternatives to ABS, but have thus far not reached a point where the quality of the alternative plastic is good enough (they have released environmental reports).
ABS is reportedly currently difficult to recycle; and in fact discarded in some plants. So the takeaway message would be to keep bricks in circulation throughout the community to avoid them ending up in the environment.
I completely agree with the idea that making company-branded LEGO sets is an endorsement of that company by LEGO. However, I don’t agree that there’s anything particularly bad about this partnership. Yes, Shell gathers oil and sells it to people, but I blame society as a whole for this situation. As long as the demand for oil remains, someone is obviously going to supply it, whether it be Shell, BP or someone else. Governments must convert the world to renewable energy; it’s unrealistic and farcical to expect an oil company to do so.
Greenpeace used numerous counterfeit bricks in their video, such as the cigar, the HALO soldier and the Game of Thrones people. If they make a video purely to accuse others of being unethical, they shouldn’t do the same. I’ve had a low opinion of Greenpeace ever since they destroyed the CSIRO’s GM experiments and, once again, they’ve made me less supportive of them.
Thank you to the author of this article for writing an extremely credible and well researched article. I honestly believe main stream journalists could learn a lot from articles like these that present facts and evidence and allow the readers to come to their own conclusions.
+1 to all the above comments that have praised the factual and well-presented arguments in this article. It’s either very sad or incredibly …. awesome (see what I did there?) to have this quality of writing on a LEGO blog.
Shall we stop buying LEGO because the Ninja Turtles (or Star Wars) promote violence? What about DUPLO Set 10504 ‘My First Circus’? A lot of animal abuse goes on in the back of the Big Top. 41015 Dolphin Cruiser has people on jet skis right next to a small dolphin pod – let’s call a boycott!
LEGO do a lot of good – the City Arctic theme immediately sprung to mind when I read about this, but it’s an extension of the exploration themes started in the 90s, most notably in the Space sets.
I like Greenpeace, they do a lot of good on a lot of issues – but sometimes people stuff up. Riding LEGO’s wave of post-movie success is misguided, misleading and just generally poor form.
Thanks again for the article.