PP2: Breaches of Ethics
Deceptive Sustainability: ExxonMobil’s Misleading Plastic Recycling Campaign
In September 2024, the California Department of Justice filed a landmark lawsuit against ExxonMobil, accusing the company of deceiving the public for decades about the recyclability of plastics (NPR). The lawsuit claimed that ExxonMobil’s ads and public messaging led people to believe plastic could be reused and recycled endlessly, even though the company’s own research showed that wasn’t true. ExxonMobil pushed this idea that recycling could fix the plastic problem for years, when, in reality, it couldn’t. ExxonMobil’s misleading campaign wasn’t just false advertising; it was an ethical failure that shaped how the public thought about waste and environmental responsibility.
ExxonMobil is the largest publicly traded oil and gas company in the world (Statista), known for its massive influence on global energy production and environmental policy. Formed in 1998 through the merger of Exxon and Mobil, the company operates in nearly every part of the petroleum industry—from drilling and refining to chemical manufacturing and plastics production. Its size and power have made it one of the most recognizable corporations in the world, as well as one of the most controversial. Over the years, ExxonMobil has faced repeated criticism for its environmental impact, from oil spills to its role in contributing to climate change. Despite this, the company has maintained a strong public image through extensive advertising and public relations efforts, often positioning itself as a leader in innovation and sustainability.
The roots of their issues go back to the 1970s, when people first started worrying about how much plastic waste was polluting the Earth. Around that time, major oil and chemical companies like Exxon, Mobil, and DuPont came together to reassure the public that plastic wasn’t a problem because it could be recycled. ExxonMobil was one of the biggest voices behind that message, communicating to the public through a variety of tactics, including:
- An issue from Time Magazine on July 17, 1989 calls on the public to recycle in an article titled, "The Urgent Need to Recycle." This article was sponsored by the Council for Solid Waste Solutions, whose executive board members included Exxon Chemical Company and Mobil Chemical Company. Right after this article is a statement from Mobil Chemical Company that ensures their commitment to fighting climate change. These articles are referenced in a case study from Virginia Tech as, "sinister foreshadowing."
- In the years 2020-2023, ExxonMobil paid the American Chemistry Council $19.4 million for ad campaigns and national policy work over advanced recycling (ProPublica). The lawsuit claims that these strategies are deceptive. One commercial from America's Plastic Makers (whom ExxonMobil is a member of and the American Chemistry Council sponsors) is mentioned specifically in the lawsuit for its use of misleading language:
But according to California’s lawsuit, Exxon’s own scientists had already figured out that large-scale recycling didn’t actually work. Most plastics couldn’t be reused in a cost-effective way, and sorting or melting them down was expensive and inefficient (rePurpose). Even with that knowledge, Exxon kept funding advertising campaigns that made recycling look simple and effective. Those messages gave people the false sense that they were helping the planet, when in reality, most of that plastic ended up in landfills or the ocean.
When California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit, one thing he stated about ExxonMobil’s (and other major oil companies) actions was “From extreme heat to drought and water shortages, the climate crisis they have caused is undeniable. It is time they pay to abate the harm they have caused” (LA Times). The state argued that Exxon misled the public for more than fifty years and shifted the blame for plastic pollution onto consumers. Instead of cutting back on production or investing in real solutions, the company told people that the problem was their fault for not recycling enough.
Today, less than five percent of plastic waste in the U.S. actually gets recycled (Beyond Plastics). Meanwhile, ExxonMobil continues to expand plastic production around the world. The company has defended itself by pointing to new “advanced recycling technologies,” claiming they can convert old plastics into new ones. Environmental groups, on the other hand, say that’s mostly a marketing spin. Greenpeace and other organizations have called these so-called “innovations” a distraction that lets Exxon keep producing more plastic under the illusion of progress.
From an ethical perspective, ExxonMobil’s actions break some of the most basic principles of honesty and accountability. First, the company knowingly spread false information. Ethical communication means telling the truth, especially when it affects public behavior or policy. By pretending that recycling was an easy solution, Exxon kept people from understanding how serious the plastic problem really was.
Second, the company ignored its responsibility to the public. Corporations have a duty to communicate truthfully, especially about issues that affect the environment and people’s health. Instead, ExxonMobil’s actions encouraged people to keep using single-use plastics without questioning the bigger system behind it. The harm caused by that misinformation—both to the planet and to public trust—shows how dangerous false advertising can be when it comes from a company with that much influence.
Finally, this case shows how easily ethics get lost when profits take priority. ExxonMobil benefited from selling millions of tons of plastic while the environmental costs were pushed onto everyone else (MacroTrends). From an ethical standpoint, the short-term financial gain doesn’t justify the long-term damage.
ExxonMobil’s story also shows how public relations can be used in harmful ways. The company’s recycling campaign wasn’t just a few ads—it was a coordinated effort involving industry groups, schools, and community programs. Exxon helped fund classroom materials that taught kids about the importance of recycling, while carefully avoiding any talk about reducing plastic use or corporate accountability.
This kind of messaging is a form of information control. It shapes the story the public hears and hides the parts that might make the company look bad. ExxonMobil used its PR power to rewrite the narrative, turning a production problem into a “personal responsibility” issue. The result was decades of misunderstanding about how recycling really works.
The ethical problems with ExxonMobil’s recycling claims go far beyond one lawsuit. They highlight how companies can use persuasive communication to shape public opinion and avoid real accountability. When big corporations exaggerate or lie about being “green,” it makes people doubt genuine sustainability efforts too. That kind of skepticism hurts everyone—consumers, activists, and even businesses that are actually trying to make a change.
Ultimately, the ExxonMobil case is about more than plastic. It’s about truth in communication. When companies deliberately mislead the public, they break the trust that responsible journalism, advertising, and public relations depend on. ExxonMobil’s false recycling narrative is a reminder that ethics in communication aren’t optional—they’re essential. Without them, even the best intentions can turn into manipulation.
Comments
Post a Comment