.article-native-ad { border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; margin: 0 45px; padding-bottom: 20px; margin-bottom: 20px; } .article-native-ad svg { color: #ddd; font-size: 34px; margin-top: 10px; } .article-native-ad p { line-height:1.5; padding:0!important; padding-left: 10px!important; } .article-native-ad strong { font-weight:500; color:rgb(46,179,178); }
Don’t miss Brandweek, Adweek’s ultimate experience for marketers, September 11-14 in Miami. Connect with peers and gain insights and inspiration from top brand marketers and industry icons at Glossier, Coca-Cola, Taco Bell and more. Register.
Procter & Gamble dropped a reference to forest degradation from its anti-deforestation policy in May this year, a move that green investors and environmental groups have denounced, but that the brand claims is due to streamlining terminology.
The change comes after the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a complaint late last year with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It claimed that P&G—parent company to Charmin, Bounty and Puffs—wasn’t complying with its own no-degradation policy, potentially misleading investors.
#paywall-subscribe { margin:0; padding: 1rem 2.4rem; } #paywall-subscribe .holder { background-color:#eee; border:15px solid #f2f2f2; padding:30px; margin:0 auto!important; text-align:center; } #paywall-subscribe a.underline { color:#000; text-decoration:underline; } #paywall-subscribe img { margin-bottom:10px; width: 140px!important; height: auto!important; } #paywall-subscribe h3 { font-weight:bold; font-size:16px; text-transform:uppercase; width:80%; margin:0 auto; margin-bottom:20px; text-align:center; } #paywall-subscribe h3 span { display:block; font-size:14px; } #paywall-subscribe h2 { font-weight:800; font-size:24px; text-transform:uppercase; } #paywall-subscribe p { font-size: 16px; color:#000; padding: 0; } #paywall-subscribe .cta { margin-top:20px; margin-bottom:10px; font-size:14px; text-transform:capitalize; color: #fff; background-color: #E50000; border:none; padding:12px 28px; text-decoration:none; -webkit-transition: .3s ease; -moz-transition: .3s ease; -o-transition: .3s ease; -ms-transition: .3s ease; transition: .3s ease; } #paywall-subscribe .cta:hover { color: #fff; background-color: #181818; transform: scale(1.02); } #paywall-subscribe .already-a-member { font-size:14px; } @media (max-width: 1024px) { #paywall-subscribe .holder { border:12px solid #f2f2f2; padding:25px; } #paywall-subscribe img { width: 120px!important; } } @media (max-width: 768px) { #paywall-subscribe .holder { border:10px solid #f2f2f2; padding:20px; } #paywall-subscribe img { width: 100px!important; } #paywall-subscribe h3 { font-size:14px; } #paywall-subscribe h3 span { font-size:12px; } #paywall-subscribe h2 { font-size:18px; } #paywall-subscribe p { font-size:14px; } #paywall-subscribe .cta { font-size:12px; padding:10px 24px; } #paywall-subscribe .already-a-member { font-size:11px; } }
WORK SMARTER – LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.
Subscribe today!
To Read the Full Story Become an Adweek+ Subscriber
View Subscription Options
Already a member? Sign in
https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/pg-dropped-its-pledge-against-forest-degradation-that-could-hurt-its-brands-in-the-long-run/