I’ve been sitting on this one for a while as I think my time is better spent on positivity than negativity, but this ‘survey’ that landed in my inbox earlier this year is a classic example of greenwashing.

I don’t feel inclined to name the tour operator concerned, but it’s another example of a brand using the issue of climate change to try and win a few mentions in the press, without any substantial action to redress the issues they raise.

Nonsensical data

Firstly, let’s look at the nonsensical data that they shared. This is summarised in this table that appeared in The Telegraph.

The headline figure is powerful and undeniable: Climate change is certainly impacting ski holidays. But the other results tell us very little and, in most cases, don’t even make any sense.

“Have seen resorts using artificial snow”
Almost 100% of resorts use artificial snow and have done so for decades. If only one-third of respondents have seen it happen, this tells us only that they weren’t there when the snow cannons were on.

“The seasons are getting shorter”
This is undeniably true. A study by university researchers in Canada, the UK and Austria showed average ski seasons in North America shortened by 5.5 to 7.1 days over the 20-year periods from 1960-1979 compared to 2000-2019.

“The snow isn’t as good as it once was”
This has a real ‘Four Yorkshiremen’ feel to it. “When I were lad, the snow were fluffy and fell every night. It were reet perfect.” What does ‘good’ even mean in this context? Deep? Light? Widespread? Early? Late? It’s a completely meaningless stat.

“There is less snow”
This is equally uninformative. Less snow when? In December or in April? Less snow where? At 1000m or 2500m?

“There are fewer people skiing”
See above. Fewer than when? 1980? 2000? 2023?

“It is warmer than it once was”
I think this question establishes the vacuity of this survey more than any other. Only 25% of respondents think it’s warmer than it once was. See the graph from the NOAA below as a reminder of the direction temperatures are going.

“We are committed to doing what we can as a business…” bla, bla, bla

What irked me even more about this blatant attempt to hitch a lift on the back of climate change in an attempt to get press mentions is that the ‘Sustainability Manager’ [not the job title used in his email signature] of the company concerned claims that:

“We recognise the importance of addressing these challenges and are committed to doing what we can as a business to contribute to mitigating policies and ensure eco-friendly awareness is promoted to protect the sustainability of the ski industry.”

“[The company] has developed a travel sustainability calculator to encourage this awareness and action within their own customer community.”

Train Travel not available

This is classic greenwash guff.

The ‘sustainability calculator’ does exist, but it only offers calculations for flying or driving, with no option for the lowest carbon form of travel to resort – train travel, which the company does not offer.

I asked them why they don’t include train travel as an option, even on the calculator and received this insubstantive reply:

“We don’t include train travel in the carbon footprint calculator as it is not something we sell as part of our packages. As we do not therefore have the direct data, it is not something we can include in our methodology although we would like to.”

Would you prefer to travel by coach?

I also noticed an additional question in the survey claims that more skiers would prefer to travel by coach (25%) than train (18%).

This sounded unlikely, so I asked them about this. Their reply didn’t answer the question again:

“The data we have collected represents the opinion of those surveyed and is not the opinion of [our company]. We wanted a benchmark to start from in understanding our customer views in relation to this matter.”

It’s another indicator that the survey is not credible. Do you know anyone who’d PREFER to travel by coach?

“Committed to mitigating policies”

I asked if the company had made any changes in how staff travel to the Alps, in the light of their “commitment…to mitigating policies”.

Their answer was that they don’t need staff in resort as their holidays are ‘self-managed’ and ‘remove the need for our staff to be physically present’.

They didn’t offer an answer in respect of the UK staff who do travel to and from the Alps for contracting, product visits, familiarisation trips etc

 

Lesson of the day – beware of Greenwash!