At one point, 4Ocean's advertisements seemed omnipresent. They filled my social media feeds, interrupted YouTube videos, and appeared during commercial breaks on television. This Florida-based organization claims to be a "movement to end the ocean plastic crisis."

As a passionate surfer and scuba diver, I am deeply concerned about the vast amounts of plastic littering our oceans. Naturally, I was intrigued by the chance to contribute to cleaning them up. A compelling video stating that “one bracelet can save the ocean” captivated me and led me to their website. However, as I neared the checkout, doubts crept in. I wondered: Does my purchase genuinely aid in ocean cleanup? If it does, what percentage of my money actually goes to these efforts? How can I be sure?

My quest for answers resulted in hours of reading reviews, articles, and interviews, ultimately leading to a significant conclusion:

4Ocean operates as a profit-driven business disguised as a philanthropic initiative, utilizing aggressive marketing and questionable credibility to mislead countless individuals into believing they are contributing to ocean preservation, while its actual impact may be minimal or even detrimental.

Allow me to elaborate.

4Ocean is Driven by Profit

Contrary to what many believe, 4Ocean is not a non-profit organization; it is a for-profit company. While this isn’t inherently negative, it carries crucial implications:

1. 4Ocean has no obligation to allocate the funds it receives toward tackling the plastic crisis.
2. As a privately held entity, 4Ocean is not required to disclose any financial data to the public.

This discrepancy between public perception and the reality of their operations is where the issues arise.

Although 4Ocean doesn’t openly claim to be a non-profit, their marketing language creates that impression. Their advertisements and website prompt individuals to "join the movement," and a recent blog claimed they aim to "educate viewers about the ocean plastic crisis and empower them to become part of the solution."

Upon reviewing online feedback, I discovered that I wasn't alone in believing 4Ocean was a non-profit.

"I thought I was supporting a global nonprofit agency," lamented one dissatisfied customer on BBB.org. "I bought one of their bracelets and it fell apart within weeks. I also learned they are NOT a charity... 4Ocean misleads people into thinking they are charitable when they are merely a profit-driven enterprise that tries hard to appear like a charity," another review on Trustpilot.com stated. A customer from the Czech Republic echoed my thoughts: "This company attempts to present itself as a charity or organization; it’s not clearly stated anywhere, but most people believe they are a charity due to their marketing."

In response, 4Ocean asserted, "We do not imply that we are a charity. We have never stated or suggested that we are." However, they engage with customers who mention "donations" without clarifying that purchases are not donations.

Why does 4Ocean operate for profit? Founder Alex Schulze noted, "We preferred not to pursue a non-profit route, choosing instead to create a product and a sustainable business model that could endure long after we are gone."

This viewpoint misrepresents the role of non-profits. 4Ocean could still sell bracelets and other products to fund clean-up activities as a non-profit. The key difference would be that they would need to reinvest all revenues into their mission, instead of distributing profits to shareholders, and would have to provide transparency regarding fund allocation.

Examining the Financials

Where does the money actually go? 4Ocean claims, "Our bracelets exclusively fund all our cleanups worldwide." It’s crucial to note that they don’t specify that bracelet sales solely finance their cleanup efforts, leaving us uncertain whether it’s 100% or a mere fraction of the proceeds that contribute to plastic removal.

Let’s break down the numbers.

4Ocean sells its bracelets for $20, promising to clean one pound of ocean trash with each sale.

Initially, the cost of the bracelet. Researching online, I found that bracelets similar to 4Ocean's can be sourced for as little as $0.50 each on Alibaba. For conservativeness, let’s estimate a cost of $1 per bracelet, yielding a gross margin of around 95%.

Some may argue that since the purpose of the bracelets is to fund ocean cleanups, a high gross margin is acceptable. However, it’s vital to reiterate that 4Ocean is not a charity, raising the question of how much of that 95% actually contributes to their cleanup mission.

4Ocean employs paid trash collectors in locations like Haiti, Bali, and Florida, while also organizing volunteer cleanup events in about 24 countries. According to a 2009 report, cleanup costs vary widely, ranging from $100 per metric ton for volunteer efforts to an average of $1,500 per metric ton for paid cleaning in the Asia-Pacific region. This translates to about $0.05 per pound for volunteer cleanups and approximately $0.68 per pound for professional cleaning. Given that many of 4Ocean's paid cleaners work in low-wage countries, this estimate may be on the higher side. How many bracelets do you think 4Ocean would sell if the public knew that only between 0.25% and 3% of their purchase actually aids in cleaning up plastic?

After facing criticism for utilizing free labor to collect trash, 4Ocean claimed that the trash gathered during these volunteer events doesn't count toward their pledge of removing one pound of trash for every bracelet sold. They argued that their trash tracker is “ahead” of the number of bracelets sold. Yet, in a 2017 press release, 4Ocean boasted about having collected "820,000 lbs of trash from oceans and coastlines in 27 countries," implying that volunteer collections may indeed be included.

Subtracting cleanup and bracelet costs leaves over $18 unaccounted for. Organizational overhead might take $1-$2, packaging could cost another dollar, and then there’s advertising. "I've seen your ads around 250 times in the last month. If I had known that every dollar I spent on my bracelet went towards ads rather than actual cleanup, I would never have supported you," one customer noted. Business Insider reported that 4Ocean is the 14th largest buyer of Facebook ads, spending $3,654,791 from May 2018 to October 2019. Adding their advertising costs across other platforms, it’s reasonable to estimate that 4Ocean spends around $5 million annually on ads. Based on previous calculations, this translates to $2.50 per bracelet sold, suggesting that 4Ocean spends between 3.5x and 50x more of their customers’ money on ads than on cleanup efforts.

This leaves at least two-thirds of the bracelet price as net profits. Could this money be enriching 4Ocean’s founders? In defense of a YouTuber’s inquiry regarding the founders’ earnings, 4Ocean stated that Andrew Cooper and Alex Schulze each only take 0.7% of revenue as salary. However, since 4Ocean is an LLC, the founders own the company and its assets. This means they could have tens of millions of dollars on their books without having withdrawn any of it.

Another possibility is that the founders might be covering personal expenses, such as cars and living costs, through business expenses. Until 4Ocean provides complete financial transparency—similar to how other social businesses like Ecosia operate—these remain mere speculations.

Are They Making a Positive Impact?

Even if a small portion of bracelet sales goes toward ocean cleanup, one might argue they are still making a positive difference. 4Ocean’s advertisements claim, "this recycled bracelet is saving the ocean."

Since 2017, 4Ocean asserts they have collected over 7 million lbs of trash. However, when compared to the annual influx of 8 million tons of new plastic, it becomes clear that 4Ocean is addressing only about 0.01% of the annual increase in plastic entering the ocean. To keep pace with this rising tide, 4Ocean would need to sell over two bracelets to each of the world’s 7.6 billion people every year. Their claims that bracelet sales will save the ocean are grossly exaggerated.

Some might argue that this is still 0.01% more than what most individuals are contributing to ocean cleanup. Yet, how reliable is the 7-million-pound figure? How much of this weight is plastic, as opposed to other debris, sand, or water mixed in with the trash?

Perhaps most importantly: how much of this total has actually been extracted from the ocean? Surprisingly, 4Ocean's legal disclaimer states, "Some of the trash removed as part of the 4Ocean one-pound pledge may have been collected from the ocean or a coastline." Some? May have been? This admission indicates that part of the trash they promise to remove from the ocean might not even be from there. But isn’t that the central promise they use to attract customers?

On Trustpilot, reviewer Allen Castro mentioned, "I participated in one of their beach cleanups, and the trash they collected was not from the sea or beach but from the parking lot and surrounding areas. While I commend this effort, they misrepresented the trash by dumping it on the beach." 4Ocean acknowledged this review but did not dispute the essential point.

A former 4Ocean Fleet Operations Manager provided insight into the skewed incentives driving potential dishonesty:

"They prioritize weight as a metric for trash collected, often holding competitions among boat crews to encourage maximum collection. They offer rewards like $50-$100 gift cards, which is significant for crews struggling to make ends meet. Ironically, they claim plastic is the most harmful to the environment, which is true, but overlook its light weight.

Consequently, many crews resort to pulling trash from dumpsters on land, falsely claiming they retrieved it from water or riverbanks. There are videos of crews engaging in 'dumpster diving' to gather trash. Numerous items photographed could not have floated to their location—like church pews, BBQ grills, and steel furniture—many of which show no signs of water exposure! They should be wary of these videos surfacing on social media, where 4Ocean has a considerable presence."

4Ocean's credibility is linked to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which rates companies on trustworthiness for an annual fee. They assert that the "4Ocean TrashTracker™ is audited and verified by the BBB quarterly." While this claim aims to enhance credibility, it raises further questions. How does the BBB verify that the trash statistics reflect actual ocean collection? What is their audit process? What standards are upheld? There is no mention of BBB auditing 4Ocean’s catch on their website, nor does 4Ocean provide any specifics about the process.

Another issue is the source of the plastic. 4Ocean’s advertisements claim the bracelets are made from "our ocean plastic." However, I found no information detailing how 4Ocean transforms ocean plastic into bracelets. Multiple individuals on Trustpilot have requested this information without receiving any response. 4Ocean boasts of being "GreenCircle certified" and adheres to the "Global Recycled Standard," yet these certifications do not provide details about the source of the materials used for their bracelets.

Maintaining Appearances

With so many questions surrounding 4Ocean’s claims and practices, it’s worth considering how they have managed to evade scrutiny for so long. The answer appears to be their proactive efforts to create a facade of credibility while suppressing dissenting voices.

On Glassdoor, a wave of negative reviews abruptly turned positive in early 2019. An anonymous former employee revealed, "Most reviews from March to May were written by employees who were urged by management to post exaggerated and favorable reviews to promote how great 4Ocean is."

What about endorsements from non-profits like Ocean Conservancy and the Oceanic Preservation Society? A closer look reveals that these endorsements were actually in exchange for a one-time $25,000 donation to these organizations. While this amount is significant for an NGO, it is a drop in the bucket for 4Ocean. Although these endorsements lend credibility, they are ultimately paid promotions.

Until recently, visitors to 4Ocean's website were greeted by impressive aerial footage of a large vessel branded as the Ocean Plastic Recovery Vessel (OPR). Launched in November 2018, 4Ocean claimed it would "end 90% of the world’s plastic pollution forever." However, critics point out that 4Ocean has yet to release any footage showing the vessel actively collecting plastic.

In response to inquiries about this, 4Ocean stated in July 2019 that "it’s not ready yet." However, this hasn’t stopped them from using the vessel as evidence of their cleanup effectiveness. In February 2019, 4Ocean responded to critical comments on Trustpilot, asserting, "We have over 20 vessels on the water, including our new 135-foot Ocean Plastic Recovery vessel, which will allow us to collect millions of pounds from the ocean this year." They failed to clarify how the OPR would achieve the dramatic claim of eliminating 90% of plastic pollution.

Numerous individuals have reached out to 4Ocean via email seeking clarification on how funds are allocated, but as far as I can ascertain, 4Ocean has not addressed these inquiries. Customers on Trustpilot reported, "When contacted, they declined to disclose what percentage of their funding goes to the cause" and "the owners only responded with details about employee costs and other gross expenses, ignoring my request for information on their 'profits.'"

On social media, instead of sidestepping the questions, 4Ocean appears to employ a different tactic. One reviewer noted, "I followed this company for over a year, until they blocked me on social media." Another claimed, "I was banned as well, and my comments were deleted." Allen Castro echoed this sentiment, stating, "Many of my friends have asked the same question on their Facebook page. We received no response, and now we are all banned from commenting."

O Sanchez commented, "When I told them that $20 for 20 pounds of trash seemed excessive—considering people working minimum wage ($8.50/hour) can collect 50 or more pounds in an hour—they wouldn’t allow my review to be posted." In reply, 4Ocean claimed, "Reviews on our site are managed by a third party. We do not control what content is published." However, if a third party manages their community engagement, isn’t it still 4Ocean that sets the policies guiding the third party’s actions?

Internal Issues

While the external situation seems troubling, the internal environment at 4Ocean appears equally concerning. Current and former employees on Glassdoor have described 4Ocean as a "marketing company" with a "superficial and dishonest culture" run by "ex-corporate vultures." Numerous individuals have expressed discontent over a "discriminatory work environment where heavier employees were reassigned during photo shoots."

One account details that a larger female crew member was instructed to be absent from her normal duties during camera operations. When she confronted her supervisor about the request, she was told it came directly from headquarters. The photographers denied making such a request, but the evidence exists in text and email form. It seems the organization has a specific image of what its workers should look like. This crew member is now considering pursuing a discrimination case against them. "It’s unfortunate that resources that could be used for actual ocean cleanup will now be diverted to defend against several impending discrimination lawsuits."

Final Thoughts

In summary, the evidence suggests that only a small fraction of the money 4Ocean collects goes toward cleanup efforts, their claimed impact on the plastic crisis is significantly overstated, their products are not made from ocean plastic, and they are actively working to obscure these facts.

Rather than leveraging a business model to promote ocean cleanup, 4Ocean appears to exploit the cause of ocean preservation to bolster its business model.

An anonymous employee on Glassdoor stated, "This is a PR firm, not a 'save the ocean' organization," while another labeled it a "marketing company." Are 4Ocean's practices legally permissible? That’s a question I cannot address, as I lack legal expertise to determine what constitutes false advertising.

However, I can offer a moral evaluation.

On Trustpilot, Kate Schmelka expressed, "I’m still curious about what percentage of the net proceeds benefit the owners versus the cause. This information is crucial for charitable giving decisions. My daughters plan to hold lemonade stands to support 4Ocean, and I hope they are genuinely aiding in ocean cleanup, not just enriching the owners."

Is it right to instill in children the belief that they are contributing to ocean restoration when, in reality, most of their efforts may enrich two businessmen? If 4Ocean's 'TrashTracker' is even somewhat accurate, they may have amassed around $150 million to date—an enormous sum that could have been allocated to NGOs genuinely addressing this crisis. Furthermore, once the inevitable truth about 4Ocean is revealed, how might this breach of trust affect the broader movement for ocean preservation?

A Call for Transparency

Based on my investigation, I believe there are valid concerns regarding 4Ocean’s intentions, yet due to a general lack of information, this cannot be definitively proven. Shouldn’t the responsibility of proof lie with the corporation making claims, rather than the consumer?

I would gladly revise my perspective if 4Ocean could substantiate its claims by providing transparent financial records and verifiable documentation of their trash collection efforts.

As stated on 4Ocean's website, "being transparent" is one of their core values; it shouldn't be too much to ask for clarity in their operations.