The Greenwasher in All of Us

With the greening of business moving swiftly into the mainstream, there's been a renewed focus on greenwashing -- "what corporations do when they try to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are," in the words of the watchdog group Sourcewatch.

The increased scrutiny isn't necessarily a bad thing. Companies should be held accountable for what they say and do. And there are plenty of examples where companies have attempted to apply a green sheen to their far-from-perfect environmental records. In the early 1990s, a handful of consumer-product companies were publicly spanked for their misleading green statements by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission as well as a consortium of state attorneys general led by Minnesota's then-AG Hubert Humphrey III.

But the feds, and most state and local governments, have opted out of policing green claims. With good reason: There are few agreed-upon standards for being a green business. (This is not the case for green products, for which there are numerous -- some would say too many -- certification schemes.) True, the FTC in 1992 promulgated some Green Marketing Guidelines, which say, in effect, that if you want to call something "recyclable," it's not enough that the claim be technically true; average consumers must be able to actually recycle it in their community. But again, that's about products, not companies.

More recently, we the people have assumed the role of green police, determining who's naughty and nice from a green-marketing perspective. With the help of blogs, wikis, and good old fashioned protests and press releases, activist groups and self-styled experts are exercising their constitutional right to have a point of view on the topic -- and broadcast it far and wide.

Is it a blessing or a curse? Probably a little of each. For starters, there's far from unanimity of opinion. Do BP's, or Wal-mart's, or GE's green initiatives render them benevolent leaders or malevolent greenwashers? You can find passionate opinion claiming both.

I've been seeing the "G" word showing up more and more, in both local and national media. And while it's generally good that we maintain high standards for companies' seeking to claim environmental leadership, I can't help but ponder the hypocrisy of it all: how much more we expect of companies than of ourselves.

When I speak to audiences about the greening of business -- nearly every week these days, or so it seems -- I often conduct an informal poll to see how audience members behave in their personal lives: how many drive hybrids or carpool to work, or are simply driving less; how many have installed solar panels or purchase green energy for their homes; how many use organic or low-toxic gardening techniques; how many seek out locally produced goods; how many have taken the basic measures at home -- have installed energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances, water-saving devices, insulation and weatherstripping, and the like.

Some audiences are more tentative than others in volunteering answers, but even the most enthusiastic groups tend to have only a handful of members who appear to taking more than a few token actions.

That is, few of us have gone very far out of our way to make changes that we all know are necessary to address today's environmental challenges.

This admittedly unscientific research has limited value, of course, except to raise the inevitable question: Why aren't we doing what we're asking companies to do?

I'm guessing that in the few seconds it took for you to read the preceding question you've already formulated some kind of answer: It's hard to do everything right . . . It takes too much time and costs too much . . . I want to do these things, but never seem to get around to it . . . My spouse/partner/friends don't share my interest in being environmentally responsible . . . I'm not sure which products and companies are truly the good ones . . . I have doubts that if I do these things that it'll really make a difference.

Sound even a little familiar? Does that make you malevolent? Probably not, though reasonable minds will disagree.

One need modify the above statements only slightly to make them appropriate for companies. As I've found over the past twenty years of engaging CEOs and line employees of companies both big and small, they, too, find it hard to do everything right, and though their intentions may be honorable, there always seem to be competing priorities. It may be that few of their competitors or trading partners are acting green, and being a pioneer can be lonely, not to mention set oneself up as a target for all kinds of slings and arrows. And they often wonder whether one business can really make a difference.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that companies be let off the hook. As I've said, they need to be held to high standards, especially those making green claims. But all of this begs a question that I've been asking audiences and discussing with hundreds of people over the past couple of years: What must a company do to be considered "green"? What is the minimum level of policies, programs, performance, and progress that a company must exhibit to be seen as green?

Or, more to the point: How good is "good enough"?

I don't have an answer to this question -- none of us does, and that's a problem. We know what it means to be "organic," or to be a "green building." There are standards for both. But we don't know what it means to be a green business. As with beauty, green is in the eye of the beholder.

As another Earth Day approaches, and the PR machines of activist groups and corporations alike rev up to promote countless campaigns, products, announcements, and self-promotional consumer tips, we'll no doubt see more than a few stories on greenwashing -- tales of companies that, despite their green-minded statements or claims, are far from perfect. (I've already been interviewed for several stories, both print and broadcast.)

As we watch and read these stories and, perhaps, proffer some inner expression of support -- "Attaboy! Nail those bastards!" -- it may well be worth committing a split second or two to self-reflection: "Am I really doing all that I can to address the environmental problems that concern me most?" "Do I profess one thing and do another?" "Do my friends think I'm greener than I really am?" "Am I holding others to a higher standard than myself?"

And, in the process, perhaps acknowledge that there is, indeed, a little greenwasher in all of us.

| | | | |

---

CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC E-MAIL UPDATES WHENEVER A NEW ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED TO 'TWO STEPS FORWARD'

---

Comments

[Chris Harges]

Part of the problem is that action is difficult without information. In this case, the missing information is an understandable set of standards businesses or consumers can use to help them make decisions.

For consumers, the problem is most apparent when it comes to "sustainable" products. The problem is twofold. First, too many, vastly different practices (from “recyclable” to “no child labor”) get grouped under the “sustainable” umbrella. Second, there is no user-friendly benchmark to refer to when making claims. Even when it comes to hard facts like energy used in manufacturing, a consumer is not likely to make much of a five-digit number followed by “BTU” or “kWh.”

Until understandable standards are developed and consumers are educated about these standards, even the most active LOHAS consumers are just shooting in the dark. The rest of us stand puzzled in front of store shelves wondering what to do.

[Greg Chambers]

Having spent a few decades in the corporate world, I always view these green declarations with a grain of salt, especially from larger companies. What they do at one site may likely not be happening at all sites. Think of a corporation that is decentralized. Each site manager gets to make his own decisions. So even though the Corporate office is doing something that does not automatically mean all sites are doing it unless they make that kind of declaration. gc

[click here if you care about the environment]

What a company does if far more important to me than what they say.

[Bobby Croghan]

As a commercial interior designer, I am bombarded with all the green statistics of products and building strategies. Then we get a "lunch and learn" toting all of these new products and procedures...served on what? Plasticware. It takes a ton of research and time, AND trust, to know who is doing what they say and if they have a truly vested interest in the environment.

[Danna]

It often times is too expensive. I looked into solar panels for our home, and was told that it would take 20 years to pay them off at our high month current electric rates. If we sold our house, we would be left with the bill still. No way, can I do that.

Also, we have to remember that when we take energy conserving actions on individual basis that result in savings, we have to put that savings into more conservation, or into companies that save energy in production or services. Otherwise, our savings, when invested or spent hap-hazardly will increase energy use elsewhere. That is why a nation wide effort is really needed. If everybody is required to install practices that save energy, than our savings goes back into a energy sustainable, and global warming reducing economy by rule (or by law). And the companies that don't invest in such things, will not have a short term competetive advantage.

[Bogman]

I'm as guilty as the rest, I suppose. I drive a hybrid but I still haven't called our utility company to see if we can purchase renewable energy. I have chosen 20 percent of my investments to be with socially responsible companies, but our front and backyard lawns and gardens are water hogs in what is essentially a desert.

It does take time and energy, few things people have much of these days. But I think I'm like most people in that I want to lead a moral life on this Earth. And if I ignore the environment, especially at this critical stage, then I really can't consider myself moral.

I've thought that it must be even more difficult for businesses, where the issues are more complex and bottomline is reviewed every quarter.

[Eddie B]

"enough" is as we know a subjective word, so until clear guidelines emerge there will be greenwashing.

these guidelines are inherently industry specific and most likely will come from an industry specific group. take for example the newly formed RITE group in the UK, which "aims to provide advice and fact based information to minimise the negative environmental impact of the production, use and disposal of textiles and apparel. The Group's ultimate goal is to drive forward the sustainable and ethical production of textiles and clothing throughout the global supply chain through a number of innovative initiatives." http://www.ritegroup.org/

in some cases these associations can and should use academic help in developing their guidelines. Cambridge's Institute for Manufacturing's Sustainable Manufacturing Group (http://tinyurl.com/2p9npw) makes available an extensive report which could help textile industries around the world develop their sustainability programs.

of course, having multiple certifications bodies within one industry around the world is bad. having multiple cert bodies within one country is terrible. But it is progress from where we are today - where there isnt even a solid agreement on the definition of sustainability...

[Natural Patriot]

Good points about practicing what we preach. And great site generally. I've added you to my blogroll at:

The Natural Patriot
"In order to form a more perfect union"

[Luke P]

For an intersting and critical perspective on the use of 'sustainability' talk and corporate social repsonsibility as 'greenwashing', this book is excellent:

Johnston, J., M. Gismondi, and J. Goodman 2006. Nature’s Revenge: Reclaiming Sustainability in an Age of Corporate Globalization. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.

[Paul Bertram]

One of the problems in evaluating the sustainability of construction products is that manufacturers have become confused about what and how to report information on their products. This is a result of no exisitng industry accepted sustainable product attribute reporting guides. ASTM E- 2129, Standard Practice for Data Collection for Sustainability Assessment of Building Products (see www.astm.org search e2129), is a good beginning but many manufacturers do not utilize because the designers are not requesting that standard. Instead many firms created their own questionnaires.

CSI, The construction Specifications Institue has introduced GreenFormat as a possible solution.

The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Sustainable Facilities Task Team has created a product data format that will organize the ‘green’ properties of building materials and components used during construction. After months of development work, the initial result of these efforts—CSI GreenFormat: A Reporting Guide for Sustainable Criteria of Products—will soon be available for a limited beta test.

GreenFormat will provide a standardized format for reporting information about the sustainable attributes of construction products. This information is expected be stored in a Web-accessible database that allows users to sort and view the data in various ways to best suit a project’s needs. Additionally, the database will offer a benefit to manufacturers, as a way to present information about the lifecycle qualities of their products to specifiers in a clear, consistent, and concise way.

This effort will be demonstrated at the CSI Show in Baltimore this June

see www.csinet.org - find GreenFormat under Standards and Formats

Paul R Bertram, Jr. FCSI, CDT, LEED AP
CSI Insttute Vice President
Executive LIaison to the Sustainable Facilties Task Team

[Dale Fitzgibbons]

Joel...Your last blog entry about all of us having some greenwasher in us seems accurate on the surface. However, let's face it, corporations are MUCH more responsible for pollution than individuals. As you point out in your "Beyond the Bottom Line" book (p.127), individuls contribute an infinitesimal amount of Gross Municpal Trash to our Gross National Trash figure. Since corporations produce the largest amount of pollution and since they have the most power, resources and leverage let's let the poor individual citizen off the hook and put the blame (and remediation) where it belongs...on the shoulders of the "most pwerful institution on the planet" (Willis Harman, I believe).

[John Douglas Archer]

"Am I really doing all that I can to address the environmental problems that concern me most?"

This question's alright. I'd rather see a message honed more like this:

"Oi! You over there with the m-o-n-e-y. Yes, you buying things. What are you voting for with those dollars?"

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but I do feel strongly that rather than approaching folks with the moralistic questions of 'walking our talk', I think the time has come for heavy emphasis on how we, as consumers, spend our money. The time has more than come. It's overdue. Let's send a clearer message and cause market data that reflects this. For me, this inspires the question:

How can we articulate ourselves to big business?

[Ben Hall]

Very interesting article. Having recently started a green-themed blog for VIA Technologies, it certainly got me thinking and, in fact, I wrote a small piece addressing some of the same issues on the new site.

The article's entitled "The Greenwashing Dilemma". If any of you've got the time I'd certainly be interested to hear what you think of VIA's green initiatives. Greenwashing?

Thanks for the articles and insightful blog.