The Six Sins of Greenwashing

Is green marketing just a series of lies?

That's one conclusion to be drawn from a new study that examines hundreds of environmental labeling claims and found pretty much all of them wanting, suffering from sins of either omission or commission.

Is it any wonder that consumers are overwhelmingly wary of green marketing and view it as "just a sales tactic"?

Or that while market researchers swear that majorities of consumers want to make green choices, most green products garner only small slivers of the market?

This past spring, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, which consults on green marketing and administers its own labeling and certification program, sent research teams into six category-leading "big box" stores with orders "to record every product-based environmental claim they observed." TerraChoice instructed the teams that, for each environmental claim, they should "identify the product, the nature of the claim, any supporting information, and any references offered for further information."

The products studied included a wide range of offerings, from air fresheners to appliances, televisions to toothpaste. In total, the team identified 1,018 products making 1,753 claims. Of those products, "all but one made claims that are either demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences."

That's right. Only one — a house-branded paper product sold by one Canadian retailer — came through unscathed.

The result of this exercise can be found in a new report, "The Six Sins of Greenwashing", a sobering and slightly depressing look at today's green marketplace. Over the past two weeks, I've had a chance to review the report and discuss it with Scot Case, vice president of TerraChoice and the report's principal author. (You can hear an interview I did with Case on GreenBiz Radio.)

I'll be honest. As skeptical and critical as I've been on green marketing in recent years, I didn't believe TerraChoice's findings at first. When Case first told me what he and his team had found, I assumed they had set an impossibly high standard for green claims.

In reality, TerraChoice simply wanted some basic facts: "What proof is there that a product actually meets this claim?" Case asked. "What we found was that a vast majority couldn't answer simple questions."

Case explained to me the evaluation process:

We actually pulled out all of the different environmental marketing guidelines. We looked at what the Federal Trade Commission says about environmental marketing claims. We looked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recommendations. We looked at ISO's recommendations. We looked at what Consumer Union, the publisher Consumer Reports, said about it.

And we said, Okay, these are going to be the standards to evaluate environmental claims. So we took these 1,018 products. We squished them through these different environmental claims and only one popped out the other side as not having committed what we're now calling one of the "six sins of greenwashing."

The "sins" identified by TerraChoice include:

• Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off — claims that suggest a product is "green" based on a single environmental attribute (the recycled content of paper, for example) or an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important, or perhaps more important, environmental issues (such as the energy, climate, water, or forestry impacts of paper). Such claims aren't usually false, but paint a misleading picture of the product than a more complete environmental analysis would support. This was the most frequently committed "sin," made by 57% of all environmental claims examined.
  

• Sin of No Proof (26% of all claims examined) — any claim that couldn't be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information, or by a reliable third-party certification. TerraChoice determined there to be "no proof" if supporting evidence was not accessible at either the point of purchase or at the product website.
  

• Sin of Vagueness (11% of all claims examined) — any claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the intended consumer, such as "chemical free" or "all natural."
  

• Sin of Irrelevance (4% of all claims examined) — claims that may be truthful but are unimportant and unhelpful for consumers, such as CFC-free products, since ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons have been outlawed since the late 1980s.
  

• Sin of Lesser of Two Evils (1% of all claims examined) — environmental claims that may be true, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole, such as organic tobacco or green insecticides.
  

• Sin of Fibbing (less than 1% of all claims examined) — claims that are simply false, typically by misusing or misrepresenting certification by an independent authority, when no such certification had been made

I'm not sure all of these "sins" qualify as greenwashing, which I define as an intentional effort to misrepresent a product, service, or company as being environmentally responsible or improved. True, some of the claims TerraChoice examined represent outright fabrications. But much of this is less sin than sloppiness -- marketers' efforts to place a green sheen on a product, perhaps rightfully so, but without offering some basic proof points.

Either way, it's a pathetically poor performance for marketers.

And it's all too reminiscent of the early 1990s, when the modern green consumer movement began, at least in the U.S. Many of the products introduced at the time — recycled paper towels, green cleaners, biodegradable trash bags, energy-efficient lights, and more — were similarly poorly documented or misrepresented by their manufacturers and marketers. The ensuing reprimands by government agencies, environmental groups, and enterprising journalists did a great deal to sour consumers' appetite for green products, some of which still lingers today.

None of this bodes well for the growing green marketplace. As major retailers like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Staples stock their shelves with a steady stream of environmentally preferable products, and thousands of both big and small manufacturers introduce environmental improvements and innovations into their product lines, the need for accountability will multiply. And without even a modicum of scrutiny, we'll see a Wild West of Green, in which marketers can make pretty much any green claim with impunity.

What will it take to bring honesty, accuracy, accountability, and transparency to the marketplace? Who will pick up where TerraChoice left off, scrutinizing products making green claims? Who will hold companies accountable?

The obvious answer, of course, would be for a trusted environmental label to emerge — a Green Housekeeping Seal of Approval, or some such. But there already are a myriad of eco-labels — Consumer Reports lists 147 of them — and none (including TerraChoice's own labels) has made significant inroads. Except for the government-controlled organic certification and the Energy Star label, you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of green-labeled products in a typical store.

Who will step up? In the 1990s, in the wake of the greenwashing claims of the day, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission chimed in, issuing environmental marketing guidelines that, while weak, still make basic sense today. The FTC also took on a small number of product purveyors, essentially slapping their corporate wrists for their marketing misdeeds. A task force of state attorneys general, headed by Minnesota's then AG, Hubert H. Humphrey III, rode into town, held hearings, and issued two reports, disappearing soon thereafter.

One of those reports, issued in December 1990 (downloadable here - PDF), recommended that:

Environmental claims should be as specific as possible; not general, vague, incomplete or overly broad.

Environmental claims relating to the disposability or potential for recovery of a particular product (e.g., "compostable" or "recyclable") should be made in a manner that clearly discloses the general availability of the advertised option where the product is sold.

Environmental claims should be substantive.

Environmental claims should, of course, be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.

That seems like Ethical Marketing 101. Why, all these years later, isn't it being followed -- or enforced?

This time, the stakes are far bigger than in 1990, with bigger companies and retailers entering the green marketplace, bigger environmental challenges confronting us, and bigger portions of the world's citizenry ramping up consumption. The need for products that deliver substantive, if not radical, reductions in their environmental impacts couldn't be greater.

So, TerraChoice should be lauded for its findings, however painful they may be to read. If the misrepresentation in the green marketplace is even half as bad as its report suggests, marketers need far more than wrist-slapping.

Says Case:

I think the real danger is if people are successful with their greenwashing efforts, then the truly green, the truly innovative companies — the ones that have really figured out how to reduce their carbon footprint, how to produce a nontoxic product, how to make products out of renewable materials that can be reused — the truly innovative products are going to lose out.

As will we all.

Comments

[Naomi Bloch]

This is such a depressing report. And if something concrete isn't done to rein in these "snake oil saleman" tactics, things can get very uncertain. Consumers really do want to make better choices, but you're right, they wll turn off if becomes apparent that they are being taken.
I agree with your suggestion that an evironmental seal of approval gets established asap. Then promote the heck out of it so that these cheaters aren't able to continue riding this "green wave" on false claims.

[Stephen Albinati]

Interesting report which echoes some of the trends I've been noticing lately. A major tension begining to emerge is that between corporate "CSR departments" and "marketing departments."

The CSR departments are trying to make authentic progress in their companies policies and performance -- and ultimately would like to communicate that to the customers. However, quite often they do not want to use the marketing department to communicate that as they are afraid of the spin they will put too much spin on it.

After all that hard work of working with communities, stakeholders, external auditors etc. they don't want it to go down the tube with a "greenwashing" claim, as is all too common as we can see by this study.

[Susie Hewson]

Natracare, a European organic and ecological sound feminine hygiene product range was not even mentioned as a greener choice on the consumer site you referenced above, despite being the brand leader in this category in the USA for the past 13 years so I suspect the examination of green claims in the market place excluded Natracare otherwise you would have had two products with measurable and demonstrable claims!
Natracare organic cotton tampons are fully certified for the raw cotton at farm through cotton processing and manufacture by IFOAM accredited organic certifies under the Global Organic Textile Standards. The organic cotton used on our feminine hygiene pads and liners is also certified organic by the same IFOAM certifiers. Organic certification is an easier system to prove than the environmental claims I see abound on products in the USA and I have to compete against wild "green" claims everyday in that market.

For the past year and a half, Natracare, together with a specialist organisation, has been creating a PCR for an EPD (Environmental Product Declaration) within the feminine hygiene category, in order to demonstrate the full life cycle analysis of its products. This is a government standard and allows consumers to look at the full lifecycle effect of the raw materials, transport of those materials, energy and carbon cost of production etc. In creating the PCR for feminine hygiene, we set the bar extremely high, barring all chlorine bleached materials, pulp from unmanaged forests, petroleum and crude oil derived materials, plastic and their derivatives, polyacrylates and polyolefins. The EPD documentation from Natracare is now under third party review before being approved by the Accrediting Government standards authority.

On the way to the EPD, we were awarded the Nordic Ecolabel (SWAN) the same system as the other monitored and measured green logos you mention. We consider the green logo standards to be very low in comparison to the EPD, but this does not stop us going way beyond their standards, achieving over 90% compostability and biodegradability (measured to ISO standards) and products made from between 74% and 100% renewable materials.

I agree that green marketing is being used to fool consumers (this is one reason why we decided to take the EPD route to distinguish Natracare from false gods!) Without legislation within every category, and in absence of a consensus of true representation in advertising and labelling, the consumer will continue to be fooled and the true boundary pushers, like Natracare have to continue to compete against branding lies and mistruths. I can mention names, but only if invited to.

The Green labels are only a small part in the declaration of truth in green marketing, but the standards need to be much higher. I know that the green logo concept is to set the bar at an achievable level to encourage manufacturers to make changes, but without comparison of credentials, a brand with say - recycled (post consumer waste – first time around chlorine bleached) pulp could bear a PCW logo from the Chlorine Free Association as well as a green logo….compare the same green logo mark on Natracare, using only totally chlorine free pulp sourced from small PCF managed forests, no crude oil materials, or any of their derivative materials, but how can the consumer know which brand has the lowest effect on the environment? There is no way of finding out or comparing product impact or which is the best "Green" choice across products in relation to its impact on the environment despite bearing a green logo. What is the impact in terms of raw material extraction and processing, carbon foot print of processing and manufacture and transport from first to final stage, energy use, water and waste, product disposal impact?
Natracare has been proven to be the best environmental choice by SWAN (Nordic ecolabel) LOHAS ( Korean Standards Institute) but we know that the EPD is the definitive method of determining the full effect of Natracare products, and we know this is low because we designed them to be that way.
We hope that consumers are not turned away from seeking organic and more ecological choices in products and lifestyle by those using greenwash marketing.
Thank you for your patience in my expression of frustration of the perversion of the Green message by others and the "eyewash" pervaded on some websites by people extolling themselves as green crusaders. Lets see the data!

[Suman]

I think we should come together to create an association which would approve a product as being green or not. This way it would allow consumers to make a better choice and differentiate between a real one and a product which is faking it.

Though it would be a big task it could be thought in those lines, because people have started realising the importance of being green and if this is going to be used for marketing purposes then this would make the consumer avoid those products including the real ones.

[Jacob Malthouse]

We're also concerned about greenwashing. That's one of the reasons we started the first global independent directory of ecolabels: Ecolabelling.org. The site also has a blog that specifically discusses the ecolabelling industry around the world. We are planning to roll out additional metrics over the next year. The site is currently in beta and comments are welcome.

[Georjean Adams]

The FTC guidelines are solid. Not surprisingly, this administration hasn't given high priority for enforcement. Doing so would make all the green admen sit up and get cautious, just like it did in the early 90's. I chaired a Fortune 500 corporate review committee and the threat of FTC action is an effective brake on marketing puffery.

The last thing we need is more bureaucracy and costly and restrictive approval and labeling schemes. States are en route to demanding "Green Seals" on products they purchase and companies are forced to pay whatever Green Seal[or pick a third party] chooses and to meet whatever standards for approval it decides if they want to be on the buy list.

The FTC standards of 1) technically accurate and 2) not misleading are straightforward and enforceable. Use them to support innovation of truly green products.

[Knut Grunwald]

Green is hard to measure. To do so you have to compare the usefulness against the effect on the environment.

In Germany there is the "Blauer Engel" (Blue Angel) Label, which is given to you, if you are substantially better than the market at environmental effect.
But if the market is really bad, the label is easy to get.

And what do you accept as performance ? Porsche claims they will have the least CO2 emission per PS (Horsepower) with their hybrid next year.

And what about stuff not included into the analysis, because nobody mentioned it in the description ?

Until there is a consent about measuring benefit vs environmental cost, there will be misleading claims. And since false claims don't cost a lot in most countries, you may use them to sell your goods.

So i applaude the report since it is one step in the right direction.

[Tallmom]

Why is it so hard to find the list of companies that TerraChoice evaluated?
What is the big secret?
What is the name of the one paper company that was named the best?

[Sean Gibson]

Thankfully, the web helps ensure transparency like no other. Internal email leaks, pictures of e-waste piles, and grassroots campaigns seem to have more power on the web than banner ads with pictures of dirty industry brands and frolicking dolphins, and microsites that put a pretty face on companies that are not authentic in their efforts.

Greenwashing should get harder and harder to do (with net neutrality protected), especially as standards and ratings become stronger, whether that's FTC guidelines, ENERGY STAR, Green-e, TruCost, more segmented SRI fund criteria, etc.

But to Tallmom's point, ironic that TerraChoice wasn't transparent in who the one exception to the rule was (probably not to appear to endorse).

[Bob Langert]

I just did a blog addressing a related issue that might be an unintended consequence of avoiding the Six Sins. I call it "greenmuting." I think equally bad is not talking about the environmental advances in the right way because we need to stir more consumer awareness. Check it out at csr.mcdonalds.com.

[anna]

Do you think serious ECO-FATIGUE is upon us, that independent and experienced consumers are fed up with being told what to do, or, more specifically, told what not to do. Will they increasingly rebel against the green movement’s obsession with ‘no’.

[Green]

"The sin of the hidden tradeof" is an unreasonably high standard to meet. You are now asking people to try to take into account the carbon balance, sustainability, and for all I know child labor factors into account. Sure an inefficient recycling program might actually use more energy than an efficient harvesting program and manufacturing program, but then you have to assign a value to keeping the waste out of a landfill.

[Bryan Welch]

If sustainability is a new aspect of quality, then the truly green will always have that advantage. Still, we have to be good marketers.

[Will O'Neill]

This report is disheartening but mostly for the fact that I may fall for this type of marketing. It makes sense that companies would pursue this type of marketing given our country's growing consciousness of the drastic problems our planet is faced with.

It seems to me this is the same situation that arose after the Atkins Diet craze. Everyone became worried about carbs and within months our grocery shelves were saturated with countless low-carb products. It's sad but with our consumer-heavy culture, advertising "green" is a hot-button that companies know will generate sales.

[stephen]

Steaz soda and sparkling green tea is loaded with sugar - "empty" carbs. yet it is organic. It still has all of the health implications associated with sugar - heart, diabetes, etc. and soda -

it just has an organic labeling so people think it is good for them and the planet. they deliver the stuff in vans that get about 10 miles to the gallon and the founders drive big SUV's. Green-tea washing...