How Bad Is Greenwashing, Really?

Is greenwashing really as bad a problem as some are making it out to be?

I've been thinking about this question a lot recently, as the G-word crops up more and more frequently in articles, blogs, reports, and conversations. Of course, the answer depends a lot on one's view of the potential for big companies to improve their environmental performance — and talk truthfully about it — and whether the pace of corporate change is sufficient to address the magnitude of the problems we face. Like "beauty" (and "green"), "greenwash" is in the eye of the beholder.

The definition of greenwashing has changed in recent years. In the early 1990s, the term was used to describe deliberate and cynical attempts by companies to mislead the public about their environmental commitment and performance. In its seminal 1992 publication, The Greenpeace Book of Greenwash (download - PDF), the activist group described "the growth of citizen movements against environmental degradation in many countries," which, by the late 1980s, "had gained sufficient strength and exposure to become a potential threat to the political power and financial health of TNCs" — transnational corporations.

TNCs could no longer deny their role in environmental degradation. Instead, they embraced the environment as their cause and co-opted the terminology. While little changed in practice, the greenwash counterstrategy was born. Since the birth of greenwash, industry has devised a far-reaching program to convince people that TNCs are benefactors of the global environment.

Arguably, that's no longer the norm. Most companies are thinking seriously about their environmental impacts and risks, and what they should do about them. Most are doing something, though the majority are engaging in what I call "Random Acts of Greenness" — a few tweaks to their products, facilities, policies, or practices, but nothing that could be construed as systemic change. For the preponderance of companies, "going green" these days means a series of incremental changes that reduce, over time, their worst environmental impacts while, perhaps, garnering P.R. points.

Today, the 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines greenwash as "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image." The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines the term as "the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment." In other words, deceitful behavior.

Such definitions pose more questions than answers. What, exactly, is a "socially and environmentally destructive corporation"? Is that nomenclature reserved for the worst of the worst, or do most big companies qualify? Should "disinformation" — the deliberate dissemination of false information — be ascribed to a less-than-perfect company talking about its genuine efforts to improve its performance? If so, how good does that company need to be to, in effect, have permission from activists and other watchdogs to talk its walk? Should only "good guys" be allowed to have that conversation?

The answers to such questions are of more than academic interest, or should be. These days, greenwashing is applied by some to just about any environmental statement from any large company. That's left many companies confused and conflicted, unwilling to talk about what they're doing right, however imperfect, for fear that such communications will brand them with the G-word. As a result, many companies I've talked to have clammed up, keeping their green initiatives largely to themselves, enjoying the other business benefits these efforts bring — reduced costs, decreased risks, improved quality, increased employee satisfaction, etc. — but foregoing the reputational benefits.

It's not just activists who aren't giving companies much slack. Case in point: In April I spoke to the annual conference of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, a national association of business journalists. At a session on green business, reporters from some of the leading publications and news services — the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Reuters, the New York Times, and dozens of others — posed questions for me and my fellow panelists. More often than not, the questions started out with some version of, "Given that 90 percent of what companies say is greenwash . . . ." If these gatekeepers of business information for the mainstream media don't give companies much green cred, why should activists, bloggers — or anyone else?

So, the question remains: Is greenwashing really all that bad?

Truth in advertising is vital for any marketplace, including the green one. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is re-examining its standards for truth in green advertising, along with the Canadian Standards Association, which recently released new green labeling guidelines. A U.K. study issued in May found that the number of complaints about ads that made green claims in 2007 was more than four times higher than the year before. Does that mean things are four times worse than before, or that four times more people are paying attention? The study doesn't say, though its authors acknowledge that "Most greenwash is due to ignorance and/or sloppiness rather than malicious intent."

Meanwhile, a small army of academics and activists are on the case, pointing out eco-hypocrisies both large and small — see examples here, here, here, and here. Clearly, the audience is listening.

Put it all together and it's not the travesty some would make it out to be. The rise of environmental marketing claims indicates that companies are engaged as never before — perhaps not sufficiently, but engaged. Companies are jumping on the green bandwagon in growing numbers, and they're starting to tell stories about themselves and their products. That's a good thing: storytelling is the first step toward transparency. Like all marketing, there's a tendency to resort to hyperbole and cliché. And that needs to be policed, no less so than safety claims by toy companies or nutritional claims by food companies.

As last year's Six Sins of Greenwashing report unveiled, there's a lot of sloppiness out there — a great deal of unsubstantiated claims as well as those that address only part of a product's environmental impacts, sometimes a relatively small part. But there was almost no outright deceitful behavior — fewer than 1% of all claims examined in the study were patently false.

So, is greenwashing — "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image" — on the rampage? I think not. Dubious marketing claims are problems that need addressing, but it's part of the growing pains of a new market. The rise of green marketing claims is a testament to how quickly being seen as green has become of importance to companies. Isn't that what all of us wanted to see happen?

Greenwashing represents the naturalizing of green as a meme. It demands scrutiny by all of us, and action against the egregious actors. But, in the end, as the saying goes, it's all good.

---

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

---

Comments

[Chuck]

You're right in that it's no different from marketers spinning other features and benefits—Twice the cleaning power! The difference is that consumers are still trying to learn what sustainability means and that much of their information comes from marketing content. So greenwashing confuses consumers as they try to get up to speed on what they should do to help save the planet.

Of course, sometimes greenwashing is just a function of lazy marketing. Check out this packaging from North Face (see photo links below). Two goofball messages:

1. We're green, that's why we have a "eco-friendly hang tag program." Never mind that we're adding an extra page into the hang tags to tell you about it or that a hang tag is about .05% of the matter that makes up the product we're manufacturing.

2. We put every hang tag in a plastic bag. Ooops.

North Face Photo 1

North Face Photo 2

[Georjean Adams]

As usual, you hit the mark, Joel: "random acts of green" does indeed describe what most companies are doing. I'm excited to see that so many are trying - even if in baby steps - because I think it will be hard for them to stop going. Yes, corporate-wide vision and strategic processes need to exist to incorporate sustainable thinking into every decision at every level. But it's going to take some time to change how businesses evaluate and solve problems - a lot of new paradigms to learn and silos to knock down. One of the tried and true methods (which we may never change) is advertising puffery - "use product X and you be sexier, skinnier, wealthier, happier, etc." Now it's cool to be green - of course the marketers are jumping on it! I don't think they are intentionally lying, just exaggerating like they always do. Unfortunately, they and their bosses don't get it: "Green" is a religion for many activists and there's no tolerance for blasphemy.

I'm an optimist. We will figure out ways to measure and communicate being "greener" and better rules (like the FTC is working on) will come into play to protect the consumer from outright lies. For now we are all still learning what "green" means. I hope we don't stop because of fear of being recycled into organic fertilizer by the zealots.

[Jacob Malthouse]

We agree it's all good and that greenwashing is probably not that hard to handle. We get a lot of comments around green being to difficult but our research has shown it's actually pretty straight-forward to identify the decent eco-labels and claims and then make choices based on them.

It's a bit harder where there's no standard in place, but people are getting better at using common baselines around energy use, packaging, life cycle analysis.

[Carolyn Yang, VP Marketing, Timberland]

Thank you Joel, for posing a very interesting question -- one I give thought to often: Should our company be talking to consumers about how green we are? Do they care? Will they believe us or, by virtue of being a business and therefore (assumed-to-be) an environmental despoiler, will our claims be viewed as disingenuous? I suspect the fear of being labeled a greenwasher is exactly what holds well-intended companies back from being more transparent with consumers, which is the real tragedy – only by taking that risk and communicating openly and honestly about our business practices (the good AND the bad) are we going to succeed in a) gaining consumer trust and b) disproving the all-too prevalent belief that no for-profit business is truly interested in helping to save the environment. It’s a tough line to take and its easier to err on the side of caution, but the outcome of increased transparency is better educated, empowered consumers who can make better informed decisions -- a benefit that, in my opinion, far outweighs any “greenwashing” risks.

[Paul Doran]

For every product or service purchase which is made as a result of greenwashing, an opportunity is wasted. Those truly green products and services are drowned out by companies who make more noise and have more marketing dollars to throw at the green market segment.

We will not make real progress towards a more sustainable way of doing business if we dont reward the innovators who are genuinely doing something different, at the expense of those who are merely taking 'baby steps' - in order to provide their PR departments with a few good stories to help demonstrate their green credentials.

[Mike Lawrrence]

Appreciate the "out of the box" argument, Joel. But it's not "all good", of course. Paul Doran and Georjean Adams are right- if the space gets too noisy with puffery, people will tune out. I believe that marketing communications probably has the best chance of any tool to educate and change behavior on global warming- because there's lots of $$$ for it and everyone hears it. Some research we did this past spring showed consumers ARE listening, and that they believe what they're hearing. If they discover they're being snookered, the power to influence will start to wane and be replaced with another wave of cynicism about corporatations. On the other hand, if companies and advertisers start to treat environmental marketing thoughtfully- with documunted claims, links to more info, pictures that make sense (please, no trees growing out of smokestacks!) and- dare we say it- a bit of humility/work in progress, they just might help change the world.

[Maya Forstater]

I am not sure that the definition of Greenwash has so much changed in the past decade or so, as split into two seperate (but related) discussions. Greenpeace's criteria for assessing greenwash (as part of its current campaign) are all about how a companies' marketing and PR can distract criticism away from the impacts of their core business. While the judgements being made in the 'Six Sins of Greenwashing', BSR's work on 'eco-claims' etc.. are more about product level truth in advertising. I think the second type of greenwash is on the rise, if only because green marketing has become so much more prevalent. But the first conversation is also still going strong.

The other conversation, that is only beginning to take place, is about whether green marketing (or indeed media, government and NGO campaigns)are encouraging consumers to undertake their own 'randomn acts of green'. i.e.: A few totemic actions which have a bigger environmental feel-good pay-off than impact pay-off. You could call this 'personal greenwashing': for example the recent attention on reusable shoppping bags seems to fall into this category. WWF's recent 'Strategies for Change' report asks whether even well meaning and rigourously assessed green claims are in danger of distracting consumers' attention from the major impacts of their lifestyle, and from political as well as personal action.

These three debates will run and run, although the truth-in-advertising one is going to be the easiest to legislate for.

[Gary Emmons]

I appreciate the discussion of this topic. We have recently had a number of conversations about this, especially since a comment we received accusing us of greenwashing. We had done an article on a product that the commenter felt was not environmentally friendly. This despite the attached LEED credits. Upon further review, she had a point. But, it was a bit obscure.

What we have discussed is the fact, to which you allude, that there are efforts at becoming increasingly green. It is a process. Do we immediately discredit any company whose products are not all entirely green? Or do we give them praise and support for their efforts?

Take this down to a personal level. We have a "green" related blog. Are we completely and entirely green? Is anyone? No, we are all (hopefully) making efforts to become moreso. We all have to live in the real world and operate within the existing infrastructure.

So, kudos to companies who are making the same effort in the course of doing business. To hold them to a different standard than that to which we hold ourselves is the real hypocracy.

One more thing: Mike Lawrence has a very good and very important point, in the context of sustaining this effort.

[Dagny]

I think it's important for companies to be aware of the environment and make steps to align their businesses with practices that are the least damaging to it. However, there is the issue of misleading the public. Just because you take one step to save a rainforest but carry products that are harmful to the environment doesn't make you an environmentally friendly company. However, we don't want to discourage any positive step that any company is making. It's up to the consumer to research the companies and products they purchase.

Dagny
www.onnotextiles.com
bamboo clothing

[David McReynolds]

Hasbro's Mighty Muggs claim to be made from 100% recycled awesome. What is recycled awesome? I can only assume it isn't a real recycled material as I can find nothing about it on their website. This is very misleading if it is not a real recylcled material.

The slogan is right under the logo.

http://www.hasbro.com/mightymuggs/