Who's the Biggest Greenwasher of Them All?

"We're doing everything we can to help the environment. We are reexamining how we operate and are working hard every day to reduce our impacts. We are committed to making the world a better place for our children's grandchildren and beyond. We believe that everyone must do their part to address the serious environmental challenges we face."

If you read or heard a statement like this from a big company — in, say, an advertisement, conference presentation, or annual report — I'm guessing you'd be skeptical at best. You'd want to look beyond those broad, aspirational statements to see what, exactly, that company is doing and how much it was walking its talk. If you learned that the sum total of that company's actions were merely a few token gestures — recycling copy paper and cardboard boxes, for example, or swapping out inefficient light bulbs — you'd be anything from disappointed to angry. You might accuse the company of greenwash. As you should.

I'm going to step out on a limb and suggest that for all the sound and fury over deceptive, disingenuous corporations seeking to falsely create a green image, that the biggest offenders of greenwash aren't companies. And they're not politicians, the mainstream media, green marketing firms, or environmental groups.

The biggest greenwashers are consumers.

Consider the statements at the top of this page, a compilation of common company proclamations. What if these statements were uttered not by a company, but by your neighbor, a friend or relative — or you? Would they be believable? How much substance would there be to back them up? Could you honestly say you are reexamining how you operate every day and are working to make changes, and that you are doing better this year than last?

I'm guessing not. And for all the eco-aware people I know — friends, colleagues, and many others — I don't know many who can.

Of course, most of us don't overtly make such boastful statements. But we do so covertly via anonymous polls and surveys in which high percentages of consumers make boastful claims — saying they regularly seek out green products, recycle and compost at home, are more energy conscious in their purchasing decisions, switch brands in favor of greener ones, take public transportation whenever possible, invest their money with so-called responsible funds and companies, and otherwise take action on behalf of the planet.

As I've often pointed out — and as even casual students of green marketing know — reality looks nothing like this. Shoppers overwhelmingly buy what they want, most likely the same things they've always bought, perhaps with an exception or two. Except during brief periods of high fuel prices, they drive what they've always driven with little regard for alternatives. Despite 20 years of green consumer surveys suggesting otherwise, people haven't changed their shopping habits much.

So, are consumers greenwashers?

In pondering this question for the past several months, I looked at what various people mean when they use the word "greenwash." After all, there's no legal definition; "greenwash," like "green" itself, is largely a matter of perception. Here are two reasonable definitions I found:

"A false or misleading picture of environmental friendliness used to conceal or obscure damaging activities." (Source: Wikitonary)

"The practice of giving a false green or a false sustainable image." (Source: SustainabilityWorks)

Greenwashing was described by others as "dissemination of misleading or false information" and "the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue."

By these definitions, most consumers are greenwashers extraordinaire. For more than two decades, they've said one thing and done another, making outsized claims about their environmental commitments — and the actions they take where they live, work, and play — with little evidence to back up those claims. They seem to find no qualms in painting "a false and misleading picture of environmental friendliness."

If consumers were a corporation, we'd be boycotting them.

I'm not letting companies off the hook here. There are many, many instances of firms large and small that have been less than forthcoming with their environmental achievements and green marketing claims. Some of their transgressions are merely annoying — vague or unverifiable product claims such as being "eco-friendly" or "all-natural." Some green claims are decidedly overblown, such as those by purveyors of rayon clothing masquerading as bamboo; they got their hands slapped by the Federal Trade Commission.

Other transgressions are far more serious — I'm thinking about a certain oil company who, for the better part of a decade, made audacious representations about moving "Beyond Petroleum," despite the fact that the percentage of its revenue from things beyond petroleum (and natural gas) never exceeded 1 percent. That's not just greenwash. That's outright fraud.

But as I've argued in the past, many activist cries of corporate marketing malfeasance (and of alleged green marketing "sins") tend to be overblown, headline-grabbing sensationalism. To the contrary, nearly every large corporation, and many smaller ones, have instituted a range of programs to reduce or eliminate wasteful, polluting, and toxic practices. Many of their goals are bold — to achieve zero waste, closed-loop manufacturing, Cradle-to-Cradle products, or carbon-neutral operations. None of these companies is perfect, of course — far from it — but their imperfections are a far cry from nearly 20 years ago, when the term "greenwash" first came into use, referring to companies that "embraced the environment as their cause and co-opted the terminology ... while little changed in practice," according to the 1992 Greenpeace Book of Greenwash. These days, companies are changing for the better, and continuing their progress year over year.

Can the same be said for consumers? How many can say that they are making substantive changes in their daily lives? How many are doing more this year than last? How many have set bold goals about their environmental progress — two, five, or ten years from now? Oh, right: Many of us have forsworn paper and plastic shopping bags for cloth ones; household recycling has become mainstream; people are buying more energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs and insulating their homes. A tiny handful even have solar panels or hybrid cars. But these are simple, relatively symbolic actions.

Compare this to the latest consumer research findings. "Eight in 10 consumers are interested in some type of green product," according to the latest LOHAS Consumer Trends Database from the Natural Marketing Institute. (What, exactly, does this mean? "Interested in some type of green product" is a tad vague.) Or Eco Pulse's finding that "68 percent of men said they were searching for greener products — a 14 percent jump up from last year"? (What has led men to suddenly ramp up their green shopping during a recession?) Or Mintel's recent finding that more than one-third of consumers "say they would pay more for 'environmentally friendly' products." (Recession? What recession?)

So, who's fooling who? Are companies nefariously saying one thing and doing another, or is it consumers who are masquerading as eco-heroes while making only symbolic changes?

It's probably a little of each, but if I had to put money on which of the two was more likely to build a green economy, I sure know where I'd place my bet.

---

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

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

---

Comments

[Gil Friend]

Bingo.

[Ron Schaeffer]

It's "Who's fooling whom". That's the only comment or correction I can make to your "right-on-the-money" article. You are right, and I'm certainly one the guilty consumers who talks a good game. I personally think it is going to take strong and consistent leadership from the business community to bring consumers around. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is where my money would go.

[Jeff Springer]

Is there a list by a reputable environmental org of "greenwash" products, services, or companies that we can refer to over time and that is updated periodically?

Anyone know of one?

[Paul Grover]

Hi Joel,

My, you are on the bitter side today, and that's fine and perhaps justified. But how about going beyond this rant?

How about telling us what non "greenwash consumer" might look and act like? Or are all consumers, by definition, greenwashers and the problem is consumers.

It's easy to do what you've done in this piece, but it's more difficult to give a vision of what a responsible energy/environmental user might look like. Give us a vision.

[Mikhail Davis]

Joel, I've always agreed with your skepticism of all the "green consumer" polling data, but I think we should dig a little deeper as to what these polls actually mean. The LOHAS and Eco-pulse polls reflect the fact that there is interest, if not actual changed purchasing habits. As in, "well, I looked for greener products... but found that they still are mostly more expensive and/or of unknown/dubious quality compared to what I normally buy." I am actually skeptical of the whole concept of "environmentally aware consumption," and not for the obvious oxymoronic reasons. I think very little "awareness" is ever involved in the average shopping trip and as long as we are all working long hours and fending off our fussing children while squeezing in a shopping trip before bedtime, there never will be. Even simplifying environmental labels (a la the Walmart Index) may not make a difference to average harried "consumer." Rather than hoping for the Aware Consumer to emerge from his/her daily stupor, let's work on getting the one label right that consumers are already looking at, the price tag. I don't have all the answers here but shifting payroll taxes into carbon taxes would be a start.

[Rob Shelton]

Joel,

For years, consumers have been talking a bigger greeen game than they have played.

You are right. It is time we faced this reality.

[Dave Meyer]

Joel- you struck a nerve that suggests to look no farther than the end of my nose! Just as you, Gil, me and other sustainability practitioners need to practice what we preach, consumer watchdogs must keep companies feet to the fire to verify (via certification?) the "green" values of their products through the entire supply chain. Finally with the variety of authentic sustainable lifestyle choices available, it takes concerted efforts to "sell" the value proposition to the average consumer...price is still the main differentiator for most and the value argument needs to overcome this huge hurdle for the average shopper. Keep up the great thought leadership- we all expect nothing less from you! @DRMeyer1

[Jeff Dubin]

Joel, I agree that the extent of most consumers’ green behavior has been – shall we say – disappointing. But I disagree that most consumers are masquerading as eco-heroes. My quantitative and qualitative marketing research has shown that consumers are pretty honest about their shortcomings as citizens of Planet Earth.

I think consumers should be called to task for their apathy about the environment and for their lack of motivation to improve it. Calling them greenwashers, though, puts the spotlight on their honesty when it really needs to be placed on their apathy and low motivation.

That being said, I agree with Mikhail that fighting the consumer’s “daily stupor” will not achieve as much as lowering the prices of green products. Add to lower prices improved consumer awareness of green brands and increased availability and you might see more consumers look like eco-heroes even if that’s not their main intention.

[Danna]

Joel, as an environmentalists doing my best and having improved over the last decade (I believe), what you are calling greenwashing by the consumer is a simple necessity in a world that has not yet made the changes necessary to make better choices possible. The changes you have mentioned consumers have made are the choices made possible by the little change that has happened in our basic infrastructure in the past decade or so. These are choices that an economically and time squeezed populace have the ability to make.

Here, in our small city of around 200,000 people, the public transportation options are paultry: bus is the option, it does not run on the weekends and there are long waits at the stops for buses to come by--at least 45 minutes. Though recently the company that runs it has invested in hybrid buses--that's an improvement, but only people without access to personal transportation are going to take that option, because our schedules combined with their low availablility of service simply don't make it possible to use.

Today and yesterday I went grocery shopping. I shop two stores and purchase the best food I can for health of my family and the environment. After tallying my purchase today, out of curiousity, I decided to see what the average cost of my products were. The average was $3.23. I had several purchases for bulk organic treats including nuts and dried fruit that cost more than $10.00. This is groceries for a family of 3 with one vegetarian for two weeks. That truly is doing my best because we also live on a rather paultry income--but that is from a committed environmentalists that has striven for over 20 years to be in the know and act accordingly when possible. I also drive a car that gets above 30mpg in town--one I can afford to purchase in the first place. I would love to do better, but affordable options aren't out there.

It seems to me that your energies might be better applied towards criticizing the policy and decision makers that are holding up the real needed changes in our basic infrastructures including locally grown food systems, national and local rail systems and other public transportation, stepped up requirements for better gas mileage on all transportation vehicles, investments in truly renewable energy research and implementation, etc.

Thanks for the opportunity to voice my thoughts.

[Chaz Miller]

Joel

Excellent column and spot on. The reality is that the actions of individual companies have a far greater impact than those of consumers. We are seeing the results of this constantly as companies make real and lasting commitments to lowering their carbon footprint and - more importantly - follow through on those commitments. Which is not to say that all companies are moving in this direction, just that what was once a fad is now becoming business as usual in many companies.
Consumers have fewer options because they control fewer resources. Moreover, consumers like to give the politically correct answers to surveys. No one holds them accountable for their follow-up actions (maybe we need a truth in answering surveys law?).
Let's face it - when BP spills oil in the Gulf, they have a big impact. When you or I spill oil we have a much smaller impact. Sustainability is no different.

[Gil Friend]

There's another big challenge in here: breaking the addiction to consumption. (Which used to be the name of a disease, not an aspiration.)

Not just our personal "consumer" greed (though there is that), but the addiction of almost every company's business model to "make more money by selling more stuff". Until we see business models that make more money selling LESS stuff, we can't win this thing.

[Air Conditioners]

I think this is quite an interesting posting on green washers. I think we all should definitely do our part to help our environment.

[Craig Shields]

I love Gil Friend's observation that consumption used to describe a lethal infection - Tuberculosis.

While TB has ended the lives of a billion people over the past two hundred years alone, our modern "consumption" threatens to usher in not only the starvation of several billion of us as the ecology collapses under the weight of our collective waste and carelessness, but also perhaps the greatest mass extinction of species in our planet's long life.

Joel quite adroitly shakes us from the slumber of self-righteous blame. Although no one has enough fingers to point out all the abuses and (B)roken (P)romises heaped up in recent history by the "fictitious persons" known as corporations, the lack of ethical human values and ignorant or thoughtless behavior are always at the root of our errant economic view of the world. Human drives move corporations, and the tolerance and participation of wider society enables their abuses to continue.

The Hummer (God rest it's 6,000 pound soul) could never have achieved favorable status of any kind in a truly enlightened society, and while China's and India's billion-plus populations are growing weary of riding their bicycles, if we were a wise people, the bike commute would be a soaring trend here - as would telecommuting.

We need to wake up as a national and a global population to the fact that massive social change toward sustainability is long overdue and is the only thing that will stop us borrowing time from our grandchildren that we can't pay back.

This massive swing may have had its beginning in the many small steps of individuals toward efficiency that Joel enumerates, but there's a huge history of indoctrinated mindset and love of convenience that needs to be penetrated, illustrated, deconstructed and shunted into the past before the future brightens.

We're missing the boat if we fail to realize - as other nation's have begin to do - that there's great potential for prosperity in a green economy. Here's a little more discussion on the subject of green jobs market:

http://2greenenergy.com/renewable-energy-and-the-job-market/2413/

What most people don't realize is that Americans are now working more, and doing so more productively, for less and less over time in terms of compensation, and of course much less time and energy to spend with family and friends. We can move into a more sustainable design for society and improve our lifestyle at the same time. It does, however, take the will to resist the fiercely encouraged desire for so many things, and to shift the emphasis back to defining ourselves by what we think and do, and not by how much we own.

Thanks again, Joel, for a sobering splash of cold reality for a choir that sings to a greed-washed and greenback-driven congregation. A little more genuinely positive movement in our own lives brings conviction as we move to change the world.

Craig Shields
Editor
2GreenEnergy.com

[How To Build Credit Fast]

i think consumers should be called to task for their apathy about the environment and for their lack of motivation to improve it.

[David Fox]

Hey Joel, thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I've been working on this nation myself, though I haven't been able to present it nearly so convincingly as you, not to mention Lisa! I'm going to order Mesh right now - digital delivery of course.

[Virtual Offices]

By partnering with Greenfleet on the Green Offices Project, Servcorp is pledging to plant one tree for each new virtual office it sells online. In fact, Servcorp has already planted more than 13,000 trees in its Servcorp Forest.

“Not only does a virtual office give you a professional address, receptionist, mail and call forwarding, and meeting spaces, you’re reducing your environmental footprint by not physically setting all this up yourself,” says Taine Moufarrige, executive director at Servcorp.

[scoremoecredit]

i guess it is going to take strong and consistent leadership from a business community to bring consumers around and make them satisfied,great lens will credit this.

[Pex Tubing]

there a list by a reputable environmental org of greenwash products that we can refer to over time and that is updated periodically?