Environmental sustainability has become a mainstream topic in recent years, and rightfully so. Continued pollution, carbon emissions, habitat loss, and many other concerns threaten our planet’s future, and without concerted action in response these problems will only get worse.
Along with the very real issues and honest attempts at preserving the environment come the marketing gimmicks and distraction techniques aimed at luring customers to make purchases which seem more eco-friendly. Unfortunately, these tactics have become more complex and believable, meaning that it is an ever-growing challenge to make truly environmentally conscious decisions.
Greenwashing is a term coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986 to describe this phenomenon – the act of making misleading claims about the environmental impact of a product in order to seem like a more eco-conscious choice to consumers.
Intentional vs. Unintentional
While the majority of greenwashing is very much intentional marketing, it is worth mentioning that in some cases claims may be unintentionally ‘green.’ A well-meaning company may promote a certain eco-friendly aspect of their product without realizing the harm that it can cause in other aspects of the environment.
The Six Sins of Greenwashing™
A 2007 study by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc. examined 1,018 consumer products in order to categorize and quantify greenwashing. From their findings they outlined these “Six Sins of Greenwashing™” as the techniques used in misleading marketing claims.
Hidden Trade-off
The hidden trade-off approach is used to market something as being a more environmentally conscious choice based on only one or very few attributes, often to distract from the harmful affects of that product in terms of other environmental issues. The claims made about a product are not false, but are used only to make the product seem more ‘green’ while still having a detrimental impact on the planet.
An example of hidden trade-offs could be Nestle’s bottled water and associated campaigns. From Eco-Shape bottles which use plastic more efficiently to Resource bottles made from recycled materials, Nestle has spent millions of dollars to advertise their very narrow environmental efforts in order to distract from other key details – details like sourcing their water from drought-stricken California, the production impacts of those bottles, and the fact that only about 29 percent of all plastic bottles get recycled at the end of their life, according to the EPA.
This is the most common ‘sin’ of greenwashing, accounting for over half of all misleading claims about the environmental impacts of products.
No Proof
It is common to encounter products which make claims without evidence. In some cases there may be supporting information available on the company’s website to back up their claims, perhaps because the product packaging has insufficient space to detail the proof, and that is understandable. Often times, however, when no certification is presented on the product itself, it is because there is little or no evidence that the claims are true and reliable.
For example, a product might say that it is non-gmo, organic, or that it has not been tested on animals but may lack a proper certification. If the company’s website does not point to any reliable verification, evidence, or third-party certification, we are simply trusting that company without any basis.
Vagueness
A very popular choice in terms of greenwashing, and one that we are likely all familiar with. Have you ever purchased something that described itself as all-natural, chemical-free, eco-friendly, environmentally conscious, green, made with recycled content, non-toxic, healthy? The list goes on, but the main point here is that all of these claims are extremely vague – they do not give us any real or useful information, in part because there is no regulation to their usage.
A paper manufacturer could say that their paper is made with recycled content, but if they don’t specify how much recycled content, does it tell us much about their environmental efforts? An egg producer could label their eggs as all-natural, but of course eggs are natural! This does not tell us any specifics about how they were produced, nor about the environmental concerns associated with them.
Vague terms are purely for marketing purposes in order to help us feel better about our buying decisions and make us feel safe, responsible, and proud of our choices. These types of terms should always be questioned when encountered in order to make truly responsible decisions. Look for reliable certifications, quantifications (such as % recycled content), and actual data about the products, rather than trusting the marketing.
Irrelevance
Some companies make claims which are true but entirely unnecessary or irrelevant. These, like other greenwashing techniques, serve as a distraction, most especially when other greenwashing ‘sins’ are not applicable.
Chevron has run ad campaigns to promote certain environmental programs they were committed to within their company. The problem with those programs is that they were mandated by law – meaning that Chevron was not ‘going the extra mile’ to preserve the Earth but simply doing the bare minimum and acting like they were a hero.
Another example is the continued flaunting of the CFC-free label, meaning that a product does not contain chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs have been legally banned since 1994 – almost 30 years, making this claim completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Still, it acts as a greenwash to make these products seem more responsible.
Lesser of Two Evils
The lesser of two evils approach has some relation to the hidden trade-offs, though more specific and less common. In this case, a product has some claim which is likely true within its own category, but that category as a whole is harmful. Organic / natural / ‘green’ pesticides and herbicides are a great example, as are organic cigarettes.
Fibbing
The final greenwashing technique is to flat-out lie, but thankfully this is far less common than most of the others and only accounts for about 1% of cases. This may manifest as a misuse of a certification, such as using the Energy Star certification on the product when it is not in fact Energy Star certified and not listed on the Energy Star website as such. This differs from vagueness in that the vague claims do not mean anything specific, whereas the fibbing attempts do mean something very specific but are incorrect or misrepresented.
Final Thoughts
One of the most unfortunate consequences of greenwashing is that well-intentioned consumers who wish to do their best to preserve the environment end up lost, confused, mislead, or disillusioned by these marketing tactics. Eco-conscious consumers have the most potential to make an impact through their purchasing decisions, but greenwashing leads them astray and dilutes this potential.
As companies continue to misrepresent their environmental efforts, the environment is the one that ultimately loses in the end. In order to make real and lasting change, we need to learn to spot greenwashing when we see it so that we can not only call it out, but also make the best, most informed decisions possible.
Add to the discussion
by commenting on this article’s
post in MISO, found here.
What to Read Next
