Nearly ten years ago, in 1999, the Oxford
English Dictionary added a new word to its repertoire: "Greenwash," which
it defined as "disinformation disseminated by an organization
so as to present an environmentally responsible public image."
Have no doubt. Greenwashing comes in a sophisticated
package. We may not always detect the extent to which we
are "greenwashed," and this is exactly the intent.
Like whitewashing, the term it is derived from, greenwashing
masks the truth with a glossy image, the right spin, and
a captivating design.
With green products moving from fringe markets
into the mainstream at an unprecedented pace, more companies
are trying to appear as something they are not to increase
their own product demand and revenue. As John Rooks, president
of advertising and PR Firm Dwell Creative (http://www.dwellcreative.com),
writes in a MarketingProfs article published last year,"Greenwashers
manufacture and market popularity."
Who among us hasn't noticed the green branding
craze? From new brands to new marketing spins on old brands,
it's no coincidence. Marketers know very well that sustainability
sells. An increasing number of consumers want "all natural," "earth-friendly" "100%
organic" products when given the choice. Moreover, people
will typically pay more for a green brand if they believe
it is less harmful to the environment.
Greenwashing is attractive for a number of
different reasons:
• It is used
to attract consumers who care about sustainability;
• It diverts attention away from the real issues at hand, and reduces pressure
for regulatory change;
• It requires little to no additional expenditure to change actual performance
or products;
• It makes a company appear more attractive for potential investors - especially
those interested in ethical investment or socially responsive investment.
A Shell advert suggesting that their oil refineries
emit flowers not smoke is a classic example of greenwashing
in action. (http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/greenwash/shell/index.html)
Just as BAE systems once tried to promote their
weapons as being environmentally friendly. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20426989-1702,00.html)
Yet what about the greenwashing we don’t
see?
Earlier this year, TerraChoice (http://www.terrachoice.com),
an environmental marketing company, released a study which
found that almost all of the environmental claims made for
consumer products are false or misleading.
The study reviewed 1,018 "green" consumer
products from big-box stores in the United States. Out of
these, researchers discovered all but one were marketed with
false or misleading environmental claims.
TerraChoice called out products for committing
the "Six Sins of Greenwashing." These are the six
most prevalent patterns used to greenwash a product or service.
They are:
• The hidden tradeoff. This occurs
when an article is labeled "green" based upon
a single environmental attribute.
• No certifiable verification of green claims;
• Lying about certification;
• Vagueness (e.g., products claiming "all natural" status);
• Irrelevance (e.g., products claiming to be CFC-free even though CFCs
have been banned for 30 years);
• A lesser of two evils situation (e.g. organic cigarettes).
The biggest consequence of greenwashing is
that well-intentioned consumers are misled. In time, this
could create cynicism and doubt towards all products touting
some kind of "eco-status."
Another consequence is that competitive greenwashing
takes the market share away from products actually offering
legitimate environmental benefits. It also gives the impression
that the marketplace is already solving our environmental
problems.
Rooks points out General Electric's Ecomagination
campaign (http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/news.html) as
an example. As part of this campaign, G.E. released a series
of "clean coal" ads that claim "harnessing
the power of coal is something everybody can get behind."
"What this campaign is void of is facts…Don't
be fooled, this is not by chance," Rooks writes. "If
you want to attract a loyal green consumer, use concrete
data to support your claims. Give them facts and invite them
to interpret."
But the premise behind greenwashing is not based upon facts.
It is based upon the bet - or the gamble - that the majority
of consumers will absorb the emotional message behind an
ad, product or campaign. They will absorb it and they will
accept it, for greenwashing's bottom line is pinned on the
hope that most people will not actually care about legitimacy.
|
