So, this is another of those topics where I could, like others have done, write a book about it, particularly if I documented many case studies. I’ll stick to giving descriptive examples rather than naming and shaming.
Greenwashing is deceptive or misleading messaging, with regard to sustainability, in relation to your product, brand or company. It’s a term that seems to have been coined in the 80s but the practice has been going on a lot longer. Greenhushing on the other hand is relatively jargon and refers to being unwilling to share information about sustainability actions and progress, usually for fear of inviting criticism.
When I first started work, greenwashing was more about not talking about issues with products as it was about misleading information – greenwashing by omissions if you like. But “The Green Consumer Guide” in the late 80s opened up all sorts of questions about all the products we buy. Over the years as more people have become interested in how to buy more sustainably, marketing teams have seen the benefits of using imagery and claims to promote their products as being “environmentally friendly” or “green”, leading to a confusing array of poorly defined terms and poorly understood credentials.
At the extreme, deliberate greenwashing is out-and-out lying: making claims about a product’s environmental performance that you know not to be true. But there is a broad spectrum of activity that comes under greenwashing. At the risk of turning this into a “how to greenwash” guide let’s look at a few of the ways that greenwashing can occur.
You might for instance talk about a product’s environmental performance as being better but omit to mention that the new product is worse in terms of social impacts. Or you might talk about how a product is better on one environmental dimension, e.g., focusing on lower emissions, but not talking about it being worse on others, e.g., resulting in increased waste or pollution.
You may position a new product as being better than the product it is replacing when it is only very slightly better and overall, still has very negative issues – double the recycled content sounds good, but what if that was from 1% to 2%? Or you may focus all your advertising on the so-called green product but omit to mention that it only accounts for 1% of your sales and you’ve done nothing to improve the performance of the remaining 99%.
And what about those vague terms like “environmentally friendly”; what do they actually mean and what evidence is there to back it up your claims? You might use an endorsement or a certification, particularly if it is one that is based on industry criteria with no 3rd party verification.
You may focus on something being recyclable knowing that the infrastructure to recycle isn’t in place – technically correct, but practically misleading.
You could also talk about all those things that you have to do because they are in legislation but omit to mention that and make it look like to chose to do them altruistically. Or you could simply use some lovely images of trees or dolphins but not actually do anything at all!
Overall, there are a lot of ways that companies can greenwash, and whilst these examples are deliberate, sustainability directors will need to be equally aware of accidental greenwashing.
Of course, prevention is better than cure, and training of your commercial and marketing teams in this area should be on your to do list. The WWF have a great checklist to spot for greenwash – it’s intended for consumers but useful for checking your own marketing claims. Firstly, watch for buzzwords – what do they really mean? Secondly, what are claims based on, is there transparency? Thirdly, are the claims verified and if so, by whom? And lastly, are all aspects of sustainability considered or just one? It’s not an exhaustive list that will catch everything, but it will get you used to asking a lot of the right questions.
Avoiding greenwashing isn’t just about doing the morally right thing either, but increasingly it is also about not falling foul of regulations and the law. The UK Advertising Standards Authority has started to show its teeth in this area, fining companies and forcing the withdrawal of ad campaigns. Legal cases against companies are increasingly being pursued and many are being won. And in the EU, legislation is working its way through the approval process that will ban lots of vague terms from consumer facing material, require claims to be backed up with hard data and that the claims are independently verified.
It's against this backdrop that some companies have chosen to reign back their communication on sustainability activities. They are not doing less, they are just choosing not to talk about it as much, for fear of inviting criticism or falling foul of regulations – greenhushing. Some of this is down to the politicisation of issues like climate change in some countries, notably the USA. I think as a trend it is slightly overstated. In some cases, companies aren’t talking as much because they have moved from talking about targets and plans and are actually doing things, and that takes time, particularly in areas like progress to net zero. As a sustainability director you should be challenging your organisation to show tangible action to stakeholders against the plans you have set.
So how to navigate all of this and find the right balance between talking about the progress you are making and the problems you know still exist? Specific product claims need to be carefully considered and externally checked, and company sustainability performance should include positive progress but also candid descriptions of where things are proving more difficult or haven’t panned out as expected. My experience has always been that if your intentions are honest, and you accept things as imperfect and are humble enough to show that you don’t have all the answers but are taking real steps to change, you will always get more positive feedback than negative.
Comentarios