Greenwashing (green whitewash) is the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources.^[1] It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing. The term green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment.^[2]

Contents 1 Usage 2 History 3 "Seven Sins of Greenwashing" 4 How to spot Greenwashing 5 US regulation 6 Examples 7 Opposition to greenwash 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links

[edit] Usage

Greenwashing was coined by NY environmentalist Jay Westerveld^[3][4][5] in a 1986 essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing green placards in each room, promoting reuse of guest-towels, ostensibly to "save the environment". Westerveld noted that, in most cases, little or no effort toward waste recycling was being implemented by these institutions, due in part to the lack of cost-cutting affected by such practice. Westerveld opined that the actual objective of this "green campaign" on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, increased profit. Westerveld hence monitored this and other outwardly environmentally conscientious acts with a greater, underlying purpose of profit increase as greenwashing.

The term is generally used when significantly more money or time has been spent advertising being green (that is, operating with consideration for the environment), rather than spending resources on environmentally sound practices. This is often portrayed by changing the name or label of a product, to give the feeling of nature, for example putting an image of a forest on a bottle containing harmful chemicals. Environmentalists often use greenwashing to describe the actions of energy companies, which are traditionally the largest polluters.^[6]

Norway's consumer ombudsman has targeted automakers who claim that their cars are "green", "clean" or "environmentally friendly" with some of the world's strictest advertising guidelines. Consumer Ombudsman official Bente Øverli said: "Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others." Manufacturers risk fines if they fail to drop the words. Øverli said she did not know of other countries going so far in cracking down on cars and the environment.^{[7][8][9][10]}

In addition, the political term "linguistic detoxification" is used by some environmentalists to describe when, through legislation or other government action, the definitions of toxicity for certain substances are changed, or the name of the substance is changed, so that fewer things fall under a particular classification as toxic. An example is the reclassification of some low-level radioactive waste as "beyond regulatory concern", which permits it to be buried in conventional landfills. Another example is the EPA renaming sewage sludge to biosolids, and allowing it to be used as fertilizer, despite the fact that it often contains many hazardous materials including PCBs, dioxin, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and asbestos. The origin of this phrase has been attributed to environmental activist and author Barry Commoner.

Several activities designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be considered merely symbolic greenwash. For example, Earth Hour encourages consumers to switch off electric appliances for 1 hour. This may make people feel good about a minor inconvenience without creating any sustained reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Similarly, introduction of a Carbon Emission Trading Scheme may feel good, but may be counterproductive if the cost of carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given 'free credits'. For example, Bank of America subsidiary MBNA offers an Eco-Logique MasterCard for Canadian consumers that rewards customers with carbon offsets as they continue using the card. Customers may feel that they are nullifying their carbon footprint by purchasing polluting goods with the card. However, only 0.5 percent of purchase price goes into purchasing carbon offsets, while the rest of the interchange fee still goes to the bank.^[11]

[edit] History

• 1960- In the mid 1960’s the contemporary environmental movement gained momentum. This movement caused many companies to create a new green image through advertising. Jerry Mander, a former Madison advertising executive, called this new form of advertising "ecopornography".^[12][13]

• 1970- Due to public interest in the environment, The first Earth Day was held on April 22, 1970. This caused industry in general to use more environmental advertising to improve their image. Public utilities spent 300 million dollars advertising that they were a clean green company. This was eight times higher than the money they spent on pollution reduction research.^[12][13]

• 1980- Chevron a large oil company launched one of the most famous Greenwashing ad campaigns in history. Chevron’s “People Do” advertisements were aimed at a “hostile audience” of “societally conscious” people. Their ads lasted for 15 years and they became one of the only oil companies that people trusted in protecting the environment. In the late 1980’s The American Chemistry Council started a program called Responsible Care, which shined light on the environmental performances and precautions of the groups members. The loose guidelines of responsible care caused industries to adopt self regulation over government regulation.^[12][13]

• 1990- A study published in the journal of Public Policy and Marketing found that 58% of environmental ads had at least one deceptive claim. Another study found that 77% of people said the environmental reputation of company affected whether they would buy their products. One fourth of all household products marketed around Earth Day advertised themselves as being green and environmentally friendly. In 1998 the Federal Trade Commission created the “Green Guidelines”, which defined terms used in environmental marketing. The following year the FTC found that the Nuclear Energy Institute claims of being environmentally clean were not true. The FTC did nothing about the ads because they were out of their jurisdiction. This caused the FTC to realize they needed new clear enforceable standards. In 1999 Greenwashing officially became part of the English language.^[12][13]

• 2000- BP the world’s second largest oil company entered the Greenwash playing field spending 200 million dollar on rebranding their company. Part of their rebranding entailed creating a slogan beyond petroleum and changing their logo to a green and yellow sunburst design. BP also financed a large advertising campaign giving BP a greener appearance to the public, which overpowered the voice of activists. In 2002 During the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in Johannesburg, the Greenwashing Academy hosts the Greenwash Academy Awards. The ceremony awarded companies like BP, Exxon Mobil, and even the United States Government for their elaborate Greenwashing ads and support for Greenwashing.^[12][13]

[edit] "Seven Sins of Greenwashing"

In December 2007, environmental marketing firm TerraChoice gained national press coverage for releasing a study called "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" which found that more than 99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing. A total of 1,753 environmental claims made, with some products having more than one, and out of the 1,018 studied only one was found not guilty of making a false or misleading green marketing claim. According to the study, the six sins of greenwashing are:^[14][15]

• Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: e.g. “Energy-efficient” electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of all environmental claims committed this Sin.

• Sin of No Proof: e.g. Shampoos claiming to be “certified organic,” but with no verifiable certification. 454 products and 26% of environmental claims committed this Sin.

• Sin of Vagueness: e.g. Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde (see appeal to nature). Seen in 196 products or 11% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Irrelevance: e.g. Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago. This Sin was seen in 78 products and 4% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Fibbing: e.g. Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. Found in 10 products or less than 1% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: e.g. Organic cigarettes or “environmentally friendly” pesticides, This occurred in 17 products or 1% of environmental claims.

In April 2009, TerraChoice published a second report on the subject. This report noted the emergence of a seventh Sin – the ‘Sin of Worshiping False Labels’.^[16]

• The Sin of Worshiping False Labels is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists; fake labels, in other words.

In addition, the 2009 study pinpointed three areas of consumer goods with the greatest level of greenwashing: children products, cosmetics, and cleaning products. In all three cases, marketers manipulate a consumer’s safety concerns and fears by capitalizing on the supposed health and safety benefits of “green” living.

In the case of children products, one might look primarily to toys and baby products like “biodegradable” building blocks or BPA-free silverware. For cosmetics, companies often use labels such as “naturally pure” to offer a seemingly “organic” personal care product. Finally, the greenwashing in cleaning products is evident in the “biodegradable” toilet paper, or the “non-toxic” bleach, or the “100 percent recycled” paper towels.”

Across the three product platforms of marketing, vague and ambiguous labeling allows a consumer to believe he/she is purchasing a product with greater eco-friendly benefits. Yet just as greenwashing misleads, these labels do not always carry substantial accreditation or scientific backing to prove the assertions and exacerbate the backlash of green marketing.

[edit] How to spot Greenwashing

There are many different ways to spot a company that may be greenwashing. Here is a list of things to consider when buying a product to tell whether it’s really green or just advertisement.

• Poor use of scientific facts or the lack of any scientific facts.

• The use of buzz words like ”carbon intensity”, “sustainable development”, “carbon offsets”, “clean technology”. These terms may be used to distract consumers from researching further into the product.

• Look at the seal or environmental label on the product. Some labels like "Green Seal" and a few others labels are credible. They are backed by a strict independent certification. All other eco labels on products are unregulated and the manufacturer has the authority to use them even if the products are not green.

• Use common sense. If the claims don’t feel right they may not be. For example is BP greener because they changed their name to a more eco friendly Beyond Petroleum.

• Look out for companies that produce green products that actually pollute the environment more by making their products green. For example energy efficient light bulbs save energy, but if not produced responsibly and recycled correctly they can damage the environment more than they help.

• Green pictures and pictures of nature can also be used to imply a product is green. Just because a product has flowers or a forest on it doesn’t mean it is green or eco friendly.

• Look out for irrelevant claims, mainly, when a company focuses on one small green attribute when the rest of the company or product is un-green.

These are some simple ways to spot greenwashing when you buy a product or see ads on TV. If you feel a company may be greenwashing the best way to verify is to simply do some research. A good site to verify any suspicions is the greenwashing index

See references^[12][17][18]

[edit] US regulation

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) provides guidelines for environmental marketing claims. These guidelines give the FTC the right to prosecute false and misleading advertisement claims. The green guidelines were not created to be used as an enforceable guideline but instead were intended to be followed voluntarily. Listed below are the green guidelines set by the FTC.

• Qualifications and disclosures: The Commission traditionally has held that in order to be effective, any qualifications or disclosures such as those described in these guides should be sufficiently clear, prominent and understandable to prevent deception. Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.^[19]

• Distinction between benefits of product, package and service: An environmental marketing claim should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the environmental attribute or benefit being asserted refers to the product, the product's packaging, a service or to a portion or component of the product, package or service. In general, if the environmental attribute or benefit applies to all but minor, incidental components of a product or package, the claim need not be qualified to identify that fact. There may be exceptions to this general principle. For example, if an unqualified "recyclable" claim is made and the presence of the incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle the product, then the claim would be deceptive.^[19]

• Overstatement of environmental attribute: An environmental marketing claim should not be presented in a manner that overstates the environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmental benefits if the benefit is in fact negligible.^[19]

• Comparative claims: Environmental marketing claims that include a comparative statement should be presented in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently clear to avoid consumer deception. In addition, the advertiser should be able to substantiate the comparison.^[19]

The FTC has said in 2010 that it will update its guidelines for environmental marketing claims in an attempt to reduce Greenwashing. ^[20]

[edit] Examples

• Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative, which environmentalists have argued actually weakens air pollution laws.^[21]

• Many food products have packaging that evokes an environmentally friendly imagery even though there has been no attempt made at lowering the environmental impact of its production.^[22]

• In 2009, European McDonald's changed the color of their logos from yellow and red to yellow and green.^[23][24]

• An article in Wired magazine alleges that slogans are used to suggest environmentally benign business activity: the Comcast ecobill has the slogan of "PaperLESSisMORE" but ComCast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing. The Poland Spring ecoshape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good", although 80% of beverage containers go to the landfill. The Airbus A380 airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high negative environment cost.^[25]

• According to Fred Pearce's Greenwash column in The Guardian, "clean coal" is the "ultimate climate change oxymoron" -- "pure and utter greenwash" he says.^[26]

• The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK upheld several complaints against major car manufacturers including Suzuki, SEAT, Toyota and Lexus who made erroneous claims about their vehicles.^{[27][28][29][30]}

• Ford Motor Company using the name, "Ecoboost"[1] for its Taurus SHO 2010 model. The 2010 Taurus gets the same fuel mileage (17/25mpg) as the 1990 model SHO (16/24mpg). Advances have been made in horsepower but not in mileage. The "Eco" suggestion is misleading as to the environmental aspects of the car.

• Kimberly Clark's claim of "Pure and Natural" diapers [2] in green packaging. The product uses organic cotton on the outside, and adds some aloe and vitamin E, but keeps the same petrochemical gel on the inside.

[edit] Opposition to greenwash

Organisations and individuals are making attempts to reduce the impact of greenwashing by exposing it to the public. CHOICE^[31] in Australia offers a chance to report greenwash claims. Greenwashing Index,^[32] operated by the University of Oregon, allows cases of greenwashing to be rated. Greenpeace, the international environmental organisation, has a blog that allows greenwashing claims to be rated.^[33] Greenwashing blogs^[34] also exist to reveal any untruths in claims that are made. The British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing has a specific section (section 49) targeting environmental claims.

[edit] See also

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Use of environmental claims in the marketing of vehicles

• Green PR
• Green brands
• Green marketing
• List of environmental issues
• False advertising

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Clegg, Brian. 2009. Eco-logic: Cutting Through the Greenwash: Truth, Lies and Saving the Planet. London: Eden Project. ISBN 9781905811250.
• Greer, Jed, and Kenny Bruno. 1996. Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network. ISBN 9839747169.
• Lubbers, Eveline. 2002. Battling Big Business: Countering Greenwash, Infiltration, and Other Forms of Corporate Bullying. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1567512240
• Tokar, Brian. 1997. Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0896085589.
• Dobin, D. (2009). GREENWASHING HARMS ENTIRE MOVEMENT. Lodging Hospitality, 65(14), 42. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database
• (2009). Greenwashing culprits to be foiled ahead of business summit. European Environment & Packaging Law Weekly, (159), 28. Retrieved from GreenFILE database
• Priesnitz, W. (2008). Greenwash: When the green is just veneer. Natural Life, (121), 14-16. Retrieved from GreenFILE database.
• Catherine, P. (n.d). Eco-friendly labelling? It's a lot of 'greenwash'. Toronto Star (Canada), Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
• Jonathan, L. (n.d). Why 'greenwash' won't wash with consumers. Sunday Times, The, Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
• JENNY, D. (n.d). New reports put an end to greenwashing. Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney), Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.

[edit] External links

• Los Angeles Times
• Roberts Environmental Center. [3] Accessed 5-29-09. Ratings of corporate sustainability claims.
• How Greenwashing Works at HowStuffWorks
• Tools Of Greenwashing: Adverts - Article from The Unsuitablog, an anti-greenwashing blog
• Beware of Greenwashing: Not All Environmental Claims are Meaningful - How to avoid being fooled
• Questioning "corporate social responsibility" - Greenwashing article from London's Southern OnTrack magazine
• Greenwashing in Popular Culture and Art
• Are You Being Greenwashed?-the reality of Greenwashing in our society, documentary presented by George Monbiot.
• Turn Up The Heat - Greenwashing critique by George Monbiot
• What is Greenwashing, and Why is it a Problem?"
• FOOTSIE 100 Green Winners and Green Washers Survey
• DuPont and Greenwash "An Examination of the Limits to DuPont's 'Sustainability' Commitments" by United Steelworkers Union 11/03/07
• Greenwashing and the corporate mind.