Greenwashing Needs To Go
In recent years, we've all seen sustainability become the forefront of conversation. What can big business do to save the planet? What are they actively avoiding doing?
A recent study by Deloitte shows that cutting down on single-use plastics was embraced by over 2/3 of the general public, making it the most popular method for supporting sustainability. Shopping for brands with environmentally sustainable values was next, followed by reducing overall spend on new items, and the consumption of meat and animal based products.
A graphic from Deloitte showing customers preferred methods of sustainable shopping.
It’s safe to say sustainability is a important part of our lives, and economy…if we hope to have either. The time we have to prevent climate change is drastically getting shorter. But are companies taking meaningful steps to reduce the impact of climate change? Probably not.
Let’s Talk Greenwashing
As sustainability becomes a more prominent factor in our purchasing decisions, the term “greenwashing” has become synonymous. Greenwashing is when a company purports to be environmentally conscious for marketing purposes but actually isn’t making any notable sustainability efforts. Likely influenced by the term “whitewashing”, where an organisation covers up or glosses over scandalous information by presenting a highly biased version of the facts.
Jay Westerveld coined the term “greenwashing” in 1986, in a critical essay inspired by the irony of the “save the towel” movement in hotels that had little impact beyond saving hotels money in laundry costs. The idea emerged in a period when most consumers received their news primarily from TV, radio, and print media, so they couldn’t fact-check the way they could today.
Companies that have engaged in greenwashing on a wide scale have made headlines over the years. In the mid-’80s, for example, oil company Chevroncommissioned a series of expensive television and print ads to broadcast its environmental dedication. But while the now-infamous “People Do” campaign ran, Chevron was actively violating the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, as well as spilling oil into wildlife refuges.
Chevron was far from the only corporation making outrageous claims, unfortunately. In 1991, chemical company DuPont announced its double-hulled oil tankers with ads featuring marine animals prancing in chorus to Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.” It turned out the company was the largest corporate polluter in the U.S. that year.
It’s worth noting there can be cases where companies can greenwash with good intentions, but more often than not you’ll see businesses “greenwash’ through marketing campaigns if an effort to steal some of the revenue that environmentally conscious brands reap.
How Greenwashing Can Break A Brand
Greenwashing has evolved over the last 20 years, but it’s certainly still around. As the world embraces the pursuit of greener practices, corporations face an influx of litigation for misleading environmental claims.
For example, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste - a Singapore-based nonprofit backed by big oil and chemical companies such as Shell, ExxonMobil, and Dow- claims to be spending $1.5 billion to clean up plastic waste in developing counties. Despite this supposed goal, AEPQ not only failed to honour it’s promise to clean up the Ganges, but it’s member organisations went forward with plans to produce even more plastic.
Even the bottled water industry tries to overrepresent its greenness. How many plastic bottles have you seen with colorful images of rugged mountains, pristine lakes and flourishing wildlife printed on their labels?
“The core theme has stayed the same,” said Philip Beere, vice president of marketing at Sightline Payments. “The No. 1 violation is embellishing the benefit of the product or service.”
Beere said he believes greenwashing is rarely caused by malicious plots to deceive – usually it’s the result of overenthusiasm.
It’s easy to see why marketers are enthusiastic: According to GreenPrint’s 2021 Business of Sustainability Index, 64% of Gen X consumers would spend more on a product if it comes from a sustainable brand, and that figure jumps to 75% among millennials.
Did you know?
Greenwashing has a cost. A recent survey by GreenPrint revealed that 53% of Americans “never” believe companies environmental claims.
Big Brands Accused Of Greenwashing
Throughout this article, we’ve only covered historical examples of greenwashing. But major brands big and small are being called out for greenwashing by the Advertising Standards Authority. In fact, an Analysis of recent ASA Rulings by The Independent found there has been a sharp rise in the number of adverts ruled as greenwashing, both in recent months and compared to the year before, with 16 advertising campaigns exaggerating their green credentials or making claims that simply could not be substantiated.
Toby King, spokesperson for ASA said “We know that consumers are increasingly concerned about knowing about the climate impact of the products and services they use. We’re seeing a rising number of complaints specifically around misleading green claims, and expect this will be a key part of our work in the years ahead”.
King says that going forward, advertisers need to make absolutely sure that their green claims aren’t misleading. “They should have sufficient evidence to back up any claims, and not suggest their products or services are more eco-friendly than they actually are. We won’t hesitate to take action against any ads that break our rules.”
Let’’s take a look at 3 big brands called out by the ASA for greenwashing:
Oatly
The popular plant milk brand fell foul of ASA regulations after it made various claims about the food industry and the brand’s environmental commitments.
The claims included that Oatly generates “73% less CO2e v milk” and “The dairy and meat industries emit more CO2e than all the world’s planes, trains, cars, boats etc combined”
The ASA investigated the claims and said they were misleading as they were not specific enough around what products the ads referred to.
Innocent Drinks
Complainants took issue over the ‘Little Drinks, Big Dreams’ campaign’s recycling-focused messaging, despite Innocent’s single-use plastic products.
The ad was ruled misleading by the ASA for implying that “purchasing Innocent products was a choice that would have a positive environmental impact when that was not the case.”
Hyundai
A website ad for Hyundai’s Nexo model included text that stated ‘All-New Nexo’ and ‘Introducing the next generation of fuel cell vehicles: A car so beautifully clean, it purifies the air as it goes.’
The ASA considered that this claim would be understood to mean that the car overall had a negligible environmental impact and would remove impurities from the air as it was driven, such that no impurities caused by driving it would remain in the air, which was ruled misleading.
The Conclusion
Big of small, greenwashing has a significant impact on the world. There’s hope that all of the above can serve as a cautionary tale to businesses looking to go green.