|
created over 5 years ago | Tagged: |
Alli D
|
n fact, greenwashing is the latest incarnation of whitewashing. According to a 2007 report by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, an overwhelming majority of environmental marketing claims in North America are inaccurate, inappropriate, or unsubstantiated.\n\nUsing metrics from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), TerraChoice concluded that all but one of the claims, out of more than 1000 products reviewed, raised red flags. Ranging from cleaning and personal care products to televisions and printers, the report concluded that the claims in question are "…either demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences."\n\nIt is very possible a few key greenwashers could make things more difficult for true green producers by putting a general strain on consumer trust. So it is no surprise that eco-practitioners project there is a very real danger that companies being rewarded for greenwashing will squeeze out those who are making genuinely innovative products. But companies that focus on short-term gains from flimsy eco-efforts are gambling with the long-term health of their brands. Eco-ness is a ratchet, not a flywheel. Progress is incremental. Each step a company makes in a more eco/green/sustainable direction—even with the most shallow of intentions—narrows options for what they can "get away with" in the future.\n \nAs attitudes change, and sustainability becomes part of everyday life, formal systems will fall into place to help assure those who make claims are held accountable for them. Around the world, environmental marketing claim guidelines are becoming law, with stiff penalties for the abusers. In today’s global economy, any company wanting to sell outside its home market needs to adhere to the most stringent of trading partners’ laws and apply that to all markets, or run the risk of being exposed for “doing less” at home.\n\nCurrently in the US, adherence to the Federal Trade Commission's Environmental Marketing Claims Guidelines are voluntary. Even so, at some point these guidelines could easily become mandate, as a similar version has in Europe. Farsighted companies, as well as firms selling abroad, have already begun to adopt the FTC Guidelines as mandate in anticipation of any change, as well as to better serve more claim-integrity attentive markets abroad.\n\nInterestingly, despite the fact that the Environmental Marketing Claims Guidelines were issued in 1992 and updated in 1998, the 2007 TerraChoice report indicated an overwhelming majority of environmental marketing claims in North America violated these guidelines. Why? Are people really trying to skirt the system? Do they feel the claims have no real meaning and are just buzzwords? Did they, intentionally or unintentionally, not do their homework before making a claim? Or did they simply conclude, “They’re voluntary, so why bother?" Or even, "Guidelines? What guidelines?”\n\nAs consumers became increasingly concerned about greenwashing, the FTC began the process to overhaul its voluntary environmental marketing guidelines. It started by focusing on commonly used eco-marketing buzzwords which have no definitions under the 1998 guidelines—carbon offsets, renewable energy, and sustainable, for example. "We want to make sure the guides reflect today's marketplace, consumer perceptions, and current science and technology," said Janice Podoll Frankle, a lawyer at the FTC's bureau of consumer protection, in a recent BusinessWeek article.\n\nMeanwhile, in spite of the US’s lack of official participation in the Kyoto Protocol, Americans spent more than US$ 54 million on offsets last year alone, proving with their actions and pocketbooks that climate issues are a very serious concern, even without government support. So companies must pay attention and realize their consumers are highly educated and personally invested in environmental reform.\n\n“Do you really dare put your head above the parapet by touting your greenness and attract very knowledgeable consumers who are going to crawl all over your business … and Greenpeace and every other environmental group you can think of?” Mike Longhurst, senior VP at McCann Erickson, London, said in a recent AdAge article. “If consumers think they can catch you telling a half-truth, they will."\n\nBefore your company begins its next project, do some research to see what’s changing not only in your own community or country, but in other markets as well. Even if there aren’t clear guidelines yet, chances are there will be soon. A little preemptive caution is a small investment to maintain a strong—and trusted—brand.\n\nHere are some great resources to get you started...\n\n \nTerra Choice: Six Sins of Greenwashing\n\nSin of the Hidden Trade-Off\ne.g. Paper (including household tissue, paper towel and copy paper): “Okay, this product comes from a sustainably harvested forest, but what are the impacts of its milling and transportation? Is the manufacturer also trying to reduce those impacts?”\n\nEmphasizing one environmental issue isn’t a problem (indeed, it often makes for better communications). The problem arises when hiding a trade-off between environmental issues.\n\nSin of No Proof\ne.g. Personal care products (such as shampoos and conditioners) that claim not to have been tested on animals, but offer no evidence or certification of this claim. Company websites, third-party certifiers, and toll-free phone numbers are easy and effective means of delivering proof.\n\nSin of Vagueness\ne.g. Garden insecticides promoted as “chemical-free.” In fact, nothing is free of chemicals.\n\nWater is a chemical. All plants, animals, and humans are made of chemicals, as are all of our products. If the marketing claim doesn’t explain itself (“here’s what we mean by ‘eco’ …”), the claim is vague and meaningless. Similarly, watch for other popular vague green terms: “non-toxic,” “all-natural,” “environmentally-friendly,” and “earth-friendly.”\n\nSin of Irrelevance\ne.g. CFC-free oven cleaners, CFC-free shaving gels, CFC-free window cleaners, CFC-free disinfectants.\n\nCould all of the other products in this category make the same claim? The most common example is easy to detect: Don’t be impressed by CFC-free! Ask if the claim is important and relevant to the product. (If a light bulb claimed water efficiency benefits you should be suspicious.) Comparison-shop (and ask the competitive vendors).\n\nSin of Fibbing\ne.g. Shampoos that claim to be “certified organic,” but for which our research could find no such certification.\n\nWhen I check up on it, is the claim true? The most frequent examples in this study were false uses of third-party certifications. Thankfully, these are easy to confirm. Legitimate third-party certifiers—EcoLogoCM, Chlorine Free Products Association (CFPA), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Green Guard, and Green Seal, for example,—all maintain publicly available lists of certified products. Some even maintain fraud advisories for products that are falsely claiming certification.\n\nSin of the Lesser of Two Evils\ne.g. Organic tobacco. “Green” insecticides and herbicides.\n\nIs the claim trying to make consumers feel "green" about a product category that is of questionable environmental benefit? Consumers concerned about the pollution associated with cigarettes would be better served by quitting smoking than by buying organic cigarettes. Similarly, consumers concerned about the human health and environmental risks of excessive use of lawn chemicals might create a bigger environmental benefit by reducing their use than by looking for greener alternatives.
