It’s Time to Acknowledge and Address Greenwashing

As the climate crisis continues to grow, consumers, activists and scientists all around the world have increasingly begun to demand more accountability from corporations who are engaging in environmentally harmful operations. This demand from the people has forced governments and corporations to provide some sort of formal response, or otherwise risk facing boycotting, strikes or bad public relations. Unfortunately for them, in many scenarios, taking meaningful climate action usually requires innovation or creativity to not result in a loss of profits or revenue. Therefore, many companies take another path, trying their best to artificial manipulate public opinion by setting grandiose climate commitments and also introducing “green” product offerings. These product offerings are usually accompanied by heavy marketing which attempts to persuade the public that they are indeed making a change, when in reality, these offerings either put the climate burden on the customer, or simply have no impact at all. This alternate path which has been taken by many large corporations has become known as “greenwashing”.

Greenwashing is recognised as the attempt by a company to monetize or capitalise on the growing demand for environmental awareness through the introduction of either manipulative or misleading “environmentally friendly” product offerings.

The term was introduced in the 1960s, when hotel companies used the tactic of shifting the burden onto customers by encouraging customers to reuse their towels to save the environment. However, while these action would save some water, the reality was that the change made was one that came at no cost to hotel companies. In fact, this “response” to the market’s demand for climate action was only implemented because it would simultaneously reduce expenses for the greedy hotels. Many other companies have continued to engage is very similar activities over the years. For example, Rio Tinto chairman was found claiming that “urgent, coordinated government action is essential”, just a few weeks after allocating $1.5 billion on a new coal-fired electricity plant [2].

Some other common tactics to look out for are vague labelling or deceptive statistics. For example, if packaging has “recyclable” on it, it is usually unclear if only the packaging is recyclable or if the product is also recyclable. As for statistics, companies may claim that their products are “100%” more recyclable – however, this may simply indicate that the product went from 1% to 2% in recyclability. In all cases it is important to remember that: if the message is unclear, it is probably intentional and may likely be malicious.

Nevertheless, it is still important to recognise that not all companies are engaging in greenwashing. As stated above, greenwashing companies will usually engage in making grand claims and commitments with no actual tangible evidence to back it up. However, actual green companies will be more than happy to share the meaningful specifics regarding the ways in which their offerings or operations help promote the health of the environment. Unfortunately, the burden in many cases falls on the consumer to be diligent in examining and analysing company product more closely. One tip to consider is to look out for the appropriate standardised and reputable logos – for example, the logos for “compostable” or “recyclable”.