In an undeniable rush, corporate giants are jumping on the
"green" bandwagon: Wal-mart, Ford, Dow, General Electric, British Petroleum, Chevron, DuPont, to name only a few.
"There's a tendency to put a green smiley face on everything," says Joel
Makower, author of The Green Consumer. And smiley faces are rearing
their heads all over the place. "We
use our waste CO2 to grow flowers," claims a Shell Oil ad.
Right ...
But the concept isn't new. In 1999, "greenwash" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as: "Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image." Naturally, green branding breeds even greener skeptics.
There are plenty of arguments for why this is inherently bad, especially if it's just lip service -- or worse, polishing up the public image of big polluters or convincing people that an environmental problem is being solved by industry when it isn't.
On the other hand, if huge corporate ad campaigns help cultivate a green-conscious public that doesn't stop at voting with their dollars but also votes its greenness at the ballot box, we have a better chance of moving sustainable policies forward. Greenwashing, for all the ire it raises among the truly green, might have long term political benefits.
Nobody should get away with blatantly false claims in ads. And since there's no central agency certifying greenness, it seems a company can make a tiny step toward green in one area of their business and immediately start calling themselves Kermit the Frog. Consumers and industry should be vigilant.
There are some good watchdogs. The advertising industry relies on a system of voluntary self-regulation administered by the National Advertising Division of Council of Better Business Bureaus. (NAD is six lawyers who issue over 150 decisions a year, mostly originated by complaints from competitors about false claims in ads. Ninety-five percent of companies that use NAD comply with the agency's decisions.) Independent critics have emerged as well: coopamerica.org, treehugger.com, corpwatch.org, greenbiz.com -- among many others.
Backlash from savvy consumers is a natural and healthy outcome of the green marketing wave. Wal-Mart loudly trumpeted its "green" initiatives and was lambasted by critics for weakening the "organic" label with organics sourced in China and transported thousands of miles, spewing carbon emissions en route.
But this kind of public scrutiny can be crippling even when companies make genuine attempts to implement sustainable practices. Take Levi jeans, which quietly added organic cotton to its products over many years without fanfare. For good reason: fearing that any kind of green claim would draw attention to the ugly fact that a third of a pound of chemicals are used to grow a pound of cotton in the U.S. (yikes!), they kept their green efforts on the low-down.
On the flip side, purely financial decisions to push green products can have positive environmental impacts. Home Depot saw a double-digit increase in sales of compact fluorescent light bulbs and a 30 percent jump in sales of EnergyStar appliances in 2006. That can't be bad, whatever the company's motivations -- but it's not enough to absolve a company's ungreen sins.
United Parcel Service is switching some of their fleet to hybrid-electric vehicles expected to reduce fuel consumption by roughly 44,000 gallons over the course of a year while reducing by 457 metric tons the amount of CO2 gases released annually into the atmosphere. Again, a cost savings for UPS and an image boost to boot. Still, it doesn't mean UPS is all green, all the time. (Aren't they brown anyway?)
But there's a bigger point here. We certainly won't combat global warming or other environmental concerns by ramping up our consumption -- green or not green -- or by convincing consumers that buying from "green" companies is all that they need to do to save the world -- the goal of most of these ad campaigns. But another important victory might be won: the hearts and minds of voters.
Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of baseless greenwashing. I maintain a healthy skepticism about corporate maneuvering. But rather than being extra tough on companies making any effort at all, should we instead applaud even half-baked efforts to take green to the mainstream? Good advertising is about tapping into our core values and then tying behaviors to people's identity. As we speak, the sharpest advertising minds are spending billions of corporate dollars connecting people with their inner green.
Think of the potential for consciousness-raising. I mean, you don't see non-profits launching multi-million dollar ad campaigns about green causes -- we don't have that kind of dough. But when BP does it, however self-serving or ironic, it's a sure bet a green message is reaching the masses. And when elections roll around, sharpened consumer consciousness may have far bigger consequences than the brand of shoes we buy.
(Thanks to communications intern Lauren Minis for her research help for this post.)
Photo: "Green Dude" by Leon "Firemind" from Flickr.com.
Green-biz pioneer Ray Anderson says sustainability literally pays for itself
Is the Dow Jones Sustainability Index worth a damn?
Comments
View as Flat
Karen Lee Orr Posted 8:54 am
25 May 2007
Here's the link to her website where her publications are listed.
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/home.html
Sharon Beder in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Beder
Sharon Beder's article on NRDC for PR Watch is quite interesting.
"How Environmentalists Sold Out to Help Enron:"
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/enviros.html
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 10:59 am
25 May 2007
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/greenwash.html
Greenwashing, Greenscamming and Greenspeak are all different terms for public relations efforts to portray an organisation, activity or product as environmentally friendly.
Greenwash derives from the term whitewash and indicates that organisations using greenwash are trying to cover up environmentally and/or socially damaging activities, sometimes just with rhetoric, sometimes with minor or superficial environmental reforms. Similarly Greenscamming indicates an element of fraud and deception and refers to the practice of using environmental names for groups or products that are not environmentally friendly. Greenspeak is a more neutral term meaning environmental language, jargon and terms. It is sometimes used to indicate environmental language that lacks substance, is not genuine or is merely empty rhetoric. Greenspeak is also used by anti-environmental groups to derogatively refer to arguments made by environmentalists.
Environmental public relations, or greenwash, has been a response to the rise of environmental concern, particularly in the late 1980s. Many firms responded with green marketing campaigns in an effort to portray their products as environmentally friendly and capitalise on new markets created by rising environmental consciousness.
The attempt to provide a `green' and caring image for a corporation is a public relations strategy aimed at promising reform and heading off demands for more substantial and fundamental changes and government intervention. Public relations experts advise how to counter the negative perceptions of business, caused in most cases by their poor environmental performance. Rather than substantially change business practices so as to earn a better reputation many firms are turning to PR professionals to create one for them. This is cheaper and easier than making the substantial changes required to become more environmentally friendly.
One of the ways PR experts enhance the image of their clients and show that they care is by emphasising their positive actions, no matter how trivial, and down playing any negative aspects, no matter how significant. Some companies make the most out of measures they have been forced to take by the government, making it seem that they have undertaken the improvements because they care about the environment. Companies that have poor environmental records can also improve their image and increase their sales merely by using recycled paper in their products or making similar token adjustments.
Another way for corporations to show they care about the environment, even if they don't care enough to make major changes to their business practices, is to donate money to an environmental group or to sponsor an environmental project. Such donations can also have the additional benefit of coopting and corrupting environmentalists. Consultancies and perks for individual environmentalists also work wonders for getting a favourable hearing.
As well as funding genuine environmental groups, these corporations also set up anti-environmental front groups that pose as environmental groups adopting environmental names, sometimes with the similar acronyms or logos as their environmental foes to add to the deliberately fostered confusion.
To read 'Greenwash' by Sharon Beder in its' entirety click link below ~
International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics:
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/greenwash.html
Also see Sharon Beder's
Corporate Assault on Democracy
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/talk.html
The Intellectual Sorcery of Think Tanks
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/tanks.html
From Green Warriors to Greenwashers
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q3/g2g.html
Through the Revolving Door: From Greenpeace to Big Business
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q3/greenpeace.html
Best Coverage Money Can Buy
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/media.html
Corporate Hijacking of the Greenhouse Debate
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/ecologist2.html
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:40 pm
25 May 2007
There are two threads here, which only require a fill-in-the-blank exercise in editing to make them interchangeable. This one and the one on 'religious environmentalism' are about groups who use marketing to fix their appeal to attract the greatest demographic population, and thereby benefit themselves for their own selfish motives.
Furthermore, they are converging on the green, environmental, sustainability movement at the same time for the same reasons. They sniff the winds of change and act accordingly.
In both cases, they are age-old phenomena.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sutainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
jjbix Posted 4:16 pm
25 May 2007
So, while I am not convinced the leading seemingly green companies are suddenly noble citizens, at least their mega advertising budgets will open some eyes to average Joe-America and offer green(er) alternatives to he who would otherwise not have the motivation to taste green, much less go green.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:39 pm
25 May 2007
Soon enough, conservatives will begin critiquing the fact that most green claims are not green at all (dancing lumps of coal) and the image of environmentalism will take another hit.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
tico89 Posted 8:56 am
26 May 2007
Yes, of course it's good that people prefer to buy 'green' than non-green. But greenness in the sense of marketing campaigns is generally nothing more than a placebo. If buying green makes you feel good, then by all means buy green, but don't forget that it's even greener not to buy the product at all. Call me a cynic, but it's just so easy to think you're helping when you're not really. It's a step in the right direction, but it may be the wrong-shaped step.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 11:13 pm
26 May 2007
Is Grist saying GE is really green? If big tobacco invests in cancer research, do they become "healthy"? A few wind turbines and a water desalinization plant do not make GE green. And dancing lumps of coal are down right offensive. Just mining coal, forget about burning it, is environmentally devastating. Mountain top removal is the worst example.
Since GE now advertises on Grist, do I still need to donate? I thought my donations helped finance this "independent" endeavor. Will Grist resist the influence of such a strange coroporate bedfellow? Or are they just profiting as a new tool in the corporate greenwashing arsenal?
Eco-imagination = pretending you're green, a self delusion. It's like someone installing a water saving shower head so they can still feel "green" when they throw fast food trash out of their SUV window.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:42 am
27 May 2007
No. As it says in our advertising policy, the presence of an ad does not imply any kind of endorsement or editorial comment. This is pretty standard.
Since GE now advertises on Grist, do I still need to donate?
Yes. We do not make enough from advertising that we can afford to forgo reader donations -- nor do we make enough from reader donations that we can afford to forgo advertising.
Will Grist resist the influence of such a strange coroporate bedfellow?
Yes, I'm pretty sure we can resist the temptation of selling out an 8-year record of editorial independence for the sake of one ad campaign.
grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:01 am
27 May 2007
No wonder they are pro-"clean" coal and anti Cape Wind.
Follow the money trail. A few first class jet set trips per year is enough to buy the loyalty of many economically challenged activists? For those who won't sellout?
No more free trips. No ticket to the world of the corporate feudal princes.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:19 am
27 May 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:39 am
27 May 2007
Why is this a liberal vs. conservatives issue? I would have thought that people of any political-economic leaning would demand truth in advertising.
I'm with Tico: I worry about the way that greenwash may dull our critical faculties.
Look at the power of the word "renewable". Renewable = good, right? So no matter what facts critics of biofuels bring to light, politicians and the industry can remain confident that most of the population are lulled by references to "renewable fuels".
Yet by the standard of biofuels, one could turn petroleum into a renewable fuel just by pumping it out of the ground with wind pumps, and transporting it down the coast in sailing ships. The ratio of "non-renewable" to "renewable" inputs would probably not be far from that of corn ethanol.
Permalink
Rune Posted 7:01 am
27 May 2007
Lie #1: Bait and switch. Traditionally, this works by luring a customer into the store on the promise of an excellent bargain only to point out that the bargain product won't actually satisfy the customer's needs as well as some options or even completely different products. The customer may or may not buy the advertised bargain, but the point is to get them to buy other things (instead or in addition) that undo the bargain effect of the advertised bait. In the greenwashing game, the bait is a credible green product, such as a CFL, sitting amidst a sea of plastic, toxic chemicals, and nature destroying, energy intensive products that the would-be green consumer is enticed to load up on during a shopping trip that was motivated by an impulse to buy green.
Lie #2: Our product has X% less harmful crap in it, so the more you consume the better will be the results. Traditionally this appeal has been used to push products that directly damage the health of consumers, such as cigarettes, sugar and transfat laden goodies, and such. In the world of greenwashing, it applies to products that result in the release or ingestion of harmful substances or the destruction of valuable natural resources. The trick is to use "natural" or "organic" sources of harmful substances (e.g., natural endocrine disrupters, hormonal mimics, or pesticides), use less of the same old bad stuff, or wipe out natural resources using "organic" or other supposedly green methods (e.g., converting precious wildlife habitat to organic production of a growing quantity of food, energy, textiles, or other industrial inputs). The pitch remains the same: this stuff is less harmful, so consume more of it (thus undoing whatever good it might have done if we simply substituted bad stuff for not-as-bad stuff or, more obviously and importantly, actually reduced the amount of bad stuff, regardless of its degree of badness, we are producing and consuming). As always, you can't get out of this trap by buying more, which is what the people spinning this pitch are urging, you still need to buy less (or none) to get where you want to go.
Lie #3: The tearful Indian. This is one of the oldest and least understood greenwashing myths. Back in the 1970s, faced with the threat of effective regulations to hold packaged goods and fastfood producers responsible for the entirely foreseeable problem of litter resulting for consumption of their convenience products wrapped up in inconvenient cellophane skins, bags, bottle tops, and flip top cans, the manufacturers banded together to create a P.R. consortium to put the burden on individual consumers, thus letting themselves off the hook. They ran an award winning TV commercial all over the airwaves featuring a tearful white guy posing as a Native American upset by the naughty littering of his fellow American consumers. It may have done a bit of good in terms of increasing the sense of individual responsibility for properly disposing of inconvenient packaging, but it was a great success in terms of its real objective, which was to defeat attempts to introduce effective regulations to eliminate flip tops or promote recycling--both of which eventually won out after the ad stopped running--or several other initiatives to reduce wasteful packaging by holding producers responsible for the cost of disposal that are a reality in other countries but still aren't getting serious consideration in the U.S.
So there you have it, greenwashing in three easy steps:
(1) Promise a little green, sell a lot of black;
(2) The more you buy (slightly less Earthwasting products), the more you save (the Earth), so do your part and buy more than ever; and,
(3) It's not our fault our products do some harm when you dispose of the waste we build into them, it's your fault for not going to the trouble and expense of properly disposing that which we could have eliminated in the first place (to say nothing of all the harm that goes into manufacturing them in the first place or takes place even when they are "properly" disposed of).
Three lies, no waiting. Next customer, please!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 7:49 am
27 May 2007
This is somewhat off the specific subject of greenwashing but I never see the--whatever--bouncing lumps of coal(?), because I block all ads. If you use Firefox you can get the Adblock add-on program and it kills virtually anything you don't want displayed. I live off the grid with only a very slow dial-up modem connection, so I get rid of everything that slows down the process.
I don't know what other browsers offer but you can check and find out--or switch. Start with your own browser.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:56 am
27 May 2007
From the news these days you'd think farmers have never had a better friend than ethanol. But if you actually are a farmer, ethanol, with the high corn prices it brings, is looking less and less like a blessing -- and more like a curse. (article continues)
Permalink
Billhook Posted 8:04 am
27 May 2007
thanks for those three neatly described lies -
I suspect there is a fourth, which I hope I can put as succinctly -
It is about the public being "sold a rat" conceptually,
when it thought it wanted a kitten.
This is a step beyond traditional "Bait & Switch,"
in that the "kitten" is effectively superceded across the marketplace.
"Renewable" is the prime example of such a rat -
there are vague unattributable rumours launched that
"Nobody knows what Sustainable means" and
"And anyway you've got to be a hippy or a geek
to want to waste time over it,"
so here's this great new buzz-word "Renewable"
(with added built-in foggy-flexibility for maximum spin capacity)
so lets go sell it!
Mega Hydro power ?
Cellulosic Ethanol ?
Battery Chicken Dung Power ?
Fast Breeder Reactor ?
No problem - they're all Renewable !
Are they Ecologically Sustainable ?
Oh that's so 1970s . . .
This greenwashing of language,
and thus of peoples' intellectual/conceptual capacity to discriminate effectively,
seems to me by far the most dangerous technique
that is now being applied by the corporations' propagandists.
In this sense, greenwash is a central component
of the unprecedented genocide in Africa & elsewhere,
to which America is now committing itself.
So no - on balance Greenwash is liable to be lethally bad for you,
and for the profiteers' myriad other victims.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
tico89 Posted 8:25 am
27 May 2007
Just thought you might like to have a look at whether your ads actually reach any significant proportion of the population reading Grist.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:25 am
27 May 2007
google.com/search?q=africa+population+increase+future
By 2050 Africa's population is expected to triple
When a racial population grows, it is called genocide?
Permalink
tico89 Posted 8:27 am
27 May 2007
Shame. There would be some serious advantages to greenwashing if it meant that.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 11:34 am
27 May 2007
As for greenwashing ... eh. It seems to me it takes a special sort of myopia to witness the incredible, historic surge of green consciousness going on right now and deem greenwashing the most important feature of it. Matter of fact, if y'all will go up and actually read the original post, I believe the point is that to the extent there is exaggeration going on in advertising, it might being doing some good, getting people thinking about exactly the issues we've spent so long trying to get them to think about.
I guess I just don't understand this endless, bitter search for fakers. It reminds me of a bunch of indie kids talking about who has and hasn't sold out. Insularity and obsession with an idealistic notion of authenticity are not attractive qualities in any subculture. It's a damn good way to remain a subculture, though.
grist.org
Permalink
schetikos Posted 3:26 pm
27 May 2007
The good news is that the discussion will now evolve to a much richer and deeper conversation in the coming months and will only accelerate in the years ahead. To be sure, we should broaden the definitions and how think about this. Dealing with socially relevant issues is the bigger story. Lack of potable drinking water for instance comes to mind. Innovation solutions abound, and this is where the word needs to get out. There are small, creative, dynamic organization addressing these problems that often go unnoticed. Check out this company at http://spangy.com/age45.html called Vehizero.
Mr. Murdoch would do well to look at the fantastic innovation taking place and in practical use. The US, unfortunately, tends to be a bit late to the game, due in large part to politics and existing infrastructure costs to change. Toyota has revealed the weak under belly of Detroit when it comes to hybrid technologies; with gasoline approaching $3.50/gallon and rising, Detroit will continue to lag further behind because of our (US) love affair with large SUVs and high-performance automobiles. Well, at least we have a corporate chieftan in Mr. Murdoch who will get the party started in earnest. The smart move would be for Mr. Murdoch to have all holiday cards printed using paper made out of elephant dung. Now that would be real commitment, while providing a sustainable opportunity. Check out the company ecomaximus at http://spangy.com/age45.html for more.
Think big thoughts. Do even bigger deeds.
Permalink