What is Greenwashing?
It’s Whitewashing, But With a Green Brush.
Everyone’s heard the expression "whitewashing" -- it’s defined as "a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts, especially in a political context."
"Greenwashing" is the same premise, but in an environmental context.
It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be "green" through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact. It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush.
A classic example might be an energy company that runs an advertising campaign touting a "green" technology they’re working on -- but that "green" technology represents only a sliver of the company’s otherwise not-so-green business, or may be marketed on the heels of an oil spill or plant explosion.
http://www.greenwashingindex.com/...
Turn the page, for a concrete Example of GreenWashing at work ...
Dow Chemical - The Human Element
http://www.youtube.com/...
afetterly of Vancouver gave this ad a 4.8
[ on the GreenWashing Scale 1-5, 1=Authentic, 5=Bogus ]
This ad particularly disgusts me as Dow is promoting their company to be socially sustainable and investing in the best interests of humans. If one looks a little further past the veil of Dow you will soon see their history if rife with toxic waste, chemical production, creation of the Agent Orange chemical and countless lawsuits against them for the irreversible grief their "products" have cost people on a wide scale. Their "Human Element" is somewhere closer to greed, corruption and extermination then it is to sustainability, and equity.
http://www.greenwashingindex.com/...
For more Citizen-verified "Green Ads" check out
the Worst Greenwashing Ads List from greenwashingindex.com
Greenwashing Index is promoted by EnviroMedia Social Marketing in partnership with the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication, Dr. Deborah Morrison, Ph.D., Dr. Kim Sheehan, Ph.D.
Who says Consumers can't Demand Better -- Better Products, Better Advertising, and Better fit with the Planet?
Consumers Won’t Be Fooled: Greenwashing Index Cleaning Up Advertising
(PORTLAND, Ore.)— One year after its launch, the Greenwashing Index[tm] has empowered people in 138 countries to visit the online forum, which allows consumers to call out misleading green ads and showcase honest ones.
[...]
Because of the Greenwashing Index[tm], it’s becoming harder to fool consumers, and it is getting more difficult for companies to ignore how they present green products and services to the public," said Valerie Davis, principal and CEO of EnviroMedia, one of the creators of the Index.
(emphasis added)
http://www.enviromedia.com/...
Yet the problem of the gullible consumer, too-busy-to-do-research, still exists. "Concerned Citizens meet Madison Avenue Heart-Strings" -- this was a Media Match that was just itching to happen ...
Report: ‘Greenwashing’ Runs Rampant
April 16, 2009
Green products are proliferating so quickly, and adding so many new consumer claims, that TerraChoice has increased its listing of greenwashing sins from six to seven.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/...
for more from TerraChoice another great organization trying to Gauge the accuracy of the lately "Green Rush"
Eco-Buyer Beware: Green Can Be Deceiving
By Bryan Walsh Thursday, Time, Sep 11, 2008
Many consumers may not have heard the term greenwashing, but they've surely experienced it -- misleading marketing about the environmental benefits of a product. Greenwashing isn't new--ever since the environment emerged as an issue in the early 1970s, there have been advertising firms trying to convince consumers that buying Brand X is the only way to save the earth.
[...]
"We have such a challenge ahead of us on climate change," says Kevin Tuerff, a co-founder of the marketing consultancy EnviroMedia. "Greenwashing harms the effort we need to be making."
(emphasis added)
http://www.time.com/...
So where is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in this struggle of for "Truth in [Green-]Advertising"? Aren't THEY suppose to be the Consumer's Watch Dog?
Well the FTC did take steps to safeguard Consumers from deceptive Green Claims, a while back. But as always with Consumer Issues, the problem often comes down to enforcement. The FTC has the "Environmental Marketing Claims" standard "under review" as of 2008. It will be interesting to see if that review, results in any REAL "Environmental Progress". Here some "fun facts" about the old standard:
Are Consumers Savvy About "Carbon Neutral" and "Green" Energy Marketing Claims?
By Tom Mounteer and Noah Perch-Ahern
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") recently announced that it will undertake a review of its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims ("Green Guides") to account for the growing array of "green" energy marketing claims, including those relating to carbon "offsets," carbon neutrality, or "reducing your carbon footprint." If your business advertises or otherwise makes claims relating to greenhouse gas reductions, renewable energy certificates ("RECs"), or other opportunities for consumers who buy your goods or services to "offset" or neutralize carbon emissions, you will want to monitor the Green Guides’ review process.
[...]
The new Green Guides guidance will address the sorts of "green" energy claims that are clear and capable of substantiation. The FTC will be examining how consumers perceive claims related to carbon offsets and RECs by looking at the sorts of claims that are express and implied in typical advertisements such as those related to emissions offsets and renewable energy.
For instance,
When consumers purchase carbon offsets or RECs, what do they think they are buying?
What impact do consumers believe their carbon offset purchases will have on the future quantities of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
Do consumers understand that some activities supported by carbon offset programs do not result in immediate carbon emission reductions?
When do consumers expect such offset programs will have an impact?
Given the sorts of claims that consumers think are being made, the FTC will also address forms of substantiation. [...] Businesses with a stake in green energy advertisements will want to participate in or at least pay close attention to the revisions of the Green Guides in order to fall within a "safe harbor" provided by the FTC.
(emphasis added)
http://209.85.173.132/...
Link to Pdf
Green Companies are often advised to look for that "safe harbor" (between out right lies, and clever sleight of hand.) That's just what Free Markets do. The Motto "Buyer Beware" is repeated for a reason.
California Green Solutions
FTC Certification for Environmental Marketing Claims FTC [Federal Trade Commission] rules apply to marketing, packaging, advertising and public relations to environmental claims. "Substantiation" is required.
(emphasis added)
http://www.californiagreensolutions....
FTC - Federal Trade Commission
Part 260 -- GUIDES FOR THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS
http://www.ftc.gov/...
Ideally, it should NOT only be "Buyers that need to Beware" -- Companies need to realize that environmentally concerned citizens, simply won't "Rubber Stamp" any Product or Company, waving a Green-colored Banner, when what they are promoting is decidedly more Grey in Nature ...
Clean Coal
http://www.youtube.com/...
from greenwashingindex.com
Lest we all forget the Consumer Lesson of the last Decade:
Why should Corporations Tell the Truth, when a Campaign of Deception, can be "plausibly sold" to the American People -- at a Profit!
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
By ANDREW C. REVKIN - NYTimes - April 23, 2009
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
[...]
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.
Throughout the 1990s, when the coalition conducted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign challenging the merits of an international agreement, policy makers and pundits were fiercely debating whether humans could dangerously warm the planet. Today, with general agreement on the basics of warming, the debate has largely moved on to the question of how extensively to respond to rising temperatures.
(emphasis added)
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Stalling Tactics, can be just as Profitable as Going Green, it would seem ...
And so too, for the great Enablers of this Faux-Debate,
Well, they get their Cut of the Revenue, from milking the Crisis for all it's worth too.
Pro and Con "Greenie Ads" could play out for another Decade, easy --
No Problem ... No Problem at all ...