Whitespace: The perils of greenwashing

Issue 38: June 2008

Green is good, right? A universally recognised symbol of a company's desire to do the right thing for the environment. Who could have a problem with that? Well actually a lot of consumers have a problem with green branding, or more specifically, they have a problem with greenwashing.

According to environmental marketing specialists TerraChoice, greenwashing can be defined as: "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service." And misleading doesn't just mean lying. Being vague or inflating green promises are also forms of greenwashing – a label that can be the kiss of death for so-called green brands.

The green balancing act

Without doubt green branding is currently a key issue for senior management teams across the globe. A recent study by green PR firm OgilvyEarth indicates three quarters of Australian managers believe environment-focused marketing will be essential to their business within 10 years.

However building a credible green brand is proving much easier said than done for many companies. Stay ahead of the game and you're open to intense scrutiny; take a cautious approach and you could loose significant market share.

Saab recently discovered the dangers of going green too fast, too soon. The carmaker's 'Every Saab is Green' campaign claimed 17 trees would be planted for every vehicle sold. Despite sounding above board, the ads riled the ACCC. The Commission argued that the message suggested carbon neutrality for the entire lifespan of a car – a promise Saab could not deliver on. Journalists pounced on the issue and as a result the campaign ended up receiving a lot of attention for all the wrong green reasons.

Green mud sticks

It's not just the ACCC and news media that are on the lookout for greenwashers. Self-publishing tools (blogs, online social networks, YouTube, etc) make it easy for an army of citizen journalists to make their thoughts on green branding messages known.

One of the latest developments in this area is greenwashingindex.com, an interactive forum that allows consumers to judge green branding claims against a series of greenwashing measures. While the site predominantly features US and European television advertisements, a handful of Australian commercials have been uploaded for a dose of crowd-sourced evaluation.

Of course, just because consumers have a voice doesn't mean they always get it right. And that's why an organisation making environmental claims must always be armed with easily accessible information to defend their position. They should also be prepared to join the green blogging world, to enter into a dialogue with consumers as opposed to relying on a generic media release.

Green has the blues

Here's an interesting prediction: a handful of trend spotters believe green has an image problem so large that companies may start avoiding the colour altogether. It's suggested the colour blue may soon be the most credible way to graphically illustrate a company's environmental credentials.

While individual organisations have no control over cultural semantics, they are in a position to protect themselves from greenwashing allegations by creating authentic, transparent environmental messages. Green consumers are passionate and powerful. Mislead them – either by accident or design – at your own risk.

The Six Sins of Greenwashing

To help companies avoid the pitfalls of greenwashing TerraChoice has developed the Six Sins of Greenwashing. These are:

1. Hidden Trade Offs – emphasising one environmental benefit while hiding a trade off; for example, recycled copy paper might sound green but its production may have resulted in increased energy use and/or more transportation

2. No Proof – when products make a green claim but don't offer any means for customers to view the evidence; for example, when the message 'not tested on animals' isn't collaborated by a third party source

3. Vagueness – Meaningless claims like 'all natural' or 'earth friendly'; many products claim to be 'chemical free' however all plants and animal products are made form chemicals

4. Irrelevance – When an environmental claim is made that does not have any connection to a product; for example, CFC free shaving gels

5. Fibbing – Out and out misleading information, such as 'certified organic'; unless claims are certified by a legitimate third party consumers may start to ask questions

6. The Lesser of Two Evils – When environmentally questionable products are made to sound greener, for example 'organic tobacco' or 'green insecticides'

Whitespace is published monthly by the Australian Institute of Management - Qld & NT. Sign up to have a copy sent direct to your mailbox.