GREENWASH 101
WHAT IS GREENWASH?
In 1999, "greenwash" entered the official lexicon of the English language through
its inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary.
The OED defines greenwash as: "Disinformation
disseminated by an organization so as to present an
environmentally responsible public image."
Companies are the most common greenwashers,
but other kinds of organizations, such as government
agencies and trade groups, also produce greenwash.
In the marketplace, media and politics, greenwash serves several purposes, among them: fooling environmentally conscious consumers into buying environmentally destructive productst; generating positive press about a company's environmental commitment; and resisting government environmental regulation through preemptive voluntary policies within an industry. Collectively, greenwash's goals maintain the status quo of unsustainable consumption by deceiving and appeasing progressive parties.
CASE STUDIES
Greenwash comes in a
variety of strokes and shades. Here are illustrations
from its three major categories:
Labeling
The "SFI Certified Participant" label can be found on a range of paper and wood products. SFI stands for the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, a program of the American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA). In 1994, the AFPA, an industry group, launched SFI to develop environmental certification standards for the products of the organization’s 132 member companies, which include notorious clearcutters such as Weyerhaeuser. The standards governing SFI’s participants are lenient and vague. For example, companies participating in the SFI program are required to use forestry chemicals such as herbicides "prudently." Prudence is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as the "ability to discern the most suitable, politic, or profitable course of action." There is little evidence that the SFI’s definition stretches beyond merely the most profitable course.
Maybe that’s because there’s no one to show them any other way. Other sustainable paper and wood certifiers – notably the Forest Stewardship Council, which has stricter standards than SFI – are governed by social and environmental advocates and others independent of the forestry industry. In contrast, at least two-thirds of the SFI’s Board of Directors are industry representatives. The AFPA would deny that figure, but only because it bafflingly believes that logging companies and related trade associations fall outside the industry's fold. When companies certify their own sustainability, that’s greenwash.
Advertising
|
| Click logo to see the ad. |
A glossy Shell ad in National Geographic asks, "What
do we really need in todays energy-hungry world?"
The answer, "More gardeners." The ad copy
describes Shells support of the Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico,
site of "some of the most spectacular banks of
coral and sponges to be found in this part of the world."
The cost of advertising
in National Geographic runs in the six-figure range. Shell has been running the Flower Garden Banks ad in National
Geographic and other publications, as well as on the
web, for years. That puts Shells marketing tab
for the ad into the millions, if not tens of millions,
of dollars. Shell saves budget space for this pricey environmental
program by limiting its direct funding for the sanctuary
to $5,000 per year. When companies spend more on marketing
their environmental programs than on funding them, thats
greenwash.
Public Relations
Welcome to Houston Earth
Day 2004, sponsored by Marathon Oil. Back in 1997,
Marathon worked behind closed doors with Governor
George W. Bush to write voluntary emissions regulations
for industrial plants. The regulations successfully
protected out-of-date, dirty facilities from strict
pollution standards proposed in the Texas legislature
and supported by community groups and environmental
organizations. Marathons collusion helped condemn
Houstons citizens to some of the worst air quality
in the country. When companies use Earth Day to play
host to people they poison, thats greenwash.
HOW TO SPOT IT
1. Read between the
labels. While some environmental labels including "Organic" and "Green Seal"
are backed by strict independent certification, others are unregulated and can be used entirely
at the discretion of the manufacturer. This is typically true of labels that make vague claims such as "non-toxic" and "all natural." That doesnt
mean that "non-toxic" laundry detergents
arent safe, but they dont have to be.
Check out the Consumers Unions Guide to Environmental
Labels at www.eco-labels.org
for information on over 125 commonly used labels.
Youll find out which labels you can count on
and which you shouldnt necessarily trust. The
Web site features comprehensive label Report Cards that you can print out
and carry with you to the store or download onto a
mobile electronic device.
2. Use common sense.
When you see an oil company (BP) marketing itself
as "Beyond Petroleum" even though you fill
up regularly at its gas station down the street, youve
got yourself a greenwasher. Same goes for a timber
company (Weyerhaeuser) claiming to protect forests
by planting trees, or a biotech company (Monsanto)
publicizing its commitment to biodiversity
while at the same time spreading monoculture plantations for genetically
modified crops.
3. Dont be
fooled. The Green Lifes
Dont Be Fooled report, released annually
on April Fools Day, profiles America's ten worst greenwashers. The report also features general
background and resources for further information about
greenwash.
4. Subscribe (its
free). Our Greenwasher
of the Month e-newsletter exposes the latest misleading
marketing and public relations campaigns. The e-newsletter
sign-up box is in the right column of this Web page.
HOW TO STOP IT
1.
Join the crew. The Green Lifes Cleaning
Crew is watchdog team of volunteers who identify
cases of greenwash and post them to our Web site for the world to see. The Cleaning Crew is an important element of our Take Greenwash to the Cleaners campaign. The
next time you spot a case of greenwash in a marketing or public relations, let us know what you spotted and where you spotted it. Be sure to give your own opinion on the case of greenwash you spotted! You'll let other consumers know which products and companies are out to fool them, and show companies that you see through their greenwash. You
can contact the Cleaning Crew at
.
2.
Purchase powerfully. Companies that produce
greenwash calculate that they'll spend less money on misleading marketing and public relations campaigns than they make by fooling consumers. You can flip the economic calculus of greenwash
by leveraging your purchasing power. Simply refuse
to buy from companies that you know are trying to
fool you. Then run your own marketing campaign letting friends and family know that they should stay away too. If enough consumers punish greenwashers
in this way, greenwash will account for more costs than
benefits.
3.
Talk back. Give your purchasing power a boost by
letting greenwashers know exactly why youre
not buying their products. Few customers care to give
companies their comments, so yours will be noticed.
Dont stop with the
greenwashers themselves. Confront their enablers.
Ask an environmentally-themed magazine (National Geographic)
why it solicits advertising from the environment's worst enemies. If you need to know
who to call or where to send a letter so that your
comments will make an impact, ask us at
.
HISTORY
c. 1970
The
publics burgeoning environmental interest which
leads to the inaugural
Earth Day on April 22, 1970, also provokes industry into launching environmentally-themed marketing campaigns.
Westinghouse, for example, runs ads describing nuclear
power as "neat, clean, safe." Former Madison
Avenue executive Jerry Manders 1972 article,
entitled "Ecopornography: One Year and Nearly
a Billion Dollars Later, Advertising Owns Ecology,"
documents how the oil, chemical, automobile and other
industries are co-opting environmental imagery and
messages through expensive marketing campaigns. While
the term "greenwash" has not yet come into
existence, the corporate phenomena it describes has
arrived for good. It will expand steadily until exploding during the rapid popularization of environmental
issues in the 1980s.
1985
Chevron
launches "People Do," the longest-running,
most infamous greenwash campaign in history. Print
and television ads, portraying Chevron and its
employees saving endangered species and engaging in
other eco-friendly acts, are intended to green Chevrons
image for a "hostile audience" of "societally
conscious" people. "People Do" does
its job. Chevrons sales spike 10 percent among
consumers who see the ads, while a poll of Californians
in the late 1980s reveals that Chevron is the oil
company consumers trust most to protect the environment.
Undoubtedly, "People Do"s
success inspires other companies to make bold
green claims and leave consumers with the messy task
of verifying them. As environmentalist David Brower
comments, "People do. So do dogs. Then we have
to clean up after them."
1988
The
U.S. Chemical Manufacturers Association (since
renamed as the American Chemistry Council)
adopts Responsible Care, a voluntary program highlighting
the environmental performance of the groups
members. The hollow "guiding principles"
of Responsible Care pioneer industrys preferred
path towards self-regulation versus government regulation.
1990
According
to the trade publication ODwyer PR Services
Report, the environment will be "the life-and-death
PR battle of the 1990s." Greenwashers seize the
first major public relations opportunity of the decade,
Earth Day 1990, the environmental holidays 20th
anniversary. Monsanto, Texaco and British Petroleum
are among the incongruous sponsors of Earth Day events.
The consumer-oriented festivities of Earth Day 1990
occur at a time when one of four new products hitting
the market in the U.S. is labeled "recyclable,"
"biodegradable," "compostable"
or "ozone friendly."
1991
A study
published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing
finds that 58 percent of environmentally-themed ads
feature at least one deceptive or misleading claim.
1992
Negotiators
gather in Rio for the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development. The Earth Summit is billed
as "the last chance to save the Earth."
The Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Chamber of Commerce argue on behalf of corporations that the private sector should be the savior. More to the point, they do not want to be martyrs. The
U.N. has recently reported on multinationals
large share of global greenhouse gas emissions, a
finding that, along with other recent realizations
about growing corporate power, has created widespread
support for international environmental regulation. From the periphery, greenwash groups pressure decision makers in Rio to
support voluntary measures over enforceable standards -- the victory entitles corporations to co-opt"sustainability" as their independent
crusade.
1995
Greenwashers
debase Earth Day on its 25th anniversary, when the
organization Earth Day USA puts what it calls the "official" Earth Day logo -- the Earth
Day name is in the public domain -- up for sale to unscreened corporate
sponsors . Making matters worse, Earth Day USA hires
public relations firm Shandwick PR to coordinate its
major Earth Day celebration in Washington, DC. By
giving Shandwick its business, Earth Day USA
effectively rewards the firm for its greenwash campaigns
representing clients such as Ford Motor Company and Monsanto.
1998
The
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) completes work on the "Green Guides," a series of guidelines defining
common terms used in environmentally-themed marketing.
The FTC explains that the definitions are not
legally enforceable.
1999
The
FTC finds that the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade
group, is guilty of falsely claiming in an advertisement that nuclear
power is "environmentally clean" and produces
electricity "without polluting." Yet the
FTC takes no action against the institute due
to concerns that the ad falls outside
its jurisdiction. The case underscores the toothlessness
of existing regulations on environmental marketing
and the need to develop clear, enforceable standards.
2000
BP explores greenwash territory
where no oil company has gone before, changing its
eminent name as part of a $200 million rebranding
exercise to position itself at the vanguard of environmental
reform within the energy industry. British Petroleum
formally shortens to BP, which becomes an acronym
for the companys new slogan, "Beyond Petroleum." The staid shield of the British Petroleum era is replaced by a green-and-yellow sunburst logo.
The new look was roundly criticized. CorpWatch's Kenny Bruno calls it "Beyond Preposterous", while FORTUNE writer Cait Murphy quips, "If
the worlds second-largest oil company is beyond
petroleum, then FORTUNE is beyond words." Yet the company drowns out
the voices of activists and pundits with a wave of print, television and billboard ads -- BP proves the resilience, if not invulnerability, of well-financed greenwash.
2002
Representatives
of the Greenwash Academy, a coalition comprised of
environmental and social justice groups CorpWatch,
Friends of the Earth International and groundWork,
host the Greenwash Academy Awards ceremony during
the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg,
South Africa. The awards honor companies for greenwash
productions that are just as fictitious and often
more expensive than Hollywood films. Winners include
BP for Best Greenwash, ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond
for Best Director and Shell for Lifetime Achievement.
The United States is awarded Best Supporting Government
for representing corporate interests in environmental
treaty negotiations.
2003
Republican
consultant Frank Luntzs confidential memo proposing
his partys greenwash strategy is leaked to the
press. The memo warns Republican politicians that
they have "lost the communications battle"
over the environment and encourages them to gain control
by seizing "a window of opportunity to challenge
the science" on global warming. He recommends
empty but evocative buzzwords for politicians to use while
stumping on environmental issues: "safer,
cleaner, healthier" and "a fair balance
between the environment and economy." According
to Luntz, "A compelling strategy, even if factually
inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than
a dry recitation of the truth."
Note: The Green Life's use of reproductions of registered marks is not for the purpose of commerce, nor is the use connected with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods or services. The Green Life's use of reproductions is not likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of this work with owners of published registered marks, nor as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of this work by owners of published registered marks.
home
> take greenwash to the
cleaners > greenwash 101
|