Greenwashing or deceiving with the environment

I have wanted to talk about Greenwashing as a phenomenon of market corruption for a long time and, although some of my fellow bloggers have already come forward with exceptional success, I thought it would be interesting to republish it also on my blog, with the extension of analysis that characterizes me, thus contributing my small grain of sand to its dissemination.

And why now? — someone may ask. Well, quite simple, because despite the fact that the phenomenon has always existed, and will surely continue to be so, in recent years it seems to have gained greater momentum and growth, protected by the economic crisis, boosted by Mass media and the new tools for the manipulation of public opinion on a large scale, and having lost in parallel the drive of certain organizations to denounce it.

What is GREENWASHING?

The growth of “green” in markets is something obvious that no one escapes, since there are more and more organic products, environmentally responsible companies, or sustainable processes that are announced with “fanfare” everywhere, going so far as to seem to even seem to be generating a change in trend in the environmental behavior of certain sectors.

Less obvious, and with worse publicity, is the fact that a good percentage of what they sell to us as “green” in the end is nothing more than a false claim, a deception or, at best, a half-truth masked in a false disguise of respect for the environment.

In fact, according to some studies, only 4.5% of the products that sell us as “green” really are green and respond faithfully to the characteristics that define them as such on their labels or in advertising. A worrying figure that gives us an idea of the magnitude of the deception.

This phenomenon of deception through the use of the environment as a flag for sale is what we usually call Greenwashing, which we could formally define as the fraudulent appropriation of environmental virtues or the selective extension of those that are most favorable in order to distort or falsify the image of something, manipulating the information provided to the public so that it can be interpreted as a positive product from an environmental point of view.

The term was coined in 1986 by Jay Westervel, to describe the false ecological tint that certain hotels gave to their campaigns to save on the use of their towels, since there was basically no plan to save energy or water, but rather a simple economic saving. And since then, its use as a term has been extended to define any advertising deception that is based on assigning false environmental benefits to something or someone who does not have them, becoming a phenomenon on which some studies have been carried out. The Thousand and One Faces of Greenwashing:

The environment is part of the survival and development environment of any person and, therefore, any action on it usually arouses the interest of public opinion, so it ends up becoming a weighty factor that is always taken into account when evaluating a product, a service, a company or organization, or even a public figure.

This, together with the wide dissemination capacity of current communication media, in an environment where the consumer already has full and free access to information, and knowledge flows with astonishing speed, makes social pressure on companies, organizations and consumer products considerable.

Companies that want to survive have to satisfy all interested parties (customers, suppliers, society, shareholders, etc.), the environment being one of the essential requirements to consider.

And here is the raison d'être of greenwashing, and what makes the volume of advertisements or information that falls into this fraudulent use so high, and that is that it is more economically profitable to set up advertising campaigns or invent logos and slogans than to invest in real improvements in environmental behavior, which after all will then have to be publicized.

Greenwashing can be done proactively, as a means to stand out from the competition or avoid future concerns, or reactively, to mitigate public concern or bad image that may have been generated by belonging to a problematic sector, by an accident or event, or simply by negative news about the activity or product.

The forms that Greenwashing can take to achieve its objective are multiple and so are the channels that are used to carry it out. Greenwashing exists at very different levels and, in many cases, this greenwashing can even be involuntary, sometimes protected, according to many advertisers, by the natural exaggeration that is usually made in advertising campaigns.

Greenwashing can be done through the labeling of a product, either in the description of properties, in the adoption of logos that induce us to think of certain properties that are not certain or are not demonstrable, or in the inclusion of certain images to associate environmentally friendly qualities with the product.

Greenwashing on labeling is the most direct and effective action of “washing the face” of a product, since it is seen at the exact moment of purchase, without the consumer being able to compare or contrast the information.

As a variant to this, labels granted by third parties emerged later, which can even achieve a certain fame, which however do not integrate all the environmental considerations relevant to the product, and are sometimes regulated by entities directly controlled by the industrial fabric itself. Certificates such as RECS (Renewable Energy Certificate System) obtained by certain electricity generation companies in order to sell “green energy” to the consumer, could be a good example of this type of labels, to be issued by third parties involved (in Spain by REE) and consider only non-primate renewables, which would be practically limited to hydroelectric power plants.

Media advertising is the other most obvious and direct way of doing Greenwashing, and in recent times it has reached levels of improvement and improvement in dissemination that were unthinkable until just over a decade ago. Advertising has spread to other media beyond television, the written press, posters or radio, and currently occupies a preferred position in other media such as the internet, social networks, messaging, etc.

In this case, the technique used to do greenwashing changes substantially with the launch of short slogans, the use of impactful images associated with the environment, or subtle subliminal messages, leaving for the “small print” the data that perhaps should not be so visible.

But Greenwashing goes beyond obvious advertising, media campaigns or fraudulently using labels or symbols, which is what is usually studied in this phenomenon. Greenwashing can become something much more complex and perverse when it becomes part of a corporate image management strategy.

Thus, greenwashing can also be observed in the strategy that certain companies follow when they do what has come to be referred to as “astroturfing” (or also “bluewashing”, according to some authors), a dangerous phenomenon of manipulation consisting of “buying a good image”.

El Astroturfing allows a deteriorated or simply anodyne image to be transformed into an environmentally friendly concept through its association with NGOs, prestigious research institutes or renowned organizations, or through the purchase of renowned commentators, journalists or bloggers who campaign for it.

On the thin red line between morality and astroturfing are sponsorships of environmental events. These events can be of a very diverse nature, and in them companies demand that their image be part of them and their advertising campaign, or even in certain cases, that the name of the event itself be linked to that of the company. In this way, as is the case in other areas such as sports, together with brand advertising, it is inevitable to associate the ideas of environmental responsibility and sustainability that the event itself conveys.

On some occasions, the organization of the event itself actively defends astroturfing and the sponsorship of its companies, directly and actively generating greenwashing by advertising the companies that promote it as companies with green products and services, as could already be seen last year in the organization of COP 19 — Conferences on Climate Change (organized by the United Nations, precisely the origin of which some authors refer to “bluewashing”).

There are also those who, beyond this phenomenon, are very clear about what Astroturfing, and even decides to take it to higher heights by creating their own foundations and NGOs, aimed at promoting their public image, fraudulently publishing content in magazines, publications or even on Wikipedia itself, or even through the creation of “flogs” (fake blogs), or fake blogs aimed at promoting content directed by these companies.

Astroturfing is a phenomenon of general corruption in the world of image consulting that has occurred a lot in the world of fashion or in sectors such as food or cosmetics and hygiene, and which, when applied to the environmental world, has also proven to be especially efficient.

In addition to astroturfing, it is sometimes possible to find ourselves in the world of greenwashing with the creation of lobbies or associations of companies in a specific sector or branch in order to generate pressure on public opinion and politicians to direct the decisions finally adopted to the appropriate environmental terms.

And when we see this phenomenon, it is very common for such groups or business lobbies to practice what many specialists call deep greenwashing, which consists of manipulating general public opinion at a deep level in relation to a certain topic, so that they can finally modify behaviors, preferences or attitudes towards certain practices with an obvious environmental impact.

Deep Greenwashing has been widely used, for example, for activities with a considerable impact and high environmental risk to make the population consider these activities suitable through the belief that advanced technology can solve all these problems and thus make an activity with a high impact environmentally responsible and safe.

In addition to the analysis of the means used to do greenwashing, it is also necessary to carry out an analysis of the forms adopted by these advertising and promotion techniques, so that we can deepen their knowledge.

From my point of view, greenwashing can use multiple subterfuges and falsehoods, and the limits are usually in the imagination of the publicist, ranging from a simple imprecision in the description, usually done without evil or intentionality, to direct lies or falsehood in the information transmitted, going through very different levels.

In fact, it is quite possible that in many products we can even find combinations of the different levels, which from my point of view will be more or less serious depending on the voluntariness that accompanies the action.

In this regard, greenwashing can take such diverse forms as:

• Make a broad statement that, due to its imprecise and very general sense, leads to confusion and does not point to specific information, such as talking about the fact that a product is “100% natural”, or that a product is “environmentally friendly”.
• Give an exaggerated version of the environmental behavior of the product, highlighting a certain fact of the product, trying to identify it with exemplary environmental behavior and omitting the rest of the environmental aspects of the product, often of much greater relevance. Perhaps one of the most used subterfuges in advertising, which tends to underline and exaggerate the aspects it considers most important. Ads with the phrase “organic cotton” or “chlorine-free” may be true, but at no time do they imply that the environmental behavior of the product is adequate, not even for its main associated environmental aspects.
• Provide an inconsequential fact that in reality is neither useful nor provides information to the consumer, to give the impression of false exemplary environmental behavior, such as saying that a product is “free of CFCs”, when the use of these products is already prohibited.
• Make an illegal association of concepts, either verbally or through images, with greater or lesser subtlety, but always equating an environmental or natural concept with the product or service to be advertised, something very common in graphic advertising. As an example, calling an engine “green”, or identifying natural environments and images with polluting activities such as oil exploration, serve as an example.
• Making statements about the environmental behavior of a product and not having the means to verify it by the consumer, without adequate traceability, a certificate or any additional way to prove its veracity, something very common when talking about products from recycling.
• Give biased information about a product, in order to increase its value as a green or ecological product, through messages that indicate a certain behavior of the product that is only partially true. This is very common when it comes to, for example, CO2 emissions and we talk about “Zero CO2”, intending to show a process without this type of emissions when they are actually compensated emissions or refer only to a certain phase of the product's life cycle.
• Invent unregulated logos, images or expressions that lead us to believe that the product being purchased may have adequate environmental behavior, comes from a process with environmental control regulated by third parties, or comes from certain environmentally friendly sources. Classics of this type are the use of prefixes such as “bio” or “eco”, or the inclusion of symbols with the ground as a base.
• Lying directly about the properties of a product or falsifying regulated labels to equate a product with responsible environmental behavior when they don't really exist, leading to punishable crimes or misdemeanors.

How Greenwashing affects us:

The environment as a sales argument is increasingly widespread in markets, as all studies show, and along with this increase, greenwashing continues to grow, in what seems to be an obvious and even inevitable spiral.

The famous study “The Sins of Greenwashing”, in its last edition of 2010, already highlighted both phenomena: an increase of 73% in the market for consumer products with “green” characteristics advertised compared to the previous year, with just over 95% of products considered to be greenwashing, to a greater or lesser extent.

The study, however, highlighted that the percentage of products that practiced greenwashing had fallen significantly compared to the previous year, where it was 98%, although it is clear that the increase in global numbers of this practice was also considerable.

It is therefore clear that Greenwashing has an impact on markets that it is important to analyze carefully, and that beyond its obvious economic benefits, it can have a significant impact on the consumer, the environment, the economy, or even the companies themselves.

Some analyses that I have had the opportunity to study see positive aspects of Greenwashing, advantages that, although it is possible that they are real, I think are always of much less weight than the disadvantages of this unfair practice.

It may be true, as some people say, that Greenwashing, with its massive extension in the advertising world, has favored and enhanced awareness among consumers and companies, even increasing the adoption of environmentally responsible behavior by companies and consumers.

It can also be important the promotional action that, through Greenwashing, takes place for certain environmental actions and that, otherwise, could be left out of stock of the economic contribution.

However, a deception is a deception, and few benefits can be obtained from something that is built on a lie, because in the end all those involved end up being harmed.

• The consumer is harmed, since he is the main recipient of greenwashing and finally he is the one who is deceived when purchasing a certain product or service based on a supposed environmental quality that is ultimately not such, so that his awareness does not find a real answer in the product he buys.
• It harms the environment, because the advertised benefit does not really occur and, in many cases, the advertiser's lack of awareness tends to have an even greater impact, which, together with an increase in consumption, can be even more harmful.
• Companies are harmed, as there is unfair competition between the product or service that greenwashes against those that present legitimate benefits for the environment, which ultimately always has an impact on a sense of insecurity and lack of protection for the latter. On many occasions, and for certain sectors that are very prolific in greenwashing, some companies even choose to “throw in the towel” and abandon themselves to this type of unfair practices.
• Markets are harmed, because greenwashing ends up sowing doubt, especially among those more aware consumers who have at some point become aware of the deception, and finally extend their distrust to other products or services with legitimate advertisements in relation to their environmental behavior. This effect is what some experts have in fact already defined as “green fatigue” and can even generate an effect contrary to the so-called original effect.
• It hurts professionals who are dedicated to the environment and believe in the potential for sustainability of human activities, because greenwashing discredits our work, hinders it and tarnishes it.

In addition, and taking into account that markets and the environment are interrelated ecosystems, the corruption introduced by greenwashing ends up corroding all sectors involved (markets, companies, consumers, and even professionals) and ultimately has a much more aggressive impact on the environment than if green advertising or greenwashing did not exist.

The Everyday Green Deception:

There are a multitude of examples of Greenwashing carried out by organizations, companies and even governments or individuals over time, historical examples that are well known, and others that are less well known but perhaps so everyday that they go unnoticed.

Greenwashing is in fact so widespread that most consumers are unable to glimpse the deception and its magnitude, because in the end “the tree does not let us see the forest” and it is impossible to analyze in detail all the advertisements and products that sell us some “green” peculiarity that makes them stand out from the others.

It is not the purpose of this article to point the finger directly at any particular brand, company, organization or product. It would be impractical to do so without unfairly discriminating against one or the other, and we would also need an extension to deal with all the cases that we don't have (there are also websites and organizations dedicated to this, to which I provide links at the end of this blog).

I will therefore dedicate myself to making an analysis of those sectors that are most prolific or relevant in terms of greenwashing, where the reader can easily identify cases.

The first sector to consider when talking about Greenwashing is the energy sector. The energy sector is a greenwasher par excellence, a classic, expert in the management of image association and subliminal advertising, as well as in the use of deep-greenwashing and the most diverse environmental sales techniques. A sector that is always at the top of all the rankings established for these unfair practices, which are usually always headed by a multinational oil company, followed by an electric company.

The energy sector is mostly comprised of large multinationals that dominate the market, and is fundamentally based on the use of fossil fuels and non-renewable energies, as shown by the global energy mix and energy markets. However, when you see the advertisements of many of these companies, it may sometimes seem that they are dedicated exclusively to renewable energy, biofuel research or new technologies, without appearing in the advertisements under any circumstances nuclear power plants, coal-fired power plants, large oil tankers, etc.

Another “exemplary” sector on the subject of greenwashing is the transport sector. This sector is one of the largest consumers of fuel and, therefore, one of the biggest sources of pollution in our environment, a burden that many manufacturers insist on lightening by falsifying information, using images of natural environments in their advertisements, or even using unreliable slogans and terms. A display of greenwashing in advertising that is often even offensive because of its evidence.

There are multiple examples in the aviation sector with companies that claim to offer “a better environment inside and outside” their planes, or others that identify certain “ecological” destinations with their exemplary behavior from an environmental point of view with phrases such as “the source of renewable energy”.

But the aviation sector falls short of the automotive sector, where it seems that everything is allowed, and where greenwashing is something so common that it might seem strange not to find it. Beyond hurrying around or making data on CO2 emissions or consumption illegible in advertisements, it is very common to see advertisements for cars with fraudulent or misleading expressions such as “ecological engine”, “Zero CO2”, “Eco-power”, or phrases such as “power and atmosphere can live in harmony”.

It is also common to use the image in audiovisual advertisements to greenwash either by the usual means, such as rolling them through natural landscapes or the seashore, or through more original and impactful techniques, such as making a group of cyclists prefer to follow one car or another depending on the fumes emitted.

Both the energy sector and the automotive sector, the two main greenwashers, signed in 2009, together with the Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Environment and the Association for the Self-Regulation of Commercial Communication in Spain, an agreement on the use of environmental arguments in advertising.

A code of Good Practices accepted by a large group of large companies that, however, in many cases do not seem to have changed their attitude, taking into account the advertising they continue to make and the cases that continue to occur. This may also be due to an absence of follow-up to the topic, having ended up as an image wash in the face of greenwashing.

Despite the fact that the energy and transport sectors are two examples not to follow in terms of greenwashing, this practice extends to all those corners where it is necessary to sell an image and rely on some striking sales pitch. Thus, Greenwashing in the world of politics is something quite common, and also very common in societies such as the North American one, where politics sometimes takes on forms that border on the spectacle and is based on satisfaction surveys and voting intentions that lead to the analysis of the masses to absurdity.

More than one comes to mind the image of certain politicians flying the environmental flag to climb the ranks of their parties and gain followers, either using climate change or any other excuse that allows them to take an attractive photo, appear in the press, disguise a particular policy or sell the product, even if it is a person.

Another classic sector in greenwashing, although in its own way, has been the food sector, in which sometimes attempts have been made to disguise a product as “green” to justify overpricing, relying on false ecological benefits of the products purchased.

This greenwashing has historically been linked to supposed “ecological” products that, however, were not under recognized regulatory standards, and until recently they used terms such as “organic”, “nature”, “echo” within names, brands and denominations, or adjectives such as “organic”, which gave a green touch to the product.

In recent years, and once the use of this type of misleading prefixes has been limited by law, the food sector has managed to professionalize greenwashing and one of the lines where it is becoming more prolific is precisely in modern trends such as the carbon footprint, and it is now possible to find products that presume to have a zero or even negative carbon balance, something totally impossible unless emissions are compensated.

The food sector has also been one of the main promoters of advances in the modification and adaptation of packaging for greenwashing products, in consumer goods, where the highest level of detail has been achieved with the use of natural tones, “biodegradable” packaging, emotional messages and graphics, the use of unbleached paper that looks like recycled, evocative symbols, graphics and drawings, and a long list of tricks.

Those mentioned so far are perhaps the sectors that most frequently or, rather, with the most promiscuity abuse greenwashing, although that does not mean that they are the only ones. Almost all sectors have real examples of applying these image washing techniques to the environment, and so we can find ourselves with:

• Appliances whose efficiency is not as marked on the label or barely conforms to the requirements established to obtain the same.
• Arms companies that clean up their image by saying that their weapons are made of recycled material.
• Clothing manufacturers who talk about “organic cotton” or “bamboo manufacturing” or define their products as “environmentally friendly” when they have actually been made with rayon.
• Mining organizations that their activities are aimed at ensuring a cleaner future.
• Disproportionate campaigns to sell reusable bags and link them to the brand or product.
• “Natural” soaps and cosmetics that promise you a “truly organic experience”
• Intimate hygiene products that claim to eliminate the applicator in order to save up to 1 kg of waste per year for each woman, regardless of the much greater impact of their raw materials.
• Leather industries that campaign for the sustainability and natural integration of their farms.
• Snacks and products that claim to be made with solar energy.
• Manufacturers of mattresses who claim that their products are “natural”, “organic” or that sleeping on them is like sleeping in the middle of nature.
• Air fresheners that are “bio” and then on the back have the symbols of harmful and dangerous to the environment.

News taken from: ferfollos.blogspot.com.es