Green advertising has increased tenfold
in the last 20 years and has almost tripled since 2006 – but do the goods on offer actually live up to the standards being sold to consumers, including you? The Seven Sins of Greenwashing
report by TerraChoice, conducted in November 2008 and January 2009, examined the ‘green’ practices of large retailers in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. After recording and researching every
product making an environmental claim, the report found that 98 percent of the 2,219 products surveyed in North America alone, committed at least one of the Sins of Greenwashing – which is a useful guide to the tricks manufacturers use to claim their products are more ‘green’ than they actually are.
ECOLOGICAL
It’s all well and good products being made from wholesome natural and organic ingredients – and being classed accordingly – but if the production and advertising of such products aren’t mindful of other environmental impacts, then they just aren’t ecological. Biolage, whose packaging is recyclable
and a good proportion of it made using PCR materials, extends that idea to its point of sale material. All promotional communication and point of sale materials are printed on white uncoated paper manufactured from 100 percent recycled post-consumer waste, which means it is both biodegradable and recycled. Darragh O’Connor told us how
the brand is actively committed to minimising environmental impact in other areas as well. “From a manufacturing point of view, we actively monitor both the inputs and outputs of our manufacturing processes. We strive to reduce consumption of energy and water, and minimise the emissions and waste created by the production of our products. In 2008, our US Biolage manufacturing plant reduced total energy consumption by 13 percent, water consumption by 23 percent and increased the proportion of recovered/ re-used waste by 67 percent.” Other brands are also considering
the type of energy they use in manufacturing products, and taking radical steps to ensure that their business has a positive impact on both local and global communities. >>
1
information or by a reliable third-party certification. Common examples are facial or toilet tissue products that claim various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing any evidence.
2
SIN OF VAGUENESS: A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. ‘All- natural’ is an example. Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring and poisonous, so ‘all natural’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’.
3
SIN OF THE HIDDEN TRADE-OFF:
Suggesting a product is ‘green’, based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues. Paper, for example, is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from a sustainably-harvested forest. Other important environmental issues in the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
SIN OFNO PROOF: An environmental
claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting
4
SIN OF LESSER OF TWO EVILS:
Claims that may be true within the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole. Organic cigarettes are an example of this category, as are fuel- efficient sport-utility vehicles.
5
SIN OF FIBBING: Making
environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples are products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered.
SIN OF WORSHIPPING
FALSE LABELS: Some marketers exploiting consumers’ demand for third-party certification by creating fake labels or false suggestions of third- party endorsement.
6 7
Environmental Claims in Consumer Markets, Summary Report: North America April 2009.
65
THE SEVEN SINS OFGREENWASHING
SIN OF IRRELEVANCE:
An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. ‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs are banned by law.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148