ELIMINATING GREENWASH
Sustainability can be challenging when there are so many types of environmental accreditation. Denise Hanson, BICSc Technical Manager, helps sort the eco-friendly from the eco-fakers.
Recently a customer asked for advice on eco–friendly products; they wanted to choose a range of products that would clean their facilities with minimal impact on the environment.
They had arrived at their final choice between two companies, but they were being told by both all of their specific benefits and green credentials. How could they pick one over the other? This led to a discussion over the use of ‘greenwashing’, which can include the self-certification to the companies’ own internal green standard.
(
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/20/greenwashing-environmentalism-lies-companies)
The term greenwashing was coined in the 1980s to describe outrageous corporate environmental claims. So, is this term still relevant? Well according to a Guardian ‘Sustainable business’ article back in 2016: “Three decades later, the practice has grown vastly more sophisticated.”
First, let’s look at what eco-friendly actually means. Taken literally, it means earth-friendly or not harmful to the environment, and it helps conserve resources like water and energy. Eco-friendly products prevent contributions to air, water and land pollution; aims I am sure we all agree with and would want to follow. After all, we only have one Earth and it contains finite resources.
Unfortunately, there have been in the past a number of companies that use the eco-friendly claim as a way of marketing their ranges without
truly following the philosophy or the stringent requirements.
In fact such was the extent of greenwashing that a specific European directive was agreed in 1999: The European Dangerous Preparations Directive 67/548/EEC, which was brought into line with new REACH regulations in June 2015.
Indications such as ‘non-toxic’, ‘non- harmful’, ‘non-polluting’, ‘ecological’ or any other statement indicating that the dangerous substance is not hazardous or likely to lead to an underestimation shall not appear.
Look out for these common issues identified in several studies with companies marketing products as ‘environmentally-friendly’:
No Proof: Products claiming to be ‘certified organic’, but with no verifiable certification.
Vagueness: Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous: for example, arsenic and formaldehyde.
Irrelevance: Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago.
Misleading: Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognised environmental standard like ‘EU Ecolabel’.
The Lesser of Two Evils: ‘Environmentally-friendly’ pesticides.
False Labels: Products that give the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists.
So just what should we look for? There are a number of Independent Certifications and the following are widely used and recognised in the marketplace.
ISO 14001: Covers all areas with an environmental impact: product design, raw materials, manufacture, use and disposal.
EU Ecolabel: Product-specific certification, upgraded in June 2012. Designed for domestic use products, awarded by Defra.
Nordic Ecolabel: Product-specific certification from Scandinavia (regarded as the highest standard in Europe). Designed for commercial cleaning products.
A.I.S.E.: Company-level certification, audited by Lloyds Register. Assesses total product lifecycle from R&D to disposal.
These recognised certifications hold registers for products that hold their accreditations, you can be confident that the correct use of these products will help you on the road to becoming a more eco-friendly facility. As we are all responsible for the planet we live on let’s help to take the ‘wash’ out of ‘greenwash’ and concentrate our efforts on being truly eco-friendly.
www.bics.org.uk
48 | SUSTAINABLE CLEANING
twitter.com/TomoCleaning
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
