Greenwashing
and the Role of Big Businesses
Agenda
Introduction
Green Marketing Concept
Greenwashing Concept
The 7 Sins of Greenwashing
Case Studies
Good Business Practices to Reduce Risk of Greenwashing
Introduction
As society becomes more concerned with the natural
environment, business have begun to modify their behavior in an
attempt to address society's “new” concerns, and this modification
according to requirement of present world emerge the term
“GREEN MARKETING”.
Green or Environmental marketing consists all of all activities
designed to generate and facilitate any exchange intended to
satisfy human needs or wants occurs with minimal determinable
impact on the natural environment.
Green Marketing
Green marketing is a holistic marketing phenomenon used by an
organisation to promote the environment-friendly image of its
products and the organisation as a whole. It encompasses
innovation and modification in product development,
manufacturing, packaging and advertising
Both marketers and consumers are becoming never before
sensitive to the need for adopt green products and services.
Green Marketing
Going green is becoming a profitable business strategy seeing the
environmental scenario today. Green business practices not only
open a new market of environment lovers, but also enjoy a
favourable public sentiment among existing customers, and
supportive government policies to help the company grow more.
Green Marketing
Green marketing is used as a weapon by companies to compete in
the global market.
In today’s age of sustainability it is often said that “green is the
new black”. The practice of green marketing is being misused by
companies in order to build their false green brand image in the
eyes of consumers and investors. This is nothing but greenwashing
Greenwashing
Refers to the act of portraying an organization’s product or services
as environmentally friendly only for the sake of marketing. In truth,
the product or service doesn’t have or hardly has any
environmental benefits.
It is a practice followed by organisations in which unsubstantiated
or misleading claims are made of the environmental and social
attributes of a product, service or the company as a brand.
Greenwashing practice is adopted to make the company look more
environment-friendly than it actually is, by spending more money,
time and efforts on marketing its products as ‘green’, rather than
actually minimizing its adverse impact on the environment.
The practice of construing an activity as more environmentally
friendly than it really is.
Greenwashing
Greenwashing emerged as a side-effect of public sensibilities for
environmental issues. For specific instances of greenwash, it is
relevant to consider both: the description of products, processes
and organizations involved as well as the identification of the
normative standards drawn on by the diverging parties in the
dispute.
How to Spot Greenwashing
In the beauty industry, there’s a
sudden rise of organic and natural
products which can overwhelm
modern shoppers.
Consumers may find it difficult to
identify manifestations of
greenwashing because of the
variety of forms that it takes. The
amount of conflicting information
online can also make it difficult
for customers to determine which
products to buy and which to
avoid.
We’ve listed the seven sins of
greenwashing, as well as some
greenwashing examples, so you
can learn to spot them from a mile
away.
Seven Sins of Greenwashing
1. Sin of the hidden trade-off
Based on a few attributes, an enterprise suggests that its product
is green. At the same time, it ignores a significant, negative
impact on the environment or society.
1. Sin of the hidden trade-off Cont’d
Bamboo viscose makeup remover
padsmade of bamboo are often gentle
on the skin. In terms of sustainability,
bamboo doesn’t consume too much
water, it’s carbon-neutral, and
renewable since they grow rapidly.
Not to mention, these pads are
reusable.
However, producing bamboo viscose
or rayon calls for the use of toxic
chemicals. According to the Federal
Trade Commission, this fiber is
artificial and blends plant and tree
cellulose with chemicals that cause
hazardous air pollution.
1. Sin of the hidden trade-off Cont’d
McDonald’s addressed the
environmental issue of plastic
pollution by replacing their straws
with paper alternatives.
However, these new straws weren’t
recyclable, whereas the plastic
straws were. McDonald’s straws
were still contributing to our waste
problem using a linear economy
rather than a circular one.
A small reduction in plastic
consumption and waste (although a
step in the right-direction) should
not be applauded as a sustainable
move without addressing the wider
challenges just mentioned.
1. Sin of the hidden trade-off
Examples:
A product made of recycled materials. It may appear sustainable ignoring
the manufacturing process with high energy, polluting factories or use of
toxic chemicals.
Old Navy’s “To Find Good Planets Are Hard” Earth Day tee. Under
“Materials and Care” they indicate that 50% of the shirt is polyester — a
synthetic, resource-intensive textile, and that it is imported, thus having
high rates of carbon emissions. The better option would’ve been to
refrain from producing this product or at least only use a material like
cotton and donate proceeds to an environmental organization.
2.Sin of no proof
The company does not have credible certificates to confirm that its
product is green.
The company makes claims about a product that aren't necessarily
false, but are also unverifiable.
Claiming a brand or commodity is green without any supporting
evidence
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
Making baseless claims is one of the easiest greenwashing tactics.
For example when an advertisement claims that a product has
several environmental benefits, but the company can’t back up these
claims with any scientific data or evidence.
An environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily
accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party
certification.
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
For example, Mobil Chemical Company was sued for advertising a
range of "degradable" garbage bags with claims they would break
down into harmless particles even after they were buried in
landfills, while failing to provide evidence of this.
Mobil Chemical Company (“Mobil”) alleging false advertising in
connection with the company’s advertisements for Hefty
“degradable” garbage bags. The class action asserted that Mobil’s
statement that the bags would “break down into harmless
particles even after they are buried in a landfill” was false and
misleading because the bags would not actually
degrade, but would instead break into smaller, yet still
environmentally harmful, plastic particles
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
Mobil Corporation agreed to stop advertising its Hefty brand plastic trash bags
as biodegradable and pay twenty-five thousand dollars each to six states that
had sued the company for making such claims.
1 The settlement marked the end of an advertising campaign that Mobil
initiated in 1988, aimed at selling its products to environmentally conscious
consumers.
2 By claiming that Hefty trash bags were degradable, Mobil had attempted to
capitalize on a growing concern among consumers regarding the polluting
effects of plastic waste disposal.
3 It could not, however, provide proof of the environmental benefit of its
products.
4 Environmental groups publicly criticized the company for misleading
consumers, and several states responded by bringing suit.
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
Household lamps and lights that promote their energy efficiency without
any supporting evidence or certification.
Personal care products (such as shampoos and conditioners) that claim not
to have been tested on animals, but offer no evidence or certification of
this claim.
Facial tissues and paper towels that claim post-consumer recycled content
without providing evidence.
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
Body Shop is that although their products are advertised
as natural and organic, they don’t have independent
certifications.
By labelling as “Natural”, “Organic”, or “Eco-conscious”, it gives
the impression to consumers that their products are made from
natural ingredients. But in fact, these labels are meaningless
without elaboration.
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
“Where’s the beef?” Do what the ladies in the old Wendy’s
commercials did: demand to be shown the proof. Where is the
proof of the claim in question? Look at the product’s labelling, the
marketing materials surrounding the product at the store, and of
course on the product’s website. If you can’t find it, write to the
company and demand it.
2.Sin of no proof Cont’d
Example:
“Recycled Post Consumer Napkins” listing on Amazon, that
doesn’t provide detailed sourcing for their supposed “100% post-
consumer waste” claim.
3. Sin of Vagueness
An enterprise presents green aspects in an unclear way. This may
mislead the customers. Examples include products that are
perceived by customers as fully natural but contain substances
that are harmful to health.
Making claims with no specifics or over-generalized claims are
clear symptoms of vagueness.
You’ll likely find a lot of buzzwords too like circular, wild or
natural; the terms don’t really mean anything or have any legal
standing.
3. Sin of Vagueness Cont’d
Any claim that is not elaborated and/or poorly defined or vastly
broad. It could be a true claim – just not the whole truth.
An example is when a label claims a product is “all
natural.” Substances can be “natural” and bad for our health at
the same time; i.e. arsenic, mercury, and formaldehyde are all
natural!
3. Sin of Vagueness Cont’d
3. Sin of Vagueness Cont’d
Recyclable
Recently, McDonald’s and other companies, after criticism over paper cup litter, said that
paper cups are “technically recyclable.”
Technically doesn’t count in recycling. What counts is whether the material actually gets
recycled.
Biodegradable
This is one of those terms that is about as useful as natural or holistic. While the term at
least has a specific meaning, saying that a product is biodegradable is about as useful as
saying it is “made of stuff.” Most materials are biodegradable. Some break down in the
natural environment much faster than others, but even when they do, there is one big
problem: A product being biodegradable does not mean it will not harm the environment!
Nontoxic
This is another term that you may not expect to end up on a greenwashing list. Nontoxic
is nontoxic, right? That must be a good thing. A term used on a product label is only as
good as its legal definition and the term is not regulated. Anything can be toxic in large
enough doses.
3. Sin of Vagueness Cont’d
Cruelty-Free
A favorite on cosmetics and household products labels, it does
not have to mean anything. The term is not legally defined and
anybody can claim it. Staying with cosmetics, most cosmetics
brands simply by ingredients from the cheapest sources
available and mix them up into different products. While they
themselves may not test the products on animals, this does not
mean there was no animal testing done on any of the
ingredients used.
3. Sin of Vagueness Cont’d
Examples:
Products that are perceived by customers as fully natural but
contain substances that are harmful to health.
The Mobius loop (the recycling icon). Surprise! Its meaning is
ambiguous. Although it typically signifies the item is recyclable,
companies might use the icon to instead suggest that their
product is made from post-consumer material, the packaging
too can be recycled, etc.
4. Sin of worshiping false labels
Sin of worshipping false labels: An enterprise uses labels
containing green images or terms. This practice misleads
the consumer. In other words, products that, through
either words or images, gives the impression of third-
party endorsement where no such endorsement actually
exists
Fake “green” labels that are nothing more than shapes,
green shading, and false claims combined together to give
the illusion of an official green certification label.
4. Sin of worshiping false labels Cont’d
False labels consist of badges, certificates, labels and awards realistically
meaning nothing. Some corporations even award themselves certificates
or endorsements not backed by any authority. Paid endorsements also fall
under this category, for example, some brands pay publications to review
products in a favourable light.
A product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of
third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists; fake labels,
in other words.
When marketers create a false suggestion or certification-like image to
mislead consumers into thinking that a product has been through a
legitimate green certification process.
4. Sin of worshiping false labels Cont’d
Using fake third party labels as certifications on products to trick consumers into
thinking the product is backed by a legitimate third party.
Be mindful of the labels “eco” products have plastered on them, if there isn’t a
legit third party backing it, then it has no standing.
4. Sin of worshiping false labels Cont’d
A US brand of aluminum foil with certification-like images referring to the
name of the company’s in-house environmental program without giving any
explanation about what that meant.
A Canadian paper towel product that made the bold claim “this product
fights global warming.”
Labels and certification schemes can imply legitimacy as well as third-party
verification where there is none. In 2009, SC Johnson & Son was accused of
misleading consumers regarding the cleaning product Windex, which was
labelled with the company's own GREENLIST trademark.
Various products using certification-like images with green buzz words like
“eco safe,” “eco secure” or “eco preferred”–all of which are meaningless
without context or proof.
4. Sin of worshiping false labels Cont’d
A company that ‘paints a picture’ of eco-friendliness with an
enticing label that, at first glance, appears to have third party
endorsement by a bonified environmental company when in
fact no such certification exists.
4. Sin of worshiping false labels Cont’d
4. Sin of worshiping false labels Cont’d
The best way to protect yourself from getting duped by
marketing companies and being “greenwashed” is to educate
yourself on the important environmental issues at hand when
it comes to purchasing products.
Familiarize yourself with the most trust-worthy eco
certification labels; that will help you spot those products that
are truly ecofriendly – or otherwise!
4. Sin of worshiping false labels Cont’d
Below is a list of reliable green business certification labels to help you
avoid the sin of worshipping false labels:
LEED
USDA Organic
Green Business Bureau
WELL
Energy Star
ISO 14001
GRI
EDGE
Fair Trade USA Certification
PEER
Green Seal
5. Sin of Irrelevance
An enterprise presents facts that are detached from the reality.
In other words, environmental claims that may be truthful but is
unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally
preferable products.”
5. Sin of Irrelevance Cont’d
This is a nice little loophole for greenwashers to skate through
because the claims may well be true whilst not being a
distinguishing factor when discussing eco-products.
This occurs when a company promotes an environmental claim that
is technically true but irrelevant to the product.
Any claim that unhelpful, unimportant and ultimately distracting
from the issue at hand. Ask yourself if the statement or claim is
important to the product in question?
An enterprise presents facts that are detached from the reality. An
example is using products containing substances that have been
prohibited for many years.
5. Sin of Irrelevance Cont’d
The most common example of this is the claim of “CFC-Free.”
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a type of man-made greenhouse gas
primarily produced within air conditioning units. However, CFCs
have been banned by law since the 1970s. The claim “CFC-Free”
tricks people who are unaware of current environmental laws or
production standards to believe that the company is actually
environmentally conscious.
Freeze It’s hairspray labeled “CFC-free” when in fact its use in the
U.S. has been banned by law.
6. Sin of lesser of two evils
Through environmental measures an enterprise avoids
addressing serious issues connected with its products.
Any claims that are true within a product category but are
only made to divert the consumers’ attention from any greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole.
It is common for companies to make environmental claims
even when the overall product has little to no environmental
benefits, to begin with.
6. Sin of lesser of two evils Cont’d
For example, the automobile industry is a massive contributor
to greenhouse gases and global CO2 emissions. Some car
companies claim that their cars require “greener” fuel or that
their cars are “more fuel-efficient” when in reality, owning a
car is one of the worst things you can do for the planet. No
matter how green the fuel is, the car will still produce large
amounts of greenhouse gases.
6. Sin of lesser of two evils Cont’d
Fiji’s bottled water. Although it may be “carbon negative,” hence a
better option, bottling water and having it imported from Fiji is
still an environmentally-taxing issue.
Example promoting “organic cigarettes” or “green pesticides”
which both seem oxymoronic.
7. Sin of fibbing
An enterprise unlawfully uses certificates confirming its
environmental activities, like, products claiming to be “Energy
Star Certified” when they have not been endorsed by that entity.
Many companies get away with claims or labels that are straight-
up, not true.
Claims that are simply false!
7. Sin of fibbing Cont’d
Examples:
Exxon Mobil exaggerating its efforts to reduce its carbon
footprint, despite only spending 0.2% of capital spending
on “green” investments.
Like ‘Burning fossil fuels emits zero carbon dioxide.’
Cases
H&M Case
https://www.brandingmag.com/2019/12/12/hms-greenwashing-short-
sighted-and-unethical/
https://www.chargedretail.co.uk/2021/10/07/nike-primark-hm-accused-of-
greenwashing-as-report-reveals-recycled-polyester-just-as-damaging-to-
environment/
Huggies Case
1. Sin of the hidden trade-off
The diapers violate the hidden trade-off
because they are saying they are “natural”
because they are using soft organic cotton,
but they are neglecting the fact that using
a disposable diaper, natural or not, is still
contributing to waste. After you use the
diaper you have to throw it away, it is not
like the diaper is biodegradable.
Neglecting the fact that diapers have so
many chemical in them. For example, the
absorbent core of the diaper typically
contains wood pulp which is usually
bleached white with chlorine and super-
absorbent polymers. Wood pulp does not
sound natural at all.
2.Sin of no proof
HUGGIES DIAPERS claim about a product
that can't be supported by evidence.
Example: Huggies Diapers claiming to
contain a certain % of recycled
materials.
Huggies has a line of diapers called
“Huggies Green and Natural”. … The
misleading name could convince
consumers that they are helping the
environment by purchasing this product,
but in reality, the product is greenwashed
and does not actually help reduce the
amount of time the diaper spends
decomposing in a landfill.
3. Sin of worshiping False Labels
There is no visible outside sources used to
prove this on the package. Furthermore, it
violates worshiping false labels because
the packaging is the color green and
contains several nature images such as
leaves.
The product is not necessarily “green”
because you must dispose of the diaper
after each use and the diapers come in a
plastic packaging which is very ironic since
Huggies is claiming it is all “natural.”
KLM Case Study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4htp2xxhto&list=TLGG50Ot5sNH
V_cxOTA5MjAyMg
In the Netherlands, Dutch airline KLM is being brought to court for ads
that mislead consumers on how sustainable their flight is. This would
come under the greenwashing sin of vagueness as they say KLM is
making aviation more sustainable without any solid goals or figures.
Nestle Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=504ZCCfpDfo
Sin of vagueness: It occurs when the company issues vague statements, using deceiving
language to mislead the consumer about the true meaning. Their video post published with
the hashtag #BeatPlasticPollution, focused on the growing problem of plastic pollution,
underlines the need to activate an approach that involves all the interested parties in
order to adequately fight pollution, but appears very elusive in clarifying which actions
Nestle` has effectively promoted, also considering its major role in the sale of products
with plastic packaging;
Clarity should be interpreted as the organisation’s ability to communicate in an
understandable and unambiguous way. The use of technicalities and fluffy language can be
associated with this first category (Gillespie, 2008). An example could be seen in the Nestl´
e’s post of 24 June 2018, which says: ‘We need to protect water resources together’ with
an image of a snowy mountain. Both the post and the link to the website do not provide
clear information about the activities undertaken by the company to protect the water
sources. Indeed, it should be emphasised that Nestle´has been accused of having reduced
the level of groundwater by 10 meters in the town of Vittel (France) which gives its name
to the well-known mineral water distributed by Nestle´ all over the world. By rejecting the
accusations, Nestle`declared that it had voluntarily reduced supplies by 20%, while
acknowledging that this solution will not be sufficient to solve the problem of water
supplies in the town
Nestle Case
Sin of irrelevance. It takes the form of dissemination of truthful statements, but of
limited general importance. For example, the 22 February 2018 post states that:
‘Eating more plant-based proteins can offer a simple (and tasty) way to positively
impact your health and the planet’ accompanied by a photo of cereals and dried
fruit. Although the statement is true, it is not clear how Nestle`, one of the main
producers of food products with sugars and fats, can effectively contribute to
healthier eating styles, also because there is no reference to any in-depth
information (e.g., recipes to prepare tasty vegetable-based dishes or upcoming
Nestle` products that go in this direction)
(5) lack of credibility. The signal refers to the credibility of the messages: companies
often exaggerate the green aspects of their products and associated results achieved
in the environmental field. For example, in a 2018 post Nestle` proposes a simple
method to help coffee farmers in Vietnam reduce water waste. In addition to being
hard to believe that all of Nestle´e’s Vietnamese farmers really use this trick to save
water, there is no convincing evidence to support the statement;
Nestle Case
Sin of hidden trade-off: It occurs if the organisation declares the sustainability of a
product or a process by directing attention to a particular set of attributes, without
considering other relevant sustainable aspects. Taking up the previous post, the message
seems to present trade-off signals, in the sense that to produce the dose of coffee
contained in a cup (approximately 6–7 grams), 140 litres of water must be used. From
this perspective, the expedient proposed by Nestle´seems to be aimed at hiding the
massive waste of water behind the intensive production of coffee;
Sin of worshipping false labels: such as focusing on self-produced certifications that are
not verified by third parties. For example, posts boasting of having achieved AWS
(Alliance for Water Stewardship) certification for two California plants appear self-
celebrating considering the private nature of the organisation and the presence of
Nestle´ is among the financing members. Nestle´’s certification should also be evaluated
based on its impact on water extraction in California, a State being constantly affected
by severe drought and devastating fires.
Good Business Practices to Reduce Risk
of Greenwashing
A thorough analysis of the product life cycle
Traceability of the supply chain
Internal communication of CSR activities
Cooperation between companies in the field of environment protection
establishing common standards of performing
Partnerships with non-governmental organizations
Public communication of the CSR goals and informing gradually about the
progress in the process of achieving them
Holistic thinking (involvement in broader initiatives, discerning
complexity of environmental issues).
