How Can Consumers Avoid Greenwashing?

All right, so you’ve read my blog for a semester and are eager to avoid buying greenwashed products in the future. But, you’re wondering: what do I do to avoid greenwashing? As the semester wraps up, I’ll give you some tips on how to shop smart and avoid misleading “green” claims. Thanks to Eco Village Green for their list of helpful tips!

1.       Do Your Homework

Before you invest in a so-called “green” product, you should know what you’re getting into. So, do some research! If a product is environmentally friendly in some regard, the company is usually pretty willing to publish that information online, but be careful: they may not be telling the whole story of the product’s environmental impact. You can also talk to other individuals that are interested in buying green products and find out what they know and recommend.

2.       Be Aware of the Tricks

Companies have any number of ways to mislead the consumer into thinking something is environmentally-friendly. Terms such as “all-natural” and “eco-friendly” are thrown around like crazy. Sometimes, they’re true. Sometimes, they’re irrelevant. And sometimes, they’re completely fabricated. Before you purchase something that claims to be green, try to find proof for their claims, especially if they seem vague or misleading. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, there’s a good chance that the product is trying to pull fleece over your eyes. If a company is environmentally-conscious, they have nothing to hide and will make that information known.

3.       Look for An Eco-Label

But, don’t just look for any label. Only certain labels are meaningful because they prove that the product was evaluated with an objective set of green standards by a third party. Eco Village Green lists six labels as legitimate indicators of objective evaluators of environmental impact: Green Seal, GreenGuard, EcoLogo, Energy Star, WaterSense, and USDA Organic. Make sure you verify that the product has received this label; it may be that the brand has received it, but the product has not, or they may be lying about the certification.

4.       Ask Yourself Questions

It’s important to be open-minded when it comes to shopping for green products, but it’s also important to have a critical eye as you’re making your choices. Ask yourself whether a product’s claims are really relevant. It could be that every product in that category is free of CFC, or an “all-natural” label doesn’t matter for a refrigerator. Be sure to compare products within a category to figure out what your best choice is. And, when all else fails, ask yourself whether you really need that product, especially if it seems harmful or unnecessary. It may be that the product could be doing more to become environmentally-conscious, and you may not want to purchase that product in its current state.

5.       Complain

In the end, companies have no incentive to change their practices unless consumers demand they do so. There are a number of watchdog organizations that are keeping an eye on greenwashing, but you can do your part as well. Call, email, or send a letter to the company in question. Don’t buy their products. Let others know if a company is greenwashing them. Terra Choice has demonstrated that companies are getting better at being green, but they’re not there yet. Inevitably, it’s their job to provide what the consumer wants, and if the consumer wants them to be environmentally-conscious, they’ve got to make an effort to provide that.

Thanks to everyone who has followed my project and read the blog over the semester! I’ve learned a lot about greenwashing, and I hope you have as well.

How Can a Company Avoid Greenwashing?

I had originally intended to end my project by looking for truly green products that avoided the seven sins of greenwashing, but I found myself having a hard time narrowing my focus in a productive way. So, instead, I’ll conclude my greenwashing research by offering guides to avoiding greenwashing, both as a company and as a consumer. First up, let’s see how a company can prevent greenwashing. Thanks to the Terra Choice Marketing Guide for an outline of ways to avoid each of the seven sins (http://tinyurl.com/3jb3erf).

1.       Don’t lie to your consumer.

Seems pretty straightforward, right? Turns out that a lot of companies are bad at this. They’ll use a label for a certification they don’t have or claim a certain percentage of their product is eco-friendly when it isn’t. The first thing a company should do if they’re trying to market environmentally-friendly products is avoid making claims that are completely false. If it’s important to get third-party certification to compete for market share, get it, even if it means changing the way your product is made. If an ingredient is harmful to the environment, don’t say that it isn’t. Basically, if you have to lie to get ahead, you need to go back to the drawing board. Consumers will eventually realize what you’re doing and once that trust is gone, it’s very hard to win back.

2.       Be straightforward with your consumer.

This one seems pretty similar to the first rule, but there’s a subtle differentiation to make here. One of the biggest sins I’ve seen throughout my research is the Sin of Vagueness, making broad or vague claims that may or may not have evidence to back them up. They’re not necessarily lying as much as they’re stretching the truth in a way that misleads the consumer. Therefore, if a brand is going to label something as “natural,” they should define what “natural” means to them, either on the product itself or in an easily accessible form online. It’s also important to list the ingredients of your product so the consumer can see how they’re environmentally-beneficial. This not only includes the make-up of the ingredient itself, but how it is processed and how the product is manufactured. This is something that products often neglect to mention, and it’s as important as what the raw materials are. Companies should be as open and transparent as possible, making information available to the general public. Don’t distract the customer away from environmentally-harmful practices with claims about the green aspects of a product. If something you’re doing isn’t environmentally-conscious, tell the consumer that you’re working to improve upon it and follow through with that action. The educated consumer is understanding and willing to invest in your products over time if they feel you’re trustworthy. My generation, also known as Generation Y, is a group of very fickle consumers who is far more interested in socially-conscious consumption than previous generations, and we’re the audience you’re trying to win over.

3.       Understand the claims you’re making.

It’s not enough to put forth a product that’s harvested from a sustainable forest or that doesn’t use sweatshop labor to produce. Being green is important throughout the entire production and consumption process, and a company needs to understand their environmental impact at each step. That way, they can let their consumer know what they’re doing well and figure out where they can improve. Letting the consumer know that you’re working on something never hurts. Also, you want to insure that you can speak to each of your environmental claims. If you don’t have the evidence to back something up, it won’t take long for the consumer to figure it out.

4.       Know Your Customer

This may seem like a Marketing 101 statement, but it’s more important now than ever. Generation Y doesn’t respond to shout marketing techniques that try to convince them they need something that they don’t. So, don’t waste your time trying to make them feel “green” about a purchase that is harmful or unnecessary. They’re willing to purchase something if they feel the marketing speaks specifically to them. So, get to know what your customers want. Maybe they want all of the environmental information on the product itself, or maybe they only want to look it up online. You want to use language that resonates with them, so long as it’s straightforward and honest. In the end, if you help them find the product that’s right for them, they’ll keep coming back. Relationships are key, and in the era of Marketing 2.0, the consumer is finally able to make their voices heard. Green companies should be listening 24/7. 

Greenwashing Analysis: Tom's of Maine Long-Lasting Care Deodorant

Continuing with my investigation of "green" products, today I'll take a look at Tom's of Maine Long-Lasting Care Deodorant.

First, a bit of background. Tom's of Maine, a division of Colgate-Palmolive, is a maker of natural personal care products, such as toothpaste, soap and deodorant. The company does not use artificial products, nor do they test on animals. The majority of their products are vegan; that is, they don't contain any animal products.

Initial Observations: Tom's of Maine emphasizes the natural aspects of their products. The phrase "natural care" appears above their label and the word "natural" appears above "long-lasting care." This particular stick is lemongrass-scented, so a picture of dew-spotted grass is featured prominently. There is a letter from the company on the back, which states that the use of botanical hops prevents the growth of bacteria that cause odor. The other feature of the back is the ingredients list, which, like the Green Works detergent, contains the technical and common names of some items. For instance, Hamamelis virginiana is also known as Witch's Hazel.

The Sins


Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: A claim suggesting that a product is green based on a narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues.
Tom's of Maine claims it's green because its products are natural. But, just because an ingredient comes from nature doesn't mean that it's not harmful in some way. Like Green Works, Tom's of Maine deodorant lists all of its ingredients on its website (http://tinyurl.com/3dwdqar), explains what each is and what its purpose is. Technically, if their definition of green involves natural ingredients, then their product is green; all of the ingredients can be found in nature. But, not all of them are good for the environment. For instance, the main ingredient, propylene glycol, is used in a lot of environmentally-unfriendly products, such as anti-freeze and and solvents. And, it has been known to release high levels of biochemical oxygen demand during degradation in surface waters, which consumes the oxygen that aquatic life needs to survive. It's also unclear from the website how the resources are extracted, which is an important part of being environmentally-friendly.


Sin of No Proof: An environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. 
As far as I can tell, Tom's of Maine deodorant doesn't make unsubstantiated environmental claims. Their claims that zinc ricinoleate can trap odor molecules is a little shaky. Consumers have indicated that the deodorant doesn't prevent odor, and even if it does, the qualities of zinc ricinoleate that prevent odor are relatively unclear. 


Sin of Vagueness: A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. 
This is probably Tom's of Maine deodorant's biggest sin. "Natural" is a very vague and broad term; it means something that comes from nature. But, as I've said before, something that comes from nature isn't necessarily beneficial. The propylene glycol the deodorant contains is a perfect example of this, as it can be harmful to aquatic ecosystems. If a consumer is looking for something that is kind to the environment, the term "natural" is likely to lead them astray. 


Sin of Worshiping False Labels: A product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists.
Nowhere on the product or the website does the deodorant claim third-party endorsement of any kind, so it's free of this sin.


Sin of Irrelevance: An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.
This category is often meant for products that advertise being free of an element that has been banned or generally isn't used. Tom's of Maine deodorant doesn't make strong environmental claims, other than being "natural," so we'll call it free of this sin as well.


Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: A claim that may be true within the product category, but that risks distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impact of the category as a whole. 
Like detergent, deodorant is a product whose industry can be very harmful to the environment. Many deodorants use triclosan, which is an anti-bacterial agent that cannot be filtered out during waste water treatment. It often ends up in waterways, where it is toxic to algae. Therefore, it can damage aquatic ecosystems, killing the food source of many animals (http://tinyurl.com/ml6o4h). Deodorants also produce chloro fluro carbons, which can be damaging to the ozone layer (http://tinyurl.com/3gr2okw). So, the fact that Tom's of Maine uses natural ingredients is relatively true, but it distracts the consumer from the fact that artificially-produced deodorant is problematic for the environment. 


Sin of Fibbing: Environmental claims that are simply false.
Except for being vague, it doesn't seem like the deodorant is claiming anything that isn't true.


Overall, Tom's of Maine deodorant is...kind of sinful. It does make the claim that it's "natural," which is both vague and often irrelevant when it comes to being environmentally-conscious. And, its main ingredient is pretty problematic if it gets into water supplies, and it has been linked to health problems in humans. But, this product is saved from heavy greenwashing because it doesn't make a lot of claims it can't back up. They present their mission and ingredients in a straightforward manner, without a lot of extra labeling and images. They're not trying to be something that they aren't. So, if a consumer is looking for a product that's pretty nice to the environment, Tom's of Maine is a good choice. It's certainly better than the vast majority of deodorant on the market, in terms of environmental consciousness. 

Greenwashing Analysis: Green Works Laundry Detergent

Now that I know a bit about greenwashing, I'm going to look at a couple of products that claim to be "green" and determine whether they're greenwashing consumers. First up: Green Works 96% naturally derived laundry detergent. Thanks to my housemate, Erin, for lending me her detergent in the name of...science?

First, a little bit about Green Works. They're a line of naturally-derived cleaning products brought to you by the makers of Clorox, offering consumers the same cleaning power without chemical fumes or residue. They offer glass cleaner, dish soap, laundry detergent, stain removers, and toilet bowl cleaners. How do they define "natural?" Well, that's a good question. Apparently, they're subjecting their products to the standards of The Natural Products Association, which has developed a Natural Standard for Home Care Products. Their criteria includes ingredients that are 95% natural, no animal testing, prohibited ingredients, and biodegradable ingredients with sustainable packaging, whenever possible. Five of Green Works' products have already passed this test and are labeled with the NPA certified seal, but this particular laundry detergent isn't one of the products.

Initial Observations: At first glance, the bottle definitely gives the impression of a green product. The main colors are green and white. The Green Works logo is accented with a flower, and another larger flower sits above the logo. Below the logo is a claim that reads "96% naturally derived laundry detergent." On the back of the bottle, Green Works explains its philosophy of naturally-derived cleaning products, which involves strong cleaning power, plant-based biodegradable ingredients, no animal testing, and no chemical fumes or residues. It lists its ingredients on the bottle, with some written in both plain language and chemical terms. For instance, "water softener" is also known as "sodium gluconate." The final feature is a row of seals on the bottom: one that says they were recognized for "Safer Chemistry" by the EPA, one with their recycling number, one that says 96% naturally deprived, and one that says they support the efforts of the Sierra Club.

The Sins


Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: A claim suggesting that a product is green based on a narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues.
This one is a little hard for me to speak to. Green Works detergent lays out all of its ingredients for the consumer to see, and many of them seem to be pretty good for the environment. If you visit their website (http://tinyurl.com/4m5s7fb), you'll find a list of their ingredients with individual explanations of what each of them comes from and does. For instance, alkyl polyglucoside is a cleaning ingredient derived from coconuts. If it's basing its definition of "green" off of using ingredients that can be found in the environment, then it's a pretty green product, compared to other detergents that use artificially-produced chemicals. However, it's important to remember that just because something comes from nature doesn't mean it's good for you. For instance, they claim calcium chloride is a "mineral-based ingredient", which is true, but that ignores the fact that calcium chloride can affect vegetation if it gets into the soil or water supplies. Also, they don't explain the processes they use to derive their natural ingredients, which may be harmful to the environment, even if the original ingredient isn't.


Sin of No Proof: An environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. 
Here, I have a bone to pick with Green Works detergent. It claims that 96% of its ingredients are naturally derived. But, I couldn't find any proof of that on the bottle or the website. It's pretty obvious that several of their ingredients come from nature, but the consumer can't tell what percentage of the detergent each ingredient makes up. Also, I ran into a contradiction on their website, which listed the detergent as 97% naturally derived. Not a big difference, but inconsistent enough to make me suspicious. It also sends up a red flag that the agency they use to evaluate their "natural" products, Natural Products Association, hasn't certified this product yet.


Sin of Vagueness: A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. 
This is probably the biggest issue I have with Green Works detergent. It claims to be 96% natural. But, what do they mean by "natural?" I couldn't find that defined anywhere. I thought it was especially funny that you can click on a "Why Natural?" heading, which leads you to a "natural: defined" page, which posts the Natural Products Association criteria. But, they still don't define what natural actually is. Again, natural doesn't always mean good. You can find lead in nature, but that doesn't mean you should use it in your products. Some of the ingredients, such as sodium hydroxide, have been linked to chemical burns. An ironic problem, considering the fact that the detergent claims to be okay for sensitive skin.


Sin of Worshiping False Labels: A product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists.
The Sierra Club label is a bit misleading, but there's an explanation next to it that says Green Works is a proud supporter of it, so the average consumer will understand that Sierra Club doesn't actually endorse the product. What's more interesting is that the product claims to be recognized by the EPA for Safer Chemistry, and gives a link to the EPA's website. When I checked, I found that, in general, Green Works products have been recognized, but their detergent hadn't been, so the label on the bottle is pretty misleading.


Sin of Irrelevance: An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.
Overall, Green Works detergent doesn't commit this sin. This category is usually reserved for making claims that a product is free of an ingredient that has already been banned, like CFC.


Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: A claim that may be true within the product category, but that risks distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impact of the category as a whole. 
Unfortunately, this is a sin that Green Works detergent will probably never escape. Within the category of detergents, this product is clearly better for the environment than the typical detergent. Unfortunately, detergent is a pretty harmful product. Both phosphate and phosphate-free detergents have been linked to a decrease in aquatic animals' ability to breed, which can be harmful to water-based ecosystems. Algae is able to overwhelm the ecosystem, which chokes other species. Also, the creator of Green Works, Clorox, makes a lot of cleaning products that harm the environment, especially those that contain bleach. 


Sin of Fibbing: Environmental claims that are simply false.
I don't know if Green Works detergent lies, but it definitely does stretch the truth. The fact that it includes the EPA label at all leads the consumer astray, and it isn't certified by the Natural Products Association, so I wonder what's going on behind-the-scenes.


Overall, this product is...pretty sinful! It makes a lot of vague claims that can lead the consumer astray. Is it better for the environment than regular detergent? Definitely. Is it good for the environment in general? Maybe not. It's probably better to make your own detergent from environmentally-safe products, like borax, but that takes a lot of time and effort. So, Green Works is making a good first step into reducing environmental impact, but its bark is a lot bigger than its bite. 

Cars Drive Greenwashing Efforts Forward...See What I Did There?

 Like fashion, the auto industry has made significant strides in making their products more environmentally-conscious. We discussed the electric car at length in class. Though it's still a pricey option, it is significantly less harmful to the environment than the conventional car. And, many hybrid vehicles have displayed improved fuel economy, which means we don't have to rely as heavily on oil and natural gas. But, at the same time, the auto industry will always be destined to take part in greenwashing. Why? No matter what the industry does, the automobile will always be detrimental to sustainability. Even if every vehicle we owned ran on efficient fuels and/or electricity, the production of cars depletes the world of resources, and the roads built to accommodate them will destroy the environment. For this reason, the auto industry commits the greenwashing sin of...

Sin of Lesser of Two Evils
A claim that may be true in the product category, but that risks distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole.
For the sake of this post, I'm going to focus specifically on the hybrid car, which is most guilty of greenwashing lately. If the energy saved is used to make it more fuel-efficient, rather than make it more powerful, the hybrid vehicle is an improvement on the regular vehicle. It decreases our reliance on non-renewable resources. Car companies are smart to market these vehicles as environmentally-friendly because it's appealing to their market and it's not terribly far from the truth. However, car companies seem to be marketing as a means of distracting the consumer away from both the environmental impacts of the cars and the unethical activities of the companies. What follows are several examples of car companies committing this sin.

Toyota

Doesn't it look so green when it's in the middle of nature?

The Toyota Prius has become one of the most popular hybrid car models, with over a million sold by 2008 (http://tinyurl.com/6xwgfxn). It's also one of the most efficient hybrids; the 2009 model got 50 miles to the gallon. Toyota markets itself as a progressive company, with the tagline "Moving Forward." But, it's also a member of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a lobbying group that opposes better fuel standards. It only recently shifted its stance after receiving more than 100,000 protest messages (http://tinyurl.com/4pthepa). Side note: Essentially every major car company is a member of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and nearly all have either introduced a hybrid concept or have sold them to the general public. 


Porsche 

Pretty nice car, huh? This is the Porsche 918 Spyder, the first publicly available hybrid sports car. It's powered by a 500-horsepower V8 engine, as well as two electric engines that provide 218 horsepower more. Top speed is 199 mph, and it'll get 78 miles per gallon. The car sounds like a decent hybrid until you get to the price: $845,000 (http://tinyurl.com/4c85ywe). A two-seater car used mainly for pleasure driving with a hefty price tag isn't exactly the more sustainable vehicle in the world. 


Lexus

*Note that Lexus is Toyota's luxury brand.
Like Porsche, Lexus is taking luxury to the hybrid level, though not to the same price/efficiency extreme. Pictured above is the Lexus LS600h L, one of several hybrid models Lexus offers and the priciest model you can buy. In terms of quantity of models offered, Lexus is doing pretty good, with five different options. And, this car has earned a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle rating, so it's relatively nice to the environment. However, its good points run out pretty fast. For a hybrid, it has a pretty low mpg average at 21 mpg (http://tinyurl.com/4sojvlt), which isn't much higher than its non-hybrid counterpart. It's pretty likely that the energy produced by the hybrid engine is not going towards fuel efficiency, but rather towards increased performance, which can include faster acceleration and top speed. The 2008 version was reported to emit 8.7 tons of CO2 annually, with a pollution score of 8 out of 10. And, with a price of over $100,000, it's not really accessible to the general population (http://tinyurl.com/4aazgao). Overall, the idea of a hybrid luxury vehicle seems like an oxymoron; what advances the hybrid system makes are negated by the fact that fuel economy changes very little and the extra energy produces extra emissions. 


Audi

I thought this video profiling the company's greenwashing was very interesting. The basic premise of the Audi commercial profiled by the video is that everyone harming the environment is caught by a security squad, despite the fact that their crimes are relatively minimal. For instance, one man asks for plastic bags instead of paper at a grocery store and is immediately apprehended. At the climax of the ad, a roadblock is put in place and every car is inspected for their environmental violations. The Audi diesel vehicle is immediately allowed past the roadblock, and the commercial ends with the tagline "Green has never felt so right." It's true that by using diesel fuel, this Audi has reduced emissions, which is better for the environment than a regular car. However, the video points out that while a number of people are vilified for their minor environmental violations, no one says a word to the person driving the car, which is perhaps the greatest environmental violation of all. The process for obtaining diesel fuel is damaging to the environment, as is the gathering of resources to build the car. Inevitably, we are reminded that no matter how green a car is portrayed to be, it's still not a green form of travel (http://tinyurl.com/46bxpug). 


I'd like to end this post with a nod to one other greenwashing sin: the Sin of Fibbing, where environmental claims made are simply false. Nothing demonstrates this better than the following photograph of a car ad from overseas:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anabananasplit/2434286975/in/pool-552240@N22 


There really is no such thing as zero impact anymore, especially when it comes to the auto industry. 

Green Fashion is Sinful in More Ways than One

In many ways, fashion is really taking the environment into consideration as it moves forward. Organic cotton and bamboo have become increasingly popular fabric choices. American Apparel has proven that American-based manufacturing sells well. And reused, retooled, and vintage items have replaced new purchases in the wardrobes of many people. But, like any other industry, fashion often falls prey to greenwashing. Researching fashion and greenwashing led me to an enormous amount of information, but I've selected a few examples that describe how fashion commits some of the 7 Sins of Greenwashing, a criteria system developed by Terra Choice that I discussed in an earlier post.

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off
A claim suggesting that a product is green based on a narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues.
Bamboo is more frequently being used as the raw material for fabric, and in some ways, it's a very green resource. It grows four times faster than wood and continues to grow after you cut it back. It also requires little to no pesticides and significantly less water than cotton (35 gallons vs. 700 gallons to make a t-shirt) (http://tinyurl.com/4bsflfu). It isn't surprising that companies using bamboo want to market its benefits, like this clothing tag does:

What clothing companies don't mention is the environmentally unfriendly process it takes to make bamboo wearable. In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission charged 4 clothing companies for making false or misleading claims regarding their bamboo products. One of the most significant issues was the claim that their clothing products were made using an environmentally-friendly process (http://tinyurl.com/l7tjyg). Bamboo is a tough fiber. In order to break it down into a pliable material known as viscose, manufacturers need to use toxic chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide, which can cause chemical burns and blindness (http://tinyurl.com/4bsflfu). Organic bamboo, and bamboo that is processed using a closed-loop system, is advertised as such. Otherwise, there's a good chance that the bamboo clothing you're wearing is being marketed as green because bamboo is a renewable resource, but not mentioning the dangers its processing poses to you and the environment. 


Sin of Vagueness
A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. 
In an attempt to become part of the green movement, certain manufacturers of cotton products are marketing them under the label "natural cotton":

This bag is marketed as being made of "natural cotton." Note the appropriate environmentally-friendly message that it's displaying. The label misleads the consumer into thinking that the cotton is green in some way. Truth be told, cotton is inherently a "natural" product because it's grown, not artificially manufactured, like polyester. For this reason, we can also put natural cotton under the category of Sin of Irrelevance, An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. The consumer is given a vague and irrelevant claim, which makes them buy a product that is actually quite harmful to the planet. As the fashion team discussed in class recently, cotton is pretty detrimental for a number of reasons. It uses 22% of the world's pesticides; it takes 700 gallons of water to produce a t-shirt (http://tinyurl.com/4bsflfu), and workers farming it are often treated inhumanely. If you're looking for better cotton, be sure it has an "organic" label; that way, it isn't grown with pesticides. Fair-trade cotton also takes into consideration the value of human lives. 


Sin of Fibbing
Environmental claims that are simply false.
We'll return to bamboo and the FTC report for this category. The four companies charged in this case (Jonano, Mad Mod, Pure Bamboo, and Bamboosa) claimed that their products were made of 100% bamboo fiber, when they were actually made of rayon. They also claim that bamboo clothing retains its antimicrobial properties, which means that they repel bacteria that causes odor, a claim that hasn't been substantiated (http://tinyurl.com/l7tjyg). I'm a little confused by the rayon claim. Rayon is a fabric created from the fibers of plants, including bamboo, so I'm not sure how they were lying. I suppose that saying the clothing is made of bamboo misleads the consumer regarding the processing of the raw materials; rayon's processing can be very toxic. Still, bamboo proves itself to be a young member of the clothing market and will likely see some more greenwashing in its future.


Finally, I wanted to discuss a particular company that doesn't fit directly into these categories of sin, but can still be considered guilty of greenwashing. H & M, the popular Swedish clothing brand, has spent the last several years developing its green line, launching "The Garden Collection" in 2010, which consisted of affordable clothing made from organic cotton. While H & M has made significant strides to become more sustainable, I believe it's using this movement to distract from its less reputable practices. On its Corporate Responsibility page, a question is raised regarding the pay rate of its factory workers. H & M claims that since it doesn't own or control the factories where its clothes are made, it cannot demand a certain pay rate for those workers. Furthermore, its Code of Conduct states that the statutory minimum wage is "the lowest acceptable pay level for our suppliers' employees, but not the recommended level." It appears as though H & M is trying to skirt potential human rights issues involved with the workers producing their clothing. They are able to keep their prices low for a number of reasons, but I suspect one crucial factor is their disregard for the welfare and fair wages of factory workers. This could be speculation on my part, but it never hurts to check out the background of a company that's making green claims. 

The Worst Greenwashing Offenders, Part 2

Sorry for the late post; it's been a hectic week! But, now I'll conclude the list of the Top 5 Worst Greenwashing Offenders, according to Web Ecoist and 24/7 Wall Street. And me, of course.

American Electric Power

Why They're An Offender: AEP doesn't advertise in the way that other offenders do, but it does talk out of both sides of its mouth. In 2008, they released a Sustainability Report, which offered discussion on their environmental performance and their strategies for becoming more sustainable. They adopted principles set forth by the Clinton Global Initiative, putting forth $100 million over five years to build and update their facilities to the standards of the LEED green building rating system. In case you're curious, LEED is an internationally-recognized third-party system of green building certification, which verifies that a building was constructed using strategies that improve sustainable performance in the areas of energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reductions, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. AED also claims to have invested 2/3 of their $5.4 billion investment program to reduce airborne emissions and comply with federal environmental regulations.

However, AEP's motivation to become more environmentally-conscious doesn't necessarily stem from a natural desire for change, but rather an enormous number of regulation violations that have forced them in that direction. They were sued in 2005 by the Sierra Club and Public Citizen for thousands of violations at a power plant in Texas. Furthermore, in 2007, the Department of Justice, eight states, and 13 citizen groups created a settlement with AEP under the Clean Air Act, requiring caps on emissions of pollutants from 16 plants. AEP will have to spend more than $4.6 billion to achieve the caps and will reduce their pollution by 813,000 tons per year. The President of the Clean Air Watch reports that AEP is one of the nation's biggest polluters and is one of the biggest lobbyists against the political interest on global warming. In 2003, one week prior to a meeting between members of coal-burning facilities, the White House and the EPA, the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign received more than $10,000 from the AEP.

In a sense, American Electric Power has differentiated itself from other greenwashing offenders by making significant shifts in their policies. However, it is worth questioning whether they should be credited for those improvements. If they hadn't been found in violation of environmental standards, would they have become more sustainable?

I'll end the list with a company that's close to home. Cheers to greenwashing in our own backyards!

DOW Chemical

Why They're An Offender: Like BP and GM, DOW Chemical recently introduced an advertising campaign to create an image of a socially-conscious company. Dubbed "The Human Element", the campaign was released in 2006 and promised to change the future direction of the business toward changing the relationship between business, society, and the environment. One of their ads won a national advertising award in 2008. I couldn't find the specific ad, called The Bond Between Us All, but here's an example of the "Human Element" campaign:

Unfortunately, DOW Chemical has more than 100 years of pollution to counteract, and some of their recent actions have been inconsistent with their "new image". In 2001, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry received a petition that sought assessment of dioxin contamination in Midland, Michigan, especially in the Tittabawassee River. Dioxin has been linked with accelerated death in animals, liver damage in adults, carcinogenic effects, and developmental disturbances in babies. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality announced an Environmental Assessment Initiative in 2002, and by 2007, DOW Chemical had agreed to three EPA orders for sediment clean-up in the river. However, DOW has been extremely slow to respond to this issue. In 2008, they reported that they needed to measure the amount of pollution before they began the clean-up, and they also continued with sediment sampling in other areas, which later recorded high amounts of dioxin. Environmental groups and the EPA are frustrated with DOW Chemical's lack of progress. Additionally, DOW Chemical never took responsibility for or cleaned up after a poisonous gas industrial disaster in Bhopal, India, which killed 8,000 people within two weeks and an additional 8,000 due to gas-related diseases.

What's on the docket for next week? I'm thinking about looking at how greenwashing interacts with the fashion and auto industries, two topics that we've covered in class. But, for now, take a closer look at the marketing efforts of these five greenwashing offenders and see whether you notice a difference in how you perceive them.