Greenwashing Index

First of all, apologies for being a bit late on the posts. It's been a rather hectic week!

In my search for guides to green fashion at the beginning of the week, I stumbled across a site called the Greenwashing Index:

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/index.php

Sponsored by EnviroMedia Social Marketing and the University of Oregon, Greenwashing Index allows consumers of green marketing to view and post ads that claim the environmental friendliness of a company, as well as rate the ads on the relevance of their claims. On a scale of 1-5, if your ad gets a 1, you're seen as "authentic", but if you receive a 5, your claims are deemed "bogus".

Whenever someone evaluates an ad, the site generates a score based on responses to the following five statements:

1. The ad misleads with words. The company misleads the consumer on the true nature of their environmental impact.

2. The ad misleads with visuals and/or graphics. The image that comes to my mind is that of a hybrid SUV in a forest. The images lead you to believe that the car is green, when SUVs are pretty detrimental to the environment.

3. The ad makes a green claim that is vague or seemingly unprovable. A company's claims to being green either lack substance or don't have anything to back them up. If something claims to be made from 100% recycled materials, it's difficult to determine such an exact percentage.

4. The ad overstates or exaggerates how green the product/company/service actually is.  For instance, a water bottle company can claim they're green because they used recycled plastic, but the process of making and refurbishing plastic isn't terribly environmentally-friendly. 

5. The ad leaves out or masks information, making the green claim sound better than it is. This can often happen in the green clothing industry. Technically, using materials such as bamboo, which waste less water and renew more quickly, is an environmentally-friendly move, but companies don't often mention the chemicals needed to soften bamboo fibers, which contribute to pollution. 

Let's look at some ads that received low scores (authentic environmental claims) and those that scored higher (bogus claims).

The Best

Black Cloud

Average Rating: 1.0 (5 ratings)

In response to the massive growth of cars and exhaust emissions in China, WWF took a step to educate others. To kick off their "20 Tips for Sustainable Development" campaign and bring people to their site, WWF attached a giant black balloon to a car for a day with a slogan indicating how much carbon monoxide you could keep out of the atmosphere if you drove one less day. The goals of WWF are straightforward and their mission to reduce pollution is genuine. 

Sun Chips Green Energy Credits

Average Rating: 1.7 (4 ratings)

Sun Chips asserts that baby steps can change the world. 18 grams of whole grains per serving can lead to a healthier lifestyle. And their attempts to become more sustainable will contribute to a better planet. Where does this ad go right? They acknowledge that what they're doing isn't going to save anything; rather, it'll help out. Honestly like that helps the viewer believe in their mission. Where does it go wrong? Their claims of "green energy" aren't substantiated with evidence. It's likely that you can find out more on their website, but stating they're green without providing anything to back themselves up within the ad makes the viewer question whether they're really environmentally conscious. 

The Worst

Fiji Water

Average Rating: 4.7 (11 ratings)

Oh, Fiji. Where do I even begin? First of all, they mislead the consumer with words and images. There's very little about the water bottling process that's environmentally-friendly, yet they've attempted to convince the viewer that their product is "green". Secondly, they make a vague claim that's difficult to prove. It's unlikely that "every" drop is green, and even if it is, by what standard are they evaluating "green"? Fiji is clearly over-exaggerating their environmental impact. They've likely taken steps to become more sustainable, but their industry is anything but and ads such as these distract from their non-green practices.

Wal Mart: Reducing Prices and More...

Average Rating: 4.5 (2 ratings)

I'll admit that after reading Nickel and Dimed, I tend to pick on Wal-Mart a fair amount, so this selection is a bit motivated by my personal views, but I will say that this ad serves as an excellent example of misleading consumers and overstating environmental impact. By placing their ad on a background of an open field with a tree, Wal-Mart visually misleads its consumers into believing their green efforts are bigger than they are. This isn't to say that Wal-Mart hasn't attempted to become greener in the last several years. But, in a number of ways, Wal-Mart is inherently unfriendly to the environment. Their stores take up acres of land and require an enormous amount of energy to run. And, in order to maintain the lowest prices, they manufacture many of their products in factories overseas that both lack certain environmental standards and have been known to mistreat their workers. Wal-Mart has a lot to prove to the sustainable consumer, and it's likely that ads such as these will ring untrue. 

Want to rate an ad? Or maybe post one yourself? Visit the Greenwashing Index! And keep an eye out for "green" ads. You now have some tools to determine whether a product is really as green as it claims to be.