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.

The Worst Greenwashing Offenders

Throughout my project, I've run across a number of organizations that contributed to greenwashing in some way. But, which companies are the baddest offenders of them all? I came across two lists, one from Web Ecoist and one from 24/7 Wall St., that each presented their perspectives on the worst offenders. Interestingly enough, the two lists had 5 companies in common. I'll cover these five organizations and talk about why they've gotten such a strong reputation for greenwashing.

BP (British Petroleum)

Why They're An Offender: Let's start with the initials BP, which also stand for "Beyond Petroleum," a slogan created in 2000 to accompany their $200 million rebranding campaign. For more than a decade, BP has tried to convince their customers that they're making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint and become more sustainable. Watch this ad on finding new sources of energy:

But, are they actually doing the work? Yes and no. While they're putting some energy into developing other sources of energy, they're vastly over-representing that work in their ads. Basically, they're claiming to be far greener than they actually are. A study conducted by Greenpeace in 2009 determined that BP spends 93% of its investment fund on the development and extraction of oil, gas, and other fossil fuels. Only 6.8% of their investment is devoted to alternative energies, including solar power, wind, wave, tidal, and biofuels. Another study indicated that they spent the same amount on green advertising in two years that they spent on six years of alternative energy research. BP also recently entered into a settlement with the EPA for violating The Clean Air Act. And, they spent $3 billion to buy into oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, where generating one barrel of oil creates about two-thirds of a ton of CO2. Overall, they paint a pretty picture, but don't have a lot to back up their claims.

General Motors

Why They're An Offender: Check out the ad above. In 2007, GM attempted to rebrand itself as a an environmentally-responsible car company by launching its "gas-friendly to gas-free" campaign with its best-selling line of Chevy models. The campaign highlighted five ways Chevrolet is "greening" its cars: increasing fuel efficiency, producing a vehicle that can run on E85 Ethanol, developing hybrids, developing plug-in hybrids, and fuel cells. In 2008, GM unveiled the Chevy Volt, the first so-called "electric" car. However, GM consistently retains the reputation of greenwasher because they bend the truth. Technically, the Volt does have a gasoline engine, but the company argues that the car isn't a hybrid because the engine powers the electric motor and not the wheels. GM has also begun advertising cars that run on ethanol, biofuel and fuel cells, but that technology is still very immature and likely won't be relevant until 2020. But, GM's biggest greenwashing problem is that while they're making an effort to develop sustainable technology, they're still responsible for putting gas-guzzling vehicles on the road. In 2007, a study was conducted that ranked GM as the second worst polluter out of eight major car companies and the largest manufacturer of cars that have 15 mpg or worse in city driving. Those stats have probably improved a bit in the last few years, but there's no denying that GM isn't as green as they claim.

Exxon Mobil

Why They're An Offender: Like BP, Exxon Mobil has launched an extensive advertising campaign to demonstrate their commitment to alternative energy and becoming more environmentally-friendly. Here's an example of one of those ads:

Exxon Mobil released a report in 2008 stating that they were working on developing technologies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of their efforts included investing $100 million to improve natural gas technology, working with car makers to increase fuel economy by 30%, improving lithium-ion battery technology, and developing a hydrogen system to improve driving efficiency. But, while working on these improvements, Exxon Mobil has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, so to speak. They've consistently funded the climate change denial industry, including the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation, which  collaborated with President Bush to discredit the EPA's efforts to fight climate change. Also, like BP, Exxon Mobil has recently been found to be in violation of The Clean Air Act. They're spending $300 million in the next ten years to research potential energy sources, which, in comparison to the $47 billion they spent from 2003 to 2006 to develop oil and gas, isn't a whole lot.

Aren't you excited to hear about the last two offenders? I'll cover those later this week!

Greenpeace and Greenwashing Consulting

By now, you’re probably a little depressed by the idea of greenwashing. After all, consuming green is a step in the right direction when it comes to saving the planet. And, if you’re at all like me, the more you hear about corruption and oppression, the more you want to do something to change it. Therefore, I offer you two organizations who are taking very different approaches to fighting greenwashing. Here’s to environmental honesty!

Greenpeace (http://stopgreenwash.org/)

If you’ve never heard of Greenpeace, you’ve probably spent some portion of your life under a rock. Or, you’ve lived in a place that doesn’t have consistent access to large-scale media. In case you haven’t heard of it, Greenpeace is a non-governmental organization that deals with all things related to the environment. Specifically, their goal is to “ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity (http://tinyurl.com/465yrr6).” They do so by fighting environmental problems, such as global warming and commercial whaling, using direction action, lobbying and research (http://tinyurl.com/48ldywt).

Among its many efforts to save the planet, Greenpeace has established a campaign to fight greenwashing. Their website is entitled stopgreenwash.org and it contains a wealth of information regarding greenwashing, Greenpeace’s criteria for investigation, and numerous articles on greenwashing offenders. According to the site, the goals of this initiative are to confront greenwashing campaigns, engage in debate with corporations, and provide the information consumers and lawmakers need to hold corporations accountable for their green marketing actions. Greenpeace primarily accomplishes these points by investigating cases of greenwashing using four criteria:

Dirty Business: Promoting an environmentally-friendly product or program while the business itself is generally unsustainable.

Ad Bluster: Using targeted advertising or campaigns to exaggerate an environmental achievement in order to divert attention away from environmental problems, or spending more money on advertising an environmental achievement than on the achievement itself.

Political Spin: Speaking about “green” commitments while lobbying against current or pending environmental regulations.

It’s the Law, Stupid!: Advertising a product with environmental achievements that are already required by law. 

With these criteria, Greenpeace focuses its investigations in six areas: oil, autos, electricity, coal, nuclear, and forests. Through a blog post format, they expose bits of greenwashing from a number of corporations, including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, GM, Southern Company, and Kleenex. Are their campaigns successful? Yes and no. As they say on the site, it's been harder to change the US than other countries in the world. But, they do mention a couple of success stories from across the world. For instance, in the UK, the advertising authority asked the Malaysian Palm Oil Council to stop running misleading ads. The ads claimed that palm oil was environmentally friendly, while the industry is actually responsible for heavy CO2 emissions. 

Greenwashers Consulting (http://www.greenwashersconsulting.com/index.html)

When I first came across this site, I was incredulous. The company claims to deliver a "premium package of green image solutions," leaving the infrastructure of a company alone while streamlining a green appearance. I thought I had come across some pretty obvious greenwashing, but this seemed to be pushing the envelope too far. What if consumers found out about it? How would they ever trust green marketing again? But, after my initial reaction, I took a second look at the site, nursing a healthy amount of doubt. This seemed almost too stupid to be real. The remainder of their tabs had advertising points, but little material to work from. The testimonials section was empty. What if this site was merely a clever bit of satire? I searched the web a bit more for information about the site and came across an article written by Osha Gray Davidson for the Phoenix Sun (http://thephoenixsun.com/archives/1299). Like me, Davidson was shocked by Greenwashers Consulting's material and launched into some investigative journalism. Posing as a polluter in need of their services, Davidson writes a sarcasm-laden letter to bait the firm into responding. Soon after, she receives a confirmation email from the CEO of Greenwashers Consulting, Arthur Denton. Does the name sound familiar to you? It might. It's the name of the sadomasochist character played by Bill Murray in Little Shop of Horrors. Davidson confirms that she has stumbled across a piece of satire. Unlike many of the sites I've shown you, which directly attack greenwashers through investigations and expose pieces, Greenwashers Consulting lets the idea of greenwashing destroy itself. As I'm typing this, I'm chuckling at the fact that one of my tabs, which is opened to the "Clients" page of Greenwashers, reads "Greenwashed Clients." Will it have the same effect on greenwashing as Greenpeace? Maybe not. But I think it's important to approach this issue from a number of angles. I also encourage you to visit the site, if only to unwash and wash the picture. Scary icky factory becomes flowery oasis at the click of your mouse!

Focusing My Project, and A Little History!

Coming back from spring break in California (a very enjoyable, but non-sustainable vacation), I initially read Dick's email absentmindedly. Sure, I'd give an update in class on Wednesday regarding the progress of my project. It had made progress, right? Then, I gave it a bit more thought. Up until this point, my scope has been pretty broad. How could I narrow my focus to create the ultimate final project? Based on the direction I've taken thus far, I've decided to spend the rest of my project doing deeper research into greenwashing. This is mainly what I had decided to do before, but now I'm dropping the element of my project where I discuss how consuming less is greener than green consumption. So, the outline for the rest of the semester is as follows: I'd like to spend a couple of posts delving into the history of greenwashing and specific campaigns against it, notably Greenpeace and Greenwashers Consulting. I've come across a list of the top 10 greenwashers, which may be an interesting overview of the worst greenwashing sins. I'll look into specific topics that we've discussed in class, such as the fashion and auto industries, that may have fallen prey to greenwashing. Using the seven sins of greenwashing, I will find "green" products in stores and investigate how truthful their claims are. And, in order to save the semester from being a total downer, I'll end by looking into products and initiatives that mostly avoid the trappings of green marketing and have made a positive impact on the planet. Sound like a plan?

So far, I've given an overview of what greenwashing is and how it's done. Don't remember exactly what greenwashing is? I'll tell you! Greenwashing is the use of marketing techniques to mislead a consumer into believing that a company's products or practices are environmentally-friendly or greener than they actually are. Today's consumer is conscious of where their product comes from, how it is made, and how it will affect the world. Therefore, companies will market their products based on the needs of that consumer, even if their product isn't particularly sustainable. I've thought for a while that greenwashing is a relatively recent phenomenon sparked by the increased interest in global warming and environmental sustainability. But, after doing a little bit of background research, I found out that green marketing has existed in some form for almost fifty years. Let's take a look back at how greenwashing has evolved. Thanks to The Green Life (http://tinyurl.com/4qf7pvw) and Corp Watch (http://tinyurl.com/2vxsvr) for their timelines on greenwashing. 

Though the term "greenwashing" wasn't coined until the mid 80s, its ideas began in the 1960s with the beginnings of the contemporary environmental movement. Media of all sorts began carrying images of "green" corporations, a phenomenon labeled by advertising executive Jerry Mander as "ecopornography." Growing interest in the environment led to the first annual Earth Day on April 22, 1970.


Environmentalism exploded in the 1980s. In 1985, Chevron launched "People Do", regarded as the longest-running and most infamous greenwashing campaign in history. The ads featured Chevron employees saving animals and engaging in other environmentally-friendly acts. The ads cause a spike in sales and consumers polled several years later stated that they trusted Chevron over other oil companies to help the environment. Here's an example of one of their ads:

One year later, in 1986, the term "greenwashing" was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld in an essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing cards in each room to encourage the reuse of towels to "save the environment". He claimed that the hotels were implementing very few actual efforts to help the environment and were using such cards mainly as a way to increase their profit margin (washing less towels=spending less money). (http://tinyurl.com/4rqtysp)

The U.S. Chemical Manufacturer's Association created a voluntary program called Responsible Care in 1988, which highlighted the environmental performance of the group's members. This began a trend of environmental self-regulation, rather than governmental regulation.

By the 1990s, greenwashing had established itself as a method to convince consumers of a company's environmentally-friendly practices. Consumers were increasingly taking into account a company's environmental reputation when purchasing their products. A study conducted by the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in 1991 determined that 58% of environment-themed ads had at least one deceptive or misleading claim. In an effort to control greenwashing, the Federal Trade Commission created the "Green Guides" in 1998, which gave guidelines on terms used in environmental marketing. However, they could not enforce any of the guidelines because greenwashing was outside of their jurisdiction. The term "greenwashing" officially became a part of the English language in 1999.

The early 2000s were marked by a significant effort from BP to rebrand itself as a green company. Spending 200 million dollars, BP changed their slogan to "Beyond Petroleum" and created a green and yellow sunburst logo. Other oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, and the US Government were "honored" in 2002 at the Greenwash Academy Awards, a mock award ceremony hosted by the Greenwashing Academy during the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

And today? Well, today's greenwashing efforts are numerous and growing rapidly. We'll see more of them in the future, as well as some efforts to fight misleading marketing.