I fear we use the term “greenwashing” too liberally and too accusingly. I think we accuse organisations too readily. I think most cases of greenwashing have a positive side, and should not be described in the negative terms which greenwashing implies.
Basically, I think most of what we call greenwashing is actually OK.
No, I’ll go further, and say that we should be more accepting of what we call greenwashing and we should stop using the word altogether.
The reason is simple, and comprises two parts.
Firstly, the drive behind greenwashing is good. Organisations want to do things and be seen to do things which are good so that they can win more customers or hire people. So they start by making gestures. An oil company may introduce recycling bins in the food area, for example. An airline company may charge you more money to enable them to make a contribution to carbon offsetting.
It’s very easy to be cynical towards these moves and laugh accusingly at the ridiculous idea of an oil company which has recycling bins in its office. Very easy.
There are countless millions of examples like this, where organisations take initiatives to do things differently, better. The good spirits and energy of the people working within the organisations who get involved in these initiatives needs to be supported and nurtured, not slapped down. They need to be able to participate in taking these small steps forward. And we need to see more of them.
Too many good corporate initiatives now are simply not seeing the light of day because of the fear of judgment and criticism that they are “not good enough”.
Accusations of greenwashing can be extremely judgemental. They can become extremely aggressive. They have become ever more powerful as more marketing power moves into the hands of consumers, charities, lobbying groups and associations.
In many companies now are people who believe in good things, but are scared of doing the wrong thing so much, that they have stopped pushing forward.
We must not kill this push energy and drive. It needs to flourish unfettered, for it is the spirit which makes change.
Second, in this area the law actually works. It is good enough. So let’s use it.
If the goal of calling out a firm for greenwashing is trying to stop bad things happening, then I’d say that encouraging compliance with the law is a much more effective route to achieve that goal.
I believe we can affect infinitely more positive change in corporate behaviour by upholding the law than we can by calling out greenwashing.
We need to love and champion legal compliance as a first response, and not just criticise as a first response.
So that’s my thought this week: let’s use the law before we call out greenwashing.
OK, OK, you got me - you want more. So here it is - there are some fantastic laws which control marketing in the areas of UN SDGs and especially sustainability, environment, climate and greenwashing. Do click on the links and soak up the regs:
The US Federal Trade Commission publishes the Code of Federal Regulations which lays down clear principles on environmental marketing
The UK’s Competitions and Markets Authority has the Green Claims Code which is guidance on making environmental claims
Not only are these laws thorough, but they boil down to simple principles:
claims must be truthful and accurate
claims must be clear and unambiguous
claims must not omit or hide important relevant information
comparisons must be fair and meaningful
claims must consider the full life cycle of the product or service
claims must be substantiated
As marketers, our job is to fight as individuals internally within our companies and with our suppliers and clients with conviction and passion to support these things. Don’t break the law! Love the law! It’s simple, powerful and effective. We can achieve so much more, I feel, by fighting hard for these good things in our day to day work.
As consumers, I think it would be marvellous for every person and organisation to be able to call out things when they see them as being untruthful, inaccurate, ambiguous, concealing, or unsubstantiated, and to seek correction. That’s good. Let’s be specific in our accusations, focus on these words and hold organisations ruthlessly to account on these specific matters.
I think this helps us solve the problem more than simply calling out greenwashing.
If you still have appetite for more - I think Investopedia presents and discusses greenwashing brilliantly here. The core words it uses are “misleading”, “false information”, “false impressions”, “intentionally hiding wrongdoing”. I quite agree.
Be aware, however, that Investopedia also supports the concept that products and companies can be “genuinely green” (as, sadly, does the Competition and Markets Authority) and I think that concept is as unhelpful as “greenwashing”.
There can be almost no reasonable gain in calling any business “genuinely green” so that all the others, by implication, are therefore “not genuinely green”. And defining the difference between “genuinely green” and “not genuinely green” is simply not workable.
I don’t even think there’s a spectrum where businesses are bad, less bad, OK, good, or great.
I just think there’s one direction: better. Let’s all get as better as we can.
And let’s help every other business we touch become better in the biggest way we can too, even if it’s a small step. I think condemning businesses by calling them “not genuinely green”, “not green enough” or “greenwashers” actually reduces the positive energy and drive for change in the system.
And that positive energy is what we need the most.
Disclosure; my craft and trade is marketing, so I’m bound to defend marketing as a discipline, and greenwashing is a branch of marketing, so I’m defending my vested interests. I agree. But my previous posts try and put into context the important role that I think my craft has and I’ll stand up forever to champion the role of marketing in making our planet better, and this post is a very small contribution to making marketing better. We can all improve, after all.