A recent report by North American consulting firm TerraChoice Environmental Marketing has found that just 2% of self proclaimed green products make completely legitimate claims on their labels. The other 98% commit "greenwashing" sins, that is they mislead consumers about the environmental benefits of a product or the practices of a company.
Products in stores in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia were surveyed, 1,018 in total - everything from toothpaste to caulking to printers“The good news is that the growing availability of green products shows that consumers are demanding more environmentally responsible choices and that marketers and manufacturers are listening”, said TerraChoice Chief Executive Scott McDougall.
“The bad news is that TerraChoice’s survey of 2,219 consumer products in Canada and the U.S. shows that 98 percent committed at least one sin of greenwashing and that some marketers are exploiting consumers’ demand for third-party certification by creating fake labels or false suggestions of third-party endorsement.”
TerraChoice created the "seven sins" of greenwashing:
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. Paper, for example, is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from a sustainably-harvested forest. Other important environmental issues in the paper-making process, such as greenhouse gas emissions, or chlorine use in bleaching may be equally important.
A South African example: consumers are being urged to switch from incandescent lamps to the new low-energy equivalents (CFLs), but no effort has been made to educate or advise them of the mercury content or of the long-term danger these lamps pose to communities when dumped. Not one of the manufacturers, suppliers or retailers has made any effort to create a safe disposal facility for these lamps.
Sin of No Proof: An environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. Common examples are facial tissues or toilet tissue products that claim various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing evidence.
Sin of Vagueness: A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. ‘All-natural’ is an example. Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring, and poisonous. ‘All natural’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’.
Sin of Worshipping False Labels: 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.
Sin of Irrelevance: An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. ‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs are banned by law. An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. ‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs are banned by law.
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 impacts of the category as a whole. Organic cigarettes could be an example of this Sin, as might the fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicle.
Sin of Fibbing: Environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples were products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered.
Here in South Africa, it has taken us a while, but us consumers are finally realising the importance of selecting products and services that are environmentally friendly and have less impact on the Earth. We are still some way behind United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia, so it is not yet easy to be "green" or environmentally aware, but there are increasing numbers of people who will choose a product or even pay that little extra because it claims to be environmentally friendly.
Who should be policing "greenwashing"? The advertising industry, government, business chambers?
Sources: TerraChoice ; The Seven Sins of Greenwashing ; Mail & Guardian ; Earthfirst.com
1 comment:
I think pat of the problem here is that there is no accepted priorities for tradeoffs. If a product uses less energy but wastes more water, is that "green?" If a product uses recycled paper but uses more fuel to transport it, is that "green?" There's no widely accepted standard for that, so the manufacturers highlight whatever aspect of their product is the greenest.
Post a Comment