Know your enemy: Greenwashing
Today, everyone is confronted with an overflow of information, often poured out without instructions, out of context, in an incomplete or even contradictory way. This creates a phenomenon of either rejection or disinterest. Greenwashing can only add to this phenomenon.
We probably all know this world already, but can you recognise it easily between lines of attracting pithes and advertisement? It is very easy to confront it with ecological or sustainable development arguments, which have value and make sense.
Let’s start with explaining the difference between those arguments and pure greenwashing
The ecological argument — A communication argument that allows :
- to highlight on a communication medium the ecological characteristics of a product or service, or its advantages for the protection of the environment,
- to guide the consumer in his choices,
- to motivate companies to innovate and modify their offer.
It was originally created to allow companies making real efforts in the ecological design of their products, to promote them. This argument was rather reserved for products and services having obtained an ecological label or any other recognized certification, answering a precise charter and being the subject of an external and independent control of the company. But as soon as “self-declared ecological benefits” are possible, i.e. declarations of benefits that do not benefit from any no recognised label or controlled certification, the abuses are also possible
The “sustainable development” argument — A communication argument that allows :
- to highlight the sustainable development approach of a company on a communication medium,
- to positively influence the consumer’s image of the company,
- to motivate companies to opt for a serious and solid approach.
Derivatives are possible, because there is not one single regulated standard but several agreements in principle, and that the notion remains confused in the public mind.
Greenwashing :
- the use of the ecological argument while the interest of the product or service for the environmentis minimal, or even non-existent ;
- the use of the sustainable development argument when the company’s approach is either almost non-existent
- In short, a message that can mislead the consumer on the real ecological quality of the product or on the reality of the SD approach
Here are some examples to make it more clear:
- The excessive promise: the product is presented as totally ecological when only one of its elements is.
- The absence or insufficiency of information or arguments: the ecological advantage or the approach is not explained or insufficiently explained
- A confused visual: the visual accompanying the message has a link with ecology or sustainable development, but none with the product or the evoked step, inducing confusion in the mind of the consumer.
1. A real lie.
- There is nothing ecological about the product or service being promoted as such.
2. A disproportionate promise.
- The product or service has an ecological interest, but this does not make it harmless or beneficial for the environment. However, the message omits this precision and suggests that the ecological interest is greater than the reality, or even to the total absence of impact of the product or service on the environment.
-The approach exists, but is not as developed as the message claims or implies.
3. Vague words.
The vocabulary used is imprecise, too general… and is not defined in the message.
4. Insufficient information.
The product or the SD approach is likely to be of interest to the environment, but it is difficult to understand why, how, and where to get more information.
5. Too suggestive an image.
The visual used suggests that :
- the product or service has ecological virtues that it does not have or has little.
- the approach has a scope, an interest that it has little or none.
6. A false label.
An “ecological label” or “sustainable development” label makes people believe that it is a real label, when in fact it is a “home-made” label designed for the consumer without any method of attribution or control by a competent and independent body.
7. An irrelevant emphasis.
- Ecology is mentioned, for example through an action that the company has carried out elsewhere, but this has the product or service promoted in the campaign.
- Sustainable development is mentioned, for example through an action that the company has carried out as part of this approach, but this is not related to the product or service promoted in the campaign.
8. No evidence.
But where is the evidence? It is impossible to get it from the company or its website.
9. A false exclusivity.
- The ecological benefit is touted as exclusive, while all similar products or services are legally obliged to adopt it, or all competitors are already doing so.
- The actions carried out by the company within the framework of its approach are praised as exclusive and innovative, whereas the law obliges all companies to carry out such actions.
Real examples
Starbucks
In 2018 Starbucks introduced a lid without built-in drinking straw to opt for plasticreducting, though that lid actually contained more plastic by weight than the old straw and lid together. But it can be recycled, unlike its predecessor.
Starbucks confirms that new lids use more plastic. However, they stress that “the strawless lid is made from polypropylene, a commonly-accepted recyclable plastic that can be captured in recycling infrastructure, unlike straws which are too small and lightweight to be captured in modern recycling equipment.”
Starbucks recently announced it plans to fix this; the company is working with McDonald’s to develop a global recyclable and/or compostable cup solution, and says it will “continue to push ourselves and work with the industry on solutions to reduce waste”. This isn’t the first time Starbucks has said it is working towards a better cup. A decade ago Starbucks said it would make 100% of its cups reusable or recyclable by 2015. That hasn’t happened yet.
Coca-Cola
In the annual report mentioned above by Break Free From Plastic, Coca-Cola was ranked as the world’s number 1 plastic polluter, it’s second consecutive year at the top. In 2020, the company came under fire when it announced that it would not abandon plastic bottles, saying that they were popular with customers.
Despite this, the company is adamant that it is making progress in tackling packaging waste. At the time, a spokesperson said, “Globally, we have a commitment to get every bottle back by 2030, so that none of it ends up as litter or in the oceans, and the plastic can be recycled into new bottles. Bottles with 100% recycled plastic are now available in 18 markets around the world, and this is continually growing.”
Then, in June 2021, environmental organisation Earth Island Institute filed a lawsuit against the beverage giant for falsely advertising that it is sustainable and eco-friendly despite being the largest plastic polluter in the world.
Korean cosmetic brand Innisfree
Packaging of a bottle with cosmetic product claiming “Hello, I‘m Paper Bottle” which is actually a plastic one.
