contrasting greenwashing
CONTRASTING
2013
GREENWASHING
CONTRASTING GREENWASHING
Tools and Strategies
Section 1
In the world of today, a “green” imagery has the potential of creating additional benefits for companies, to put forward their agenda and to sell more products by accessing new markets. Though, when pushing their “green” image, companies have to take into account that it comes with the risk of being accused of greenwashing (Esty & Winston, 2006). It means that a company tries to hide unpleasant facts in an environmental context, by spending more money, time and effort on promoting their “green” image through advertising and marketing, than on fulfilling corporate actions that would actually minimize their environmental impact. However, there are several more definitions and the ways in which the term “Greenwash” is currently used, are problematic and potentially disadvantageous to the greening of business (Linder 2010).
There are several organisations and websites (Greenpeace, Green Life,
Terrachoice, etc.) that inform consumers on who is green-washing and how. The reputation of a company and its products can severely be affected if one of these groups would put them on their lists. Hence, many managers hesitate to promote their good environmental deeds (Lyon & Maxwell 2011). On the other hand, those companies with associated negative environmental image are more willing to disclose their efforts and actions to reduce their emissions and to show that they
Figure 1: Literal Greenwash
1
care about the environment (Lyon & Montgomery 2012). That doesn’t mean that those who don’t “green” their products are the good ones. Most of the reports’ methodologies don’t include those firms who didn’t even bother to pretend to be green, e.g. the “don’t get fooled” report (The Green Life 2013).
Generally, there are seven sins of green-washing (Terrachoice 2010):
Sin of Fibbing: making false environmental claims, like claiming to be Energy Star
2013
GREENWASHING
CONTRASTING GREENWASHING
Tools and Strategies
Section 1
In the world of today, a “green” imagery has the potential of creating additional benefits for companies, to put forward their agenda and to sell more products by accessing new markets. Though, when pushing their “green” image, companies have to take into account that it comes with the risk of being accused of greenwashing (Esty & Winston, 2006). It means that a company tries to hide unpleasant facts in an environmental context, by spending more money, time and effort on promoting their “green” image through advertising and marketing, than on fulfilling corporate actions that would actually minimize their environmental impact. However, there are several more definitions and the ways in which the term “Greenwash” is currently used, are problematic and potentially disadvantageous to the greening of business (Linder 2010).
There are several organisations and websites (Greenpeace, Green Life,
Terrachoice, etc.) that inform consumers on who is green-washing and how. The reputation of a company and its products can severely be affected if one of these groups would put them on their lists. Hence, many managers hesitate to promote their good environmental deeds (Lyon & Maxwell 2011). On the other hand, those companies with associated negative environmental image are more willing to disclose their efforts and actions to reduce their emissions and to show that they
Figure 1: Literal Greenwash
1
care about the environment (Lyon & Montgomery 2012). That doesn’t mean that those who don’t “green” their products are the good ones. Most of the reports’ methodologies don’t include those firms who didn’t even bother to pretend to be green, e.g. the “don’t get fooled” report (The Green Life 2013).
Generally, there are seven sins of green-washing (Terrachoice 2010):
Sin of Fibbing: making false environmental claims, like claiming to be Energy Star