Greenwashing or greenwash is the custom adopted by companies and organizations to promote an ecological and sustainable brand self-image, which, however, does not match the truth. Basically, it is a kind of manipulation of public opinion, or other stakeholders, to get business or other advantages and improve reputation.
Greenwashing is window-dressing environmentalism and is generally carried out through communications activities, events, sponsorships, charities: any activity whereby a particular organization can be identified or associated with eco-friendly approach.
The term dates back to the U.S. environmentalist Jay Westerveld, who first used it in 1986 to condemn the practice of hotel chains that leveraged the environmental impact of laundry washing to urge users to reduce towel consumption, when actually such urging was primarily driven by economic reasons.
Since the 90s, as environment issues gained in importance for consumers, greenwashing became widespread among companies. Nowadays, ‘green claims’ (green ads appealing to sustainability) are probably one of the worst enemies of sustainable development yet affecting the spread of a responsible and conscious approach to consumption, urged by SDG 12 of the 2030 Agenda. Dismay in consumers generated by the ‘discovery’ or perception of greenwashing brings generalized distrust and cynicism toward any kind of environment-related statement.
Greenwashing is misconduct to competition and can give rise to a tort under Civil Code Article 2598 on ‘Acts of unfair competition.’
How to recognize greenwashing
Not always simple, often certifications and labels, overblown claims are abetted: from blatant, but dangerous, omissions to flat-out lying. The American environment-related marketing company TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc has developed a list of “sins of greenwashing”:
Hidden Trade-Off: promoting a product as “green” based on a single environmental attribute without attention to other environmental impacts. It is among the most widely used greenwashing techniques: writing recyclable on a packaging grabs the consumer’s attention for good, yet often it is the only green feature of a high-impact product.
No Proof: claiming features not supported by sufficient information or certificates actually issued by third parties.
Vagueness: using unclear, poor wording statements that can easily ensure misunderstandings and misconceptions to the consumer. An example is the term ‘Natural,’ which means nothing: even oil and methane are natural
Fake labels: words or visuals of a given product seem to lead back to third-party certificate, where actually it is not so.
Irrelevance: green features are over-emphasized when actually useless and irrelevant for an aware choice. Case in point is the mention of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a major contributor to ozone depletion: stating a products is free thereof is completely irrelevant since, having been banned 30 years ago, no product today contains it.
Lesser of Two Evils: causing the consumer, through statements not fake but somewhat misleading, to make a specific purchasing choice. Examples are ‘organic’ tobacco or ‘green’ insecticides.
Fibbing: a wholly false statement.
Barriers to greenwashing
Labels and certifications, issued by third parties, should be the first barrier to greenwashing; unfortunately, experience tells us otherwise, often being bogus or at any rate referring to guidelines cracking on all fronts. A second thought of regulations and certifications would be worthwhile.
The Dutch foundation Changing Markets, whose mission is to promote sustainability in markets, in a paper titled ‘License to greenwash‘ reports on the extent of fashion and fast fashion, which are highly polluting, using a range of certifications to greenwash, although (according to the foundation) the schemes of these certifications are utterly failing to prove any positive impact on the industry and are usually not mandatory.
Even the European Commission has understood that greenwashing as both a consumer and green transition concern, and the EU rules are being updated to protect the two.
For consumers to make an informed purchase, transparent and truthful, yet unambiguous, information must be provided about how a product is made, the raw materials, where it has been manufactured, how long it stands designed to last, and how it can be fixed.
In Italy, the new system of environmental packaging labeling, an implementation of new EU rules on packaging addressing regulations on circular economy and waste, became effective on January 1, 2023. It hopefully clears the way for the next generation of enhanced label information disclosure.
How widespread greenwashing is
The full extent of greenwashing is quite impossible to assess. However, the EU Commission and National Consumer Protection Authorities ran a screening of websites looking for “greenwashing” cases, published in January 2021, finding that such activity has increased as consumers increasingly seek to purchase eco-friendly products. Greenwashing signs were recognized in 42% of the sampled cases, whether they were overblown, false or misleading claims, up to and including unfair trade patterns under EU rules.
Regulations countering greenwash
In addition to the aforementioned Article 2598 of the Civil Code on ‘Acts of unfair competition,’ there are other legal references that can be used to counter greenwashing, even in courtrooms.
Such as Legislative Decree 145/2007 art.12, on ‘misleading advertising,’ very articulate and clear, which gives the AGCom the authority to monitor, take action and issue measures first; or the Consumer Code Legislative Decree 206/2005 Arts. 20-23, on ‘UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AGAINST THE CONSUMER’ , which is even more detailed and protects consumers’ rights against unfair business practices. Including greenwashing, which although never referred to by this terminology, falls squarely within some of the definitions of unfair, false or otherwise deceptive business practices described in the legislation.
Greenwashing…and friends
Derived from the term are: genderwashing, pinkwashing, sportwashing, socialwashing, rainbowashing…the list keeps getting longer and longer always popping up to indicate the deceptive process of exploiting a given positive value to clean up or improve one’s reputation without real, tangible changes.
The custom not only affects companies, indeed it has turned to an ‘institutional’ extent.
The World Cup in Qatar, just to mention, was an example of sportwashing: the value of sport that brings people together through respect, however, has failed to make people forget the lack of basic freedom rights in the state and the exploitation of people even just to build stadiums.
Any communication aimed at bringing a veneer of outward ‘good reputation’ on sensitive but non-environmental qustions is also defined as ‘ethics-wash’. This is basically the same as greenwash, whereas environmental statements are substituted by social or ethical ones.
Another spin-off word is ‘greentrolling,’ which defines the growing custom of hitting with targeted, stinging interventions on social media the accounts of large greenwashing corporations, often oil companies.
Advanced greenwash strategies
Greenwashing is more widespread, treacherous, and tricky than we can imagine. Companies are not always fully aware of the communication mistakes they are making, through labelling, press releases, their website, social media, and every other channel and tool serving as a link between the company and its stakeholders.
Nowadays, however, it is ever less accepted for a company even due to its own carelessness, ignorance, or (serious) negligence to engage in greenwashing activities. This problem can be solved by getting informed, taking genuine and transparent actions, and relying on sustainable communication professionals.
Here is a list of tricky steategies collected by colleagues at EuroNews.Green.
Greencrowding
Greencrowding involves hiding in a group of companies that seem to have taken a stand on an environmental issue (such as Climate Covenants, Alliances, and Pledge) and moving at the speed of slower adopters of sustainability policies.
Greenlighting
Highlighting a particularly eco-friendly feature to divert attention from activities detrimental to the environment conducted elsewhere. A widespread example is in the automotive industry where today many manufacturers promote their vehicles as electric even though the actual electric part of the engine is minimal.
Greenshifting
Greenshifting occurs when companies shift their environmental guilt and responsibility to the consumer. This is what happens whenever a company through campaigns or claims on labels calls us to our responsibility as good environmentalists (reduce your ecological footprint! recycle this packaging!) in a fully exasperating manner compared to what that company itself has been doing to reduce its environmental impact.
Greeenlabelling
Greenlabelling (negative meaning in this term) refers to misleading and arbitrary ecological or environmental labeling of products. Green labeling can help consumers identifying products sustainable produced and have less impact on the environment. For example, the EU’s “Eco-Label” indicates that the product meets specific environmental standards, such as the use of renewable energy or waste reduction. Sometimes products are promoted with green packaging, botanical symbols or misleading wording, leading consumers to infer their green credentials.
Greenrinsing
Greenrinsing means a company regularly changing its ESG goals before reaching them. ESG, as we have explained here, is a set of standards that measure a company’s impact on society, the environment, and its transparency and accountability.
To be (often unfortunately only to appear) more sustainable, every company identifies and commits to a set of goals by a given date. When companies fail to meet, reduce, or delay these goals, it is questionable whether they are really trying to meet them or are simply using them as a marketing ploy.
Greenhushing
Greenhushing occurs when companies choose not to disclose to or hide from the public their environmental or ESG focus to avoid monitoring. In many cases, companies are compelled by laws or market requirements to implement such policies, yet doing so shallowly or need time to succeed in becoming truly green in their processes.
Companies that greenhush are usually law-abiding (the bare minimum) but hide somewhat, remaining vague, and in doing so may appear to be “greener” than they actually are.
