A Journey To The Dark Side Of Greenwashing

As the climate challenge becomes more acute, consumer habits are changing. Survey after survey says the same thing: People want to buy environmentally friendly products.

A NielsenIQ survey in 2015 showed that 66 percent of global consumers said they would be willing to pay more for sustainable products, up from 50 percent in 2013.

And in a 2018 survey of 5,000 consumers in Europe, nearly 40 percent of respondents said their main concern was that food and drink be produced in an environmentally friendly way.

But for consumers to buy environmentally friendly products, there must be businesses producing and marketing such products. Which brings us to green marketing and greenwashing.

The former is done in good faith, the latter is not. Green marketing portrays a firm’s (sometimes mistaken) belief that its products are sustainable while greenwashing knowingly passes off unsustainable products as environmentally friendly.

Confusing for consumers

It can be easy for consumers to be confused.

The concept of greenwashing is essentially fraudulent. Facts about a product are hidden, green images are used without any basis and green terminology can be unclear.

Unscrupulous businesses mislead consumers about a product or their green image as they make false environmental claims and use misleading eco-labels.

But greenwashing isn’t all dark. It has a white side.

Greenwashing offers two routes for companies and brands. The first (the dark side) is a way to escape or avoid sustainability efforts while the second (the white side) offers a slow transition to the sustainability model.

While many paint greenwashing as entirely negative, this research aims to give an alternative outlook which could support the green transition in the long term.

There are four levels of greenwashing. At the first level, brands and businesses make false statements even though they do not have any sustainable or circular practices or products.

At the second level, businesses make false assumptions about their green image while promoting a specific sustainable and circular activity that they employ. They claim it has indirect effects without an adequate basis.

At the third level, companies or brands have some sustainable practices but have some uncertainties about their green products. For example, it is not known how green or sustainable the product is in percentage terms.

At the fourth and highest level, businesses or brands are making a slow transition to sustainability. Companies at this level have adopted some low-cost circular practices or sustainable activities and there is genuine effort.

Companies on the dark side take the easy way out by making false claims as they do not engage in any circular or sustainable activities. Companies on the white side though, could make the green transition in the long term beginning with low-cost circular activities.

Greenwashing is not a harmless and innocent activity. However, it should be recognised that the global markets’ green transition post-pandemic has been difficult.

This is reflected in the fact that the 2030 target of Sustainable Development Goals now cannot be met.

All the more reason that circular activities and practices by global brands and their efforts to produce sustainable products should not be ignored. Supporting all kinds of sustainable activities and green products by encouraging businesses in the green transition phase can yield benefits in the long term.

Keeping greenwashing at bay

While this is happening, there are several strategies that can help ensure greenwashing is kept at bay in the global business environment.

Crossborder cooperation can be enhanced to nab brands and businesses that loiter on the dark side of greenwashing. Prosecuting a brand for greenwashing in one country or region but not charging it with the same offence committed in another country may open up new markets for greenwashing.

A greenwashing scale or rating can be developed for businesses and penalties levied in accordance with this scale. Companies that engage in greenwashing at a higher level could receive higher penalties than companies that engage in greenwashing at a lower level.

Whether companies are well-intentioned about their green claims can be examined critically by experts to determine whether they’re merely avoiding sustainability efforts or indeed making a slow, green transition.

Advice, guidance and warnings can be given for greenwashing practices mistakenly done in the slow transition phase. This can be due to inadequate technology, lack of personnel or high costs. Especially so for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Support can be provided to those who are on the white side to increase their numbers and incentivise those on the dark side.

Businesses can be educated on avoiding false and misleading promotions, advertisements and claims and the consequences of doing so. Businesses that have a circular/sustainable or green activity and exaggerate this situation will need to explain themselves not only to the regulators but also to consumers and the media.

It is also necessary to approach greenwashing from an environmental perspective rather than taking a marketing focus. Businesses make most greenwashing mistakes by prioritising marketing goals. Exaggeration in advertisements, showing the product as greener than it is, is one folly.

Companies on the white side of greenwashing have some circular practices, even if the percentage is low. Or that some aspects of their products comply with the sustainability principle.

However, the mistake companies make is to embellish this during the advertising/ marketing process to give the consumer a better green image and this ultimately is dishonest.

Considering that the best advertisement for a brand is honesty, it would be good for brands to accurately explain what they are doing as a circular practice.

(Published under Creative Commons from 360info. Read the original article here)