Greenwash Upload
Transcript of Greenwash Upload
Ryken 1
Ross Ryken
May 14, 2012
A Green Area: Identifying Greenwashed Products
If the 70’s and 80’s were the era of rock and roll, then the 90’s and beyond mark the
environmental age. As recently as 2006, Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, excited the
public’s imagination and made “global warming” a household word. Likewise, stunts such as
Greanpeace’s attacks on genetically modified wheat crops have increasingly captured the
public’s attention (Gough 1). Along with this surge in environmental concern (a 1990 poll
revealed that 90% of participants would “make a special effort” to buy products from
environmentally responsible companies) a new challenge emerged: discerning genuine green
products from those bolstered by deceptive marketing fluff (Wasik 8).
This challenge first surfaced with Earth Day 1990; while the event symbolically kicked
off the “environmental decade”, a sinister shadow loomed over the proceedings (Wasik 8). At
the surface, Earth Day saw 200 million participants in 141 countries ceremonially plant trees,
while pledging to drive less and recycle more (Greenlife). Yet the event (which distinctly
omitted talks of corporate reform) was sponsored by notorious polluters such as Monsanto,
Peabody Coal, and Georgia Power (Tokar 14). In fact, Earth Day 1990 gave birth to the practice
of “corporate greenwash”, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “disinformation
disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image”
(Soanes). Greenwashing is of grave public concern due to its immense prevalence in modern
advertising. While the percentage of purportedly green products increased from 1.1% in 1986 to
13.1% in 1993 (Wasik 9), a 1991 study found that wholly 58% of ads for such products
contained some degree of deception (Laverie 258-67). The pervasiveness of greenwashing
Ryken 2
necessitates a guideline for consumers. In this paper, I will establish a framework for
differentiating between a green product (which causes minimal damage to the environment
throughout its lifetime) and a greenwashed product (which is deceptively and inaccurately
presented as a green product). To qualify as legitimately green, a product’s advertised merits
must first and foremost be accurate. Furthermore, both the end product and preceding operations
(such as manufacturing and transportation) must minimally harm the environment. Finally, the
manufacturing company’s holistic practices must coincide with the environmental merits of the
product in question.
When assessing purportedly green products, it is tempting to spotlight advertiser’s intent
as the yardstick. After all, genuine attempts to save the planet seem legitimate, while profit-
motivated products scream greenwash. For example, dubious hotel guests will question linen
cards that encourage lodgers to “reduce energy by choosing to reuse sheets” (Hurst). A valid
argument can be mad
Figure 1: Linen Card at the Marriot Monterey Hotel (Hurst).
argument can certainly be made that this card is intended as a money saving ploy, cleverly
disguised as a noble environmental campaign. Indeed, Shlomo Sher, in “A Framework for
Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics”, focuses solely on advertisers’ intent.
Ryken 3
Sher defines manipulation as attempting to motivate consumers’ behavior by “undermining what
the agent believes is his/her audience’s normal decision-making process” (Sher 1). Sher
provides a reasonable guide for corporations; however, he does little to help consumers assess
products that are already on the market. Usually, corporate intent is impossible to prove in
retrospect since scant inside information is available to the public. Further complicating the
situation, multiple motivating factors often shape decisions. A genuinely green product may
simultaneously benefit a company’s bottom line by capturing a strategic market segment that
creates “decisive advantage” (Stalk 49). To illustrate, Xerox invested $10 million into a toner
cartridge-recycling program. The program not only reduced waste, but also generated $200
million in profits (Wasik 3). Evidently, assessing corporate intent is near impossible for
consumers; therefore, allegedly green products must be judged based on observable criteria.
In order to avoid the label of greenwash, virtually all consumers agree that a product’s
advertised merits must be accurate. At first glance, this seems like an endpoint; if the product’s
label contains no word of a lie, then surely no greenwashing is at play. Yet while this standard
catches outright lies, it fails to account for subtler and more prevalent tactics. First off,
marketing claims are often unverifiable or irrelevant. Take, for example, a glossy ‘CFC Free’
sticker slapped onto a new refrigerator; while the claim is technically true (no CFC’s are
present), it is misleading because CFC’s in kitchen appliances have been banned since 1987.
Even more brazen are fabricated certifications and labels. The FTC shut down “Tested Green”
in 2012, upon discovering that the company certified any product for a $189.95 fee (Gang 24).
In fact, TerraChoice’s recent greenwashing report found that 30% of 4744 tested products
boasted false certifications (TerraChoice 7). Even more shrewdly, advertisers often simply omit
hidden trade offs. Automobile manufacturers frequently tout ethanol-powered cars as
Ryken 4
environmentally friendly flagship products. True, ethanol fuel saves the earth’s dwindling fossil
fuel reserves; however, this new market motivates third world farmers to divert crops that
previously fed local people. While a green product’s advertised merits must be true, an absence
of outright lies does not certify a product as greenwash-free. Greenwashers employ a plethora of
subtle advertising techniques, forcing consumers to look deeper when judging an allegedly green
product.
In order to evaluate a product accurately, consumers must take into account its actual
impact on the environment. In fact, the end product’s environmental impact appears to be the
deciding factor between a green product and its greenwashed counterpart. Take, for example,
the product 360° Eco Vodka by McCormick Distilling. The bottle includes a postage paid
envelope that encourages consumers to mail back the reusable swing-top cap. The glass bottle,
of course, can be recycled. Examining this thoughtfully designed product provokes the correct
assumption: 360 Eco Vodka is minimally harmful to the environment. Nevertheless, similar
assumptions may be alarmingly inaccurate. For instance, the Illinois based Outboard Marine
Corporation (the world’s largest marine engine manufacturer) enthusiastically advertised
“Project LEAP (Low-Emission Advanced Propulsion)” (Wasik 54). While the 35%
improvement in fuel economy presented the motors as environmentally revolutionary devices,
the manufacturing process lay in sharp contrast. In 1988, the Outboard Marine Corporation paid
a $20 million fine for dumping PCBs (chemicals used to manufacture hydraulic motor fluid) into
Lake Michigan (Wasik 55). In advertising Project LEAP, Outboard Marine Corporation
greenwashed their motors by omitting the details of their manufacturing process. Thus, while an
end product’s environmental impact is important, consumers must also scrutinize the
manufacturing process.
Ryken 5
Moreover, prudent consumers will consider the product’s entire history. Green products
are engineered with the environment in mind at every step, from resource extraction to
transportation. According to John Wasik, companies that respect the environment: minimize raw
material and energy use; reduce pollution at all levels of production; design minimalistic
packaging from recycled/recyclable materials; and design user friendly recycling programs
(Wasik 32). Re-examining 360° Eco Vodka confirms the previous assumption; the vodka is
distilled and sold locally (minimizing transportation distances), the labels are printed on fully
recycled paper, and the glass is made from 85% post-consumer material. The product is green at
all levels of production. Yet even meeting these criteria does not guarantee a greenwash-free
product. Ford Motor’s sells the Escape Hybrid, an SUV that meets a voluntary fuel-economy
target and is manufactured at the environmentally integrated River Rouge Complex (grass and
vegetation grow on the roofs). Yet Ford Motors falls far short of an environmental hero. While
hybrids constitute only 0.5% of Fords annual sales, worst in class fuel-economy trucks make up
the majority. Further contradicting the Escape Hybrid’s green image, Ford pays lobbyists $8
million annually to oppose CO2 emissions regulations. Despite Ford’s meticulous efforts to
present a green product, greenwashing is still at play. A green product must not only be
produced with the environment in mind; the manufacturing company must exercise consistent
environmental practices.
Ryken 6
Thus, the final step in identifying greenwashed products requires consumers to examine
the manufacturer’s “holistic management” practices (Wasik 29-38). If an isolated product or
environmental effort is virtuous, but does not match the company’s primary operations, the
product is greenwashed. As a prime example, an advertisement in National Geographic
Magazine flaunted Shell Oil Company’s contribution to the Louisiana Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary (The Green Life). Surely this donation is nothing short of noble
deed. Yet while Shell’s annual donation to the marine sanctuary is roughly the cost of a 90’s
Honda Civic ($5000) (The Green Life), a National Geographic ad starts at fifty times that price
($231,210) (National Geographic). The consequences of Shell’s oil drilling far outweigh the
Figure 2: Shell's misleading ad in National Geographic Magazine (Heller).
Ryken 7
company’s meager contribution; in 2009 alone, Shell spilled 14,000 tons of crude oil into the
Niger Delta (The Guardian). Shell’s National Geographic ad is shameless greenwashing because
it contradicts the majority of Shell’s environmental practices. At the opposite end of the
spectrum, the environmentally conscious Sun Chips line (produced by Frito-Lay) aligns with the
manufacturer’s holistic operations. When Frito-Lay introduced their new compostable chip
bags, sales plummeted because consumers disliked opening the noisy bags. Rather than revert to
standard packaging, Frito-Lay further invested in lowering the bags’ noise level from 85 dB to
70 dB (Huliq). On the production side, Frito-Lay’s environmental ethics uphold; the company
increasingly fuels its plants with solar power. Moreover, Frito-Lay continues to grow its 176-
strong fleet of electric trucks; ten new trucks will take to Orlando roads this year. The Newton
electric trucks generate “zero tailpipe emissions, … emit 75% less greenhouse gasses, … and
will eliminate the need for 500,000 gals. of fuel annually” (Fleet Owner). Sun Chips
exemplifies a green product because: the snacks are advertised truthfully; the end product is
minimally harmful to the environment; the chips are manufactured and transported with the
planet in mind; and Frito-Lay’s environmental practices are consistent to the core.
Since greenwashed products are prevalent (and no doubt on the rise), consumers must
arm themselves with a framework for assessing products that claim the green title. While a
company’s intent should be the focus of corporate decision-making, consumers cannot hope to
accurately gauge corporate intentions. Thus, consumers must rely upon observable factors. At a
minimum, a green product must be advertised accurately; lies regarding a product’s
environmental merits indicate blatant greenwashing. Secondly, the end product must be
minimally harmful to the environment, with no hidden trade-offs or omitted consequences.
Moreover, the product must be designed, produced, and transported in an environmentally
Ryken 8
friendly manner. Finally, the manufacturing company’s holistic practices must complement the
green merits of the product in question. So accordingly, a product that fails any of these checks
is greenwashed. Further exploration into the morality of greenwashing is required, as is
discussion regarding what role the government should take in greenwash regulation. Until that
time, however, consumers must understand how to identify greenwashed products in order to
make informed purchasing decisions.
Works Cited
"Advertising Opportunities." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 2005. Web. 22
April 2012. <http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/advertising.html>.
“A Report on Environmental Claims Made in the North American Market.” The Sins of
Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition. TerraChoice, 2010. Web. 22 April 2012.
Dillard, Mechele R. “Frito-Lay Hopes New Quieter SunChips Bag Excites Customers.” Huliq.
24 Jan. 2011. Web. 3 May 2012. <http://www.huliq.com/10473/frito-lay-hopes-new-
quieter-sunchips-bag-excites-customers>.
“Frito-Lay Deploys Trucks.” Fleet Owner 107.1 (2012): 19. Penton Media. Print.
Gang, Jeff. “Don’t Be Fooled 2012: The Worst Greenwashers.” The Green Life Online. April
2012. Web. 22 April 2012.
Gough, Myles. “Greenpeace Destroys CSIRO Wheat GM Trial.” Cosmos Online. 14 Jul. 2011.
Web. 22 April 2012. <http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/4522>.
“Greenwash 101.” TheGreenLife. The Green Life Online. Web. 22 April 2012.
Ryken 9
Heller, Rachel. 2012. Photograph. The Green Life Online. Web. 22 April 2012.
<http://site.thegreenlifeonline.org/greenwash101/>.
Hurst, Mark. 2006. Photograph. This Is Broken. Web. 22 April 2012.
<http://www.goodexperience.com/tib/archives/2006/04/marriott_monter.html>.
Laverie, Debra, and Patrick Murphy. “The Marketing and Public Policy Literature: A Look at
the Past Ten Years.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 12.2 (1993): 258-267. Web.
22 April 2012.
“Shell Reports Record Spillages in Nigeria.” The Guardian. Associated Press, 5 May 2010. Web.
3 May 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/05/shell-oil-spill-niger-
delta>.
Sher, Shlomo. “A Framework for Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics.”
Journal of Business Ethics 102 (2011): 97-118. Print.
Soanes, Catherine, and Angus Stevenson. Concise Oxford English dictionary. 1999. Reprint.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Stalk, George, Robert Lachenauer, and John Butman. Hardball: Are you playing to play or
playing to win? Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Print.
Tokar, Brian. Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash. Boston:
South End Press, 1997. Print.
Wasik, John F. Green Marketing and Management: A Global Perspective. Cambridge:
Blackwell, 1996. Print.