Increasingly eco-conscious consumers are seeking brands that are committed to helping the environment. This has led to a rise in businesses making unsubstantiated claims about corporate sustainability, resulting in greater scrutiny. MEPCA looks at how honest, eco-minded manufacturers can navigate the pitfalls of greenwashing.
With the current focus industry is placing on corporate sustainability, it is fully understandable that companies implementing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies would want to shout about it. It is the job of PR companies and marketing teams to leverage any positive messages about a company that appeal to consumers. The problem is when this goes too far, when hyperbole and spin far overshoot the actual impact the company is making. This is how otherwise well-meaning companies can fall afoul of “greenwashing.”
Greenwashing
While similar to “whitewashing”, which is the biased representation of information about a business or organisation that purposely avoids or glosses over certain unflattering facts to present it in a better light, greenwashing is essentially the same practice but when promoting environmental friendliness.
Simply put, greenwashing is the act of providing deceptive information on the environmentally friendliness of an organisation. This includes making vague claims about how environmentally friendly a company’s products or services are.
In some extreme instances, environmental claims are simply a cynical marketing spin with no reality behind them whatsoever. In 2015, automotive manufacturer Volkswagen was involved in the biggest greenwashing scandal of all time when it was discovered that it was using software to manipulate emissions tests. The ‘defeat device’ software was able to detect when emissions tests were being undertaken and change the cars performance to improve results. Naturally, the cars were backed by a major campaign focused on the cars low emissions.
However, a business doesn’t have to set out to deceive their customers or lie about its achievements to be in danger of greenwashing. Indeed there are many ways an otherwise reputable company could find itself under the green spotlight if it is not careful. Often, greenwashing happens on the fringes of branding communication with careless wording. It can also happen with the best intentions when a business undertakes ambitious long-term ESG targets, such as becoming carbon neutral by a set date, which it then struggles to meet, despite it already becoming part of its branding.
Why it matters
Putting aside the obvious moral implications of greenwashing, until recently, negative publicity was the main thing at stake. For many, the threat of reputational damage would serve as enough of a deterrent, which could be disastrous in a competitive market – but negative publicity alone has proved to be insufficient. When you consider some of the most high profile cases of green washing have included world-leading automotive manufacturers and global oil and gas companies, a little bad press appears to be taken in stride.
This has now changed dramatically. In the UK, as of April this year, Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has been granted the power to directly fine companies for breaches of consumer protection. Under this regulation, those found guilty of greenwashing could face a substantial fine: up to 10% of their global turnover.[1]
How to avoid the pitfalls of greenwashing
Firstly, and most importantly, manufacturers should avoid making any environmental claims that they cannot substantiate.
To ensure this, manufacturers should work with reputable environmental organisations that know exactly what to look for. In addition, manufacturers may wish to seek third-party certification, such as B Corp. This accreditation is assessed by B Lab, a not-for profit group, dedicated to making businesses a force for good. Not only is this a way for manufacturers to ensure they are avoiding greenwashing, once certified, manufacturers can display this in their advertising and branding, showing consumers, investors and employees that their corporate sustainability claims are accurate.
Careful consideration should also be given to how a business communicates its environmental claims, particularly in terms of the language it uses for PR and marketing purposes. As well avoiding hyperbole, companies should avoid vague, green sounding language, such as labelling a product “natural”, “green” or adding “eco” as a prefix, or suggesting that something is “better” for the environment or more ‘”natural” when there is no explanation of what it is better than.
This extends to non-verbal communication too. Businesses should avoid packaging featuring imagery that would suggest a product is sustainable, when in reality it isn’t. For example, it would be considered greenwashing for eggs produced by battery hens to be packaged in a box that depicts free-roaming hens in an idyllic setting – this imagery does not reflect the product within.
While the threat of greenwashing is real and the effort of substantiating green credentials may seem intimidating, it should not stop companies from embarking on these important sustainability initiatives.
As well as there being a wealth of support available, it is worth remembering that the reputational, and therefore commercial, benefits of corporate sustainability are also very real, and that’s without considering the cost savings of reducing energy consumption or waste disposal as a result of the green actions themselves.
[1] https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4411916/reenwashing-cma-granted-power-fine-companies-cent-global-turnover
