No to greenwashing

article and graphic by Sofia Guerra

common greenwashing phrases

Greenwashing stems from the term whitewashing, which means to cover up unpleasantries or sweep undesirable facts under the carpet. It is the name pop culture has given to the act of selling fake sustainability to the public. Its usage is becoming more prominent as climate change has become more of a discussion topic as well.

Greenwashing often includes meaningless seals of approval, vague phrases like “cruelty free,” or sometimes even just green packaging or a green leaf on the corner of a label. One common example of greenwashing is a note card in a hotel room asking guests to make a sustainable choice and reuse their sheets and towels. On the surface, this may seem like an environmentally conscious PSA, but in reality, the hotel is simply benefiting from reduced laundry costs.

Companies and businesses are often motivated to greenwash by the esteem and popularity sustainability entails. If consumers are led to believe a brand is eco-friendly, then they may be more inclined to buy and advertise the product. Greenwashing, in regards to marketing, can be both strategic and lucrative.

In order to discourage greenwashing, sustainability needs to be incentivized so the practice is no longer viewed as beneficial. One way to do this is through investments.

Green grants

Fighting greenwashing with investment

1) Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel” line In 2015, car manufacturer Volkswagen launched a line of cars claiming to use “clean diesel”, a more ‘sustainable’ type of fuel. However, upon investigation, it was exposed that Volkswagen had rigged 11 million of its cars with “defeat devices” that cheated emissions tests. In reality, these vehicles were in violation of the EPA’s Clean Air Act, established.

2) Nestlé’s “sustainably sourced” cocoa In April of 2019, a major court case alleged that food company Nestlé’s claims of “sustainably” sourcing their cocoa in chocolate products was a false statement. The file alleges that Nestlé is aware “that two-thirds of its chocolate supply is tainted with child labor and/or child slave labor.”

3) Rainforest Alliance Certified sticker For decades, the Rainforest Alliance Certified stamp of approval has been slapped on to an innumerable amount of products, legitimizing their claims of sustainability. However, in a 2015 lawsuit, Seattle-based company Water and Sanitation Health is alleging that the Rainforest Alliance Certified standards are in fact far lower than they are marketed to be.

simply cut out any companies with large carbon footprints and focus on propelling the minority of eco-friendly companies in development.

This seemingly simple strategy may, however, may be shortsighted. Sandra Forero Bush, Assistant Head of Schools and Business teacher at Annie Wright Schools, described one of the main issues with screening out companies as being environmentally harmful. “People's initial reactions are, for example, ‘make sure I’m not investing in anything that has fossil fuels.’ So they cut out British Petroleum, and Exxon, and all the big companies, right? And yet, these are the companies that are putting in the most investment and the most effort in moving towards sustainable energy and renewable energy.”

Bush pointed out how excluding these companies only makes it more difficult for corporations with the largest impacts to move away from both unsustainable practices and greenwashing. Investing only in companies that practice sustainability may seem like the

clear choice on the surface, but it is actually counterintuitive to combating greenwashing.

"And yet, [the bigger companies] are putting in the most investment and the most effort in moving towards sustainable energy."

Investing in major companies isn’t the only solution. Take, for example, the popular coffee company Starbucks’s latest going-green campaign: the elimination of plastic straws from their cafés. What most people fail to realize is that while this campaign has gained Starbucks much respect and praise, their lids use far more plastic than straws, and their cups are not even recyclable. This practice is, arguably, one of the more dangerous forms of greenwashing: the hidden trade-off. While the company is attempting to move in the direction of becoming more sustainable, they are doing so in a way that they know will attract publicity (“Reusable straws save turtles!”) and that is far less helpful than they would like their consumers to know. In this case, investing with a major company attempting to become more eco-friendly may not be wise.

“With Starbucks, there are very problematic things about [their efforts],” said Bush. “And yet, they really are trying. Going back to investments, at what point do you say, ‘but you’re not doing it right - you’re doing these things that seem like they’re working but you’re actually making it worse.’ So, do you take away the investments...or should we try and help [these businesses] change that...based off maybe the twenty or so percent doing it right?”

The concept of using investments to discourage greenwashing and promote global sustainability is a nuanced issue. There is no clear-cut answer to this web of problems. As consumers, however, it is always a good idea to research the companies one supports and make an effort to spread awareness and understanding.

9