ARE YOU BEING GR EEN WA S H ED? BY MADDIE WINTER
Sustainability has become a major buzzword in consumer culture as more consumers are making strides towards a “greener” style of living. As a society, we are becoming more conscious of our consumption habits, making us more likely to select a product with a “green” label over one without it. A growing number of consumers state their willingness to pay more for products with a more sustainable message, further solidifying the point that sustainability sells. A 2015 poll by the global marketing research firm, Nielsen, found that 66% of global consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally sustainable products, and among millennials, that number jumps to 72%. Shoppers are looking for more than just a quality product, seeking out brands that align with their own personal values. Keywords such as “green” or “recycled” resonate with buyers as having a positive connotation, meaning green equals good. This, though, may not always be the case. This idea of an emerging eco-conscious culture has not gone unnoticed to the marketing industry, as more companies continue to step forward with narratives of their pursuit of “green” business practices. Think about all the times you’ve seen the word “green,” “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” associated with a product or process. Ranging from cleaning products to transportation services, food, energy and the fashion industry, brands have picked up on consumer’s call for a greener future. Companies now tend to “greenwash” products, presenting a product as “eco-friendly” when the company itself may not truly reflect those values in their business practices. Coined in the 1980s by environmentalist Jay Westerveld, greenwashing is generally defined as the corporate practice of 12
diverting sustainable claims to cover a questionable environmental record. Companies and organizations that practice “greenwashing” tend to spend more time and money claiming to be “green” through advertising and marketing than actually applying these principles to their daily business practices. Their intentions fall short on actually minimizing the company’s impact on the environment. A combination of limited public access to information and seemingly unlimited advertising abilities originally enabled companies to present themselves as caring environmental activists, even as they continuously engage in environmentally unsustainable practices. Oil companies were originally seen as major culprits of this, as Chevron launched a series of expensive television and print advertisements in the 1980s to convince the public eye of its environmental bonafide. According to an article done by Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate and the Environment, the campaign presented the identity of Chevron as being a “green oil company,” noting the company’s deep care for the environment and the communities in which it operates, even after they faced an $18 billion judgment for polluting the Ecuadorian Amazon. The fashion industry also acts as a transgressor by these terms. Clothing labels that use callout terms such as “vegan” or “natural” may not be necessarily practicing what they preach. “Natural” materials such as viscose, rayon and bamboo are often promoted to the public as eco-friendly materials, yet that doesn’t mean these materials were sourced ethically. Millions of trees, for instance, are cut down to produce those clothing fibers, resulting in mass deforestation and pollution. The same goes for the thousands of gallons of water used to create a singular pair of jeans.
