Green-Washing

Green-washing refers to disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. One important characteristic of green-washing is [Page 214]the suggestive and manipulative use of information. A poor record of environmental performance itself is not described as green-washing, only a false representation of a poor performance as environmentally friendly is. Green-washing is not just failing to report negative information, but a selective process of omitting information to display a different public image. This highlights another key factor of green-washing: intention. Any form of intentional misguidance, misrepresentation, or selective disclosure of information is called a green-wash if this practice intends to improve the overall perception of environmental performance. Green-wash practices can occur on multiple levels. One type of green-washing targets the immediate experience of the end consumer through misleading facts on a product. This is arguably the most obvious to consumers and to green-wash critics. Environmentally suggestive language has experienced an immense growth in marketing and product labeling, with many legally uncontrolled uses of terms such as green, natural, organic, environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, recycled, and biodegradable. Green-wash refers to uses of these and other terms in a misguiding fashion with levels of truth ranging from lacking external validation of claims to suggestive or incorrect facts.

The environmental marketing and activist organization Terrachoice identifies six major sins of green-washing concerning product claims. They range from falsely claiming or implying non-existent product certifications (sin of lying) by choice of words or graphic elements on the label, to intentionally unclear information (sin of vagueness), and disputable claims that lack external validity mechanisms (sin of no proof). Three additional types of green-washing are concerned with falsely selective proportionalities of claims, such as advertising a single environmentally positive aspect while omitting all other negative information (sin of tradeoff); claims that may be true, but distract from greater environmental concerns (sin of the lesser of two evils); and claims that may be substantiated but suggest a positive magnitude that ignores their actual irrelevance or small contribution to the overall product (sin of irrelevance). The latter includes cases of million-dollar marketing campaigns to advertise a much smaller amount spent on an environmental project, or a marketing campaign where the status quo is claimed as a new achievement, for instance, “phosphate free.” Further types of green-washing in this category concern strategic influences on the company or entity's public image beyond the information on a particular product. Examples are rebranding practices to avoid past associations with negative public images; using suggestive imagery in advertising to allure to new “green” values; or explicitly stating exaggerated environmental claims on the entity's performance. Other key green-washing practices encompass buttressing tactics that seek to weaken the environmental criticism as a measure to defend the status quo, for example by casting doubt on the severity of the problem or risk; by emphasizing scientific uncertainties around the environmental accusations; or by acknowledging the existence of a problem but questioning the suggested environmental alternative.

The cost of being caught green-washing is a relative unknown for the organization, usually depending on nonbinding regulations, media reaction, and public interest. Where greenwashing is revealed and publicly criticized, it may erode public trust in the organization involved or possibly the entire sector associated with similar economic practices.

...