Greenwashing and Other Common Mistakes
I recently ran a workshop on how organizations communicate about sustainability. My working title for that workshop was “Greenwashing and other common mistakes.” That looked more like the title of a blog post than a workshop. Here’s the blog post.
I realized that my audience might or might not be familiar with the term “greenwashing.” That was another reason to change the title to “Create the right sustainability message.” I defined greenwashing during the workshop.
One of the questions I posed was “What is greenwashing and how do you know if you’re doing it?”
This is my answer.
To greenwash is to “express environmentalist concerns, especially as a cover for products, policies, or activities.” Companies say that they care about protecting the environment for future generations. They point out lofty goals or slap “green” credentials on their products.
Unfortunately, reality often doesn’t match the message. I see three common pitfalls—vague language with meaningless buzzwords, overuse of stereotypical images, and overpromising.
Oil and Gas
The oil and gas industry is a prime example of greenwashing. For example, Shell boasts about its investments in renewable energy. It claims, “We are helping to improve air quality by reducing emissions from our operations and providing cleaner ways to power transport and industry.” Its website features images of windmills, not oil rigs.
The words and images fail to say what is hidden in the fine print. Shell continues to invest heavily in oil and gas exploration while also buying companies in the renewables sector. Most emissions and air pollution come from the use of its products, not the company’s internal operations. Emissions from burning oil and gas to fuel transportation and heating are the biggest part of Shells Scope 3 (indirect) emissions.
The company’s 2022 Energy Transition Progress Report states, “The Board has considered setting a Scope 3 absolute emissions target but has found it would be against the financial interests of our shareholders and would not help to mitigate global warming.” Do they mean that merely setting a target won’t help with global warming? Perhaps so. But achieving it by dramatically decreasing fossil fuel consumption would make a difference.
I understand that the oil and gas industry is in a difficult position. If it suddenly ceased production of fossil fuel products, that would require major layoffs and cause an immense disruption of society. The question is are they ramping down as fast as is feasible? I don’t have all the data, but I suspect the answer is no.
Vague language and buzzwords
Back to greenwashing. When companies make general statements saying they care about people and the planet, it is hard to know what they mean. What real action is behind the statements?
When I say, “I’m on a mission to make manufacturing more environmentally responsible,” people respond with enthusiasm. But am I greenwashing? Can my work to build awareness and help companies better embed sustainability in their corporate culture make any real difference? Some days I think so, and other days I’m not at all sure.
Which of these common buzzwords does your company use in its messaging?
Sustainable
Eco friendly
Recyclable
Net Zero
There is nothing wrong with using these words. Without context, however, they are likely to be misleading. Take net zero, for example. The concept is that a company’s net carbon emissions are zero. That doesn’t mean that emissions are zero.
The photo below is from a bike ride I took that went in a loop. I started and ended at the same spot, so my net elevation change was zero. Was this a flat bike ride? No way!
During the bike ride, I had to pedal back uphill to make up for the downhill segments. In net zero carbon accounting, the deficit is usually made up by purchasing carbon credits. Not all credits are equally valid, but that’s a topic for another day.
Green images
Stereotypical images include green leaves, the triangle chasing arrows, and green colors in general. I admit that I’m guilty to some degree. My brand colors include two shades of green. My book covers include images of leaves, recycling symbols, and windmills.
Using these common images doesn’t necessarily imply greenwashing. Like buzzwords, familiar images draw attention and give people clues to what is behind them. People respond to pictures.
A book cover should include pictures and colors that suggest what sort of book it is. Once drawn to the cover image, a reader can take the next step. They can turn to the blurb on the back cover, open the book and start reading, or check out the “look inside” feature online to decide whether to buy the book.
Similarly, colors and images on company websites and product packaging offer clues. The problem is when reality doesn’t match.
For example, look at Scotch brand “Greener Tape.” Reviews of the product say it works great and is good for the planet because it’s plant-based. The reviewers might not have noticed the part of the product description that says the product is “made from over 65% recycled or plant based material.”
The tape is not compostable or recyclable. The dispenser is refillable, but that is nothing new. 3M has been making refillable tape dispensers ever since I can remember.
Overpromising
The Patagonia website states, “We’re in business to save our home planet.” As companies go, Patagonia does many things right. Durable, long-lasting clothing is much better than fast fashion. Patagonia is a B Corp and donates a percent of profits to environmental causes. In 2021, founder Yvon Chouinard announced his intention to give away the company to support climate action. (I wrote a blog post about that.)
I don’t want to accuse Patagonia of greenwashing, but the idea that the company can save the planet is a bit much. The planet, by the way, will continue to exist even if humans go extinct. For more on that, I recommend the book The World Without Us by Alan Weisman.
In general, overpromising is suggesting that supporting the business will achieve more good than is realistic or even possible. If buying a particular product causes someone to not to buy a more harmful or wasteful one, that is a step in the right direction. But it won’t save humanity.