Credit: Jamie Tuffrey
- Advertisement -
Just like the fact that the healthiest slice of cake is the one you leave on the plate, the greenest product is the one you don't actually buy.
Buying stuff is a bit like eating - we do need to consume a certain amount just to live, but it is usually about we want rather than what we need. And let's face it, we don't need a double fudge chocolate sundae with whipped cream anymore than we need a plasma screen TV.
For the most part our purchases are driven by clever marketing. Marketers exploit ethical shopping sentiment when they use 'greenwash'.
The idea has become so all-pervasive in recent years that the word has even entered the Oxford English Dictionary which defines it as "disinformation disseminated by an organisation so as to present an environmentally responsible public image."
Of course, not all environmental claims are spurious.
North American environmental marketing company Terra Choice has helpfully analysed these PR techniques by surveying 1,018 consumer products, and examining the 1,753 environmental claims that accompanied them.
They classified the various eco statements on product packages and came up with the 'six sins of greenwashing': the sin of the hidden trade-off; the sin of no proof; the sin of vagueness; the sin of irrelvance; the sin of lesser of two evils; and the sin of fibbing.
Futerra, a British eco-marketing agency, consolidated this with advice for consumers about what they called the '10 signs of greenwashing'. The themes are similar and easily recognisable and the short version is, if something seems too good to be true, then it probably is.
The race to be green
The marketing industry has had a lot to catch up with. Until very recently it believed buyers didn't care about the environmental impact of their purchases, and extolling any incidental eco-virtue would only attract penniless hippies anyway.
But then the LOHAS demographic arrived (that's marketing-speak for Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability, see our story ).
Lohasians are an educated, relatively affluent segment of society, unafraid to put their money where their values are, and they have convinced manufacturers to start spruiking their clients' soft, compassionate side.
However, we are in the perplexing situation where the early adopters (that's marketing-speak for greenies from way back) are now thoroughly cynical about green claims, whilst many 'mainstream' shoppers are only just beginning to understand the need for greener products.
A new report by market researchers Mobium shows that 88 per cent of Australian consumers express scepticism and confusion about corporate declarations of eco-friendliness.
But of course, now more than ever, switching to green is important.
To remedy this complicated situation shoppers need clear, concise and trustworthy messages about the environmental impacts of each product we buy. Unless we can believe the environmental claims on the packet, and shop accordingly, businesses will lose the incentive to make greener products.
What is being done about greenwashing?
As Futerra points out, "most greenwash is due to ignorance and/or sloppiness rather than malicious intent".
In Australia, the law that covers greenwashing is the Trade Practices Act 1974 and lately a few big names have been pinged for being naughty. For example, in September of 2008 the Federal Court of Australia ruled that General Motors had broken this law with an advertisement that proclaimed the carbon neutrality of Saab cars.
On closer inspection, it was clear that the 17 native trees the company pledged to plant for each car sold would offset only one year's worth of carbon emissions, not the entire emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle, as the ads implied.
But is this law dating from the 1970s specific enough to cover all six of the greenwash sins?
Lin Enright from the ACCC thinks so.
"The Trade Practices Act still includes those who mislead and deceive by omission", she explains, as well as confirming that the newer voluntary Australian Standard 14021 on environmental claims can be taken into account by a court when establishing what the public would reasonably expect from a company.
Consumer association Choice is combating the greenwash by asking shoppers to make examples of companies they believe to be engaged in greenwashing.
Kate Norris from Choice says that although greenwashing isn't novel (they have seen complaints about it since the mid '90s) they have recently been receiving a number of enquiries from people wondering if they can 'trust' green electricity or carbon offsets.
Norris says there is a particular difficulty with those two items as both are new, intangible goods.
The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) manages the advertising industry's self-regulation system, and has released a discussion paper on greenwashing.
A spokesman for the AANA said, "It is timely to review whether the self-regulatory system covers these sorts of claims accurately, given the recent dramatic increase in such claims, and consumer interest in the subject."
By definition, a self-regulation system assumes it would be against a company's own interests to make unsubstantiated green claims.
Whilst that may be somewhat disingenuous, some companies apparently would rather keep quiet on sustainability issues than risk being branded as greenwashers, a phenomenon dubbed 'green muting'.
After being derided for greenwashing by the ACCC, Saab told The Age that companies would be 'scared away' from taking positive environmental steps; and Origin Energy has purposefully distanced itself for the term 'carbon neutral'.
Kate Norris doesn't think Choice's targeting of greenwashers is deterring legitimate green producers: "We do want green claims in the marketplace, we just want them to be trustworthy".
After it produced a report on green claims in the supermarket sector, Norris says Choice was contacted by companies that wanted advice on how to get it right. She says this must be as good a sign as any that the genuine corporations are ready and willing to play fair - they just need consumers to guide them.
How to spot greenwash
1. Words not pictures
Look past the pictures and focus on the words. By pictures we don't just mean background vistas of trees and contented wildlife, but also logos.
If it isn't an independent accreditation mark that you recognise, then it doesn't necessarily mean anything, even if it is shaped like a tick or a seal of approval.
2. Do the words mean anything?
The description of a product and its attributes needs to get to the point - there is no excuse for using fuzzy sentiments such as 'all-natural', 'green' or 'eco-friendly' unless they are followed up by some justification.
Likewise, too much technical jargon could mean someone is trying to blind you with pseudo science.
3. Think about the bigger picture
Found a straightforward, credible statement? Now look at it in the context of the product.
'Made from 95 per cent post-consumer recycled paper' is great if that declaration is printed on say, a notepad or an envelope. If it's on the owner's manual for a 4WD however, it wouldn't mean so much.
