Greenwash at Your Peril.

Written by Graeme Murray

If there’s one thing that really peeves me off the most about marketing communications, it must be the current scourge of greenwashing that shows no signs of abating.

I understand the fact that brands need to feel part of the pulse of culture and the world around them. The #metoo and #blacklivesmatter movements provided perfect opportunities for brands to connect and throw their support behind these causes – whether they helped the actual cause in question or simply themselves is open to debate.

As a marketing lecturer, I take my students through the evolution of marketing as I’m a big believer that there is a great benefit in learning from the past and this context ultimately shapes what is happening today (see my previous red talk entitled ‘Learning from the past’).

From observing the behaviour and communication of many brands, I would suggest we’ve already approached a new era of ‘sustainable’ marketing. This has been driven by a number of colliding factors: (1) the continued need for CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), (2) the rise in purpose marketing and (3) the calls for brands to be increasing sustainable.

Marc Pritchard, the Chief Brand Officer of P&G, famously stated “We believe brands have a responsibility to be both a force for good and a force for growth.”

Yet how brands choose to be a force for good is entirely up to them. The majority started with CSR: the term was coined in 1953 and is defined as a business model in which companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and interactions with their stakeholders instead of only considering economic profits.

Brands then connected their CSR initiatives with SDG – Sustainable Development Goals – as well as ESG initiatives – Environmental Social and Governance.

Back in 2018 Otto Scharmer, a lecturer at MIT, outlined the 5 stages of corporate sustainability:

(1) one-off projects that are not connected to the core of the business;

(2) sustainability as part of the brand’s initiatives, driven by CSR and not central to the brand’s core;

(3) sustainability driving business innovation, aligning a product to a SDG;

(4) sustainability emerges in culture, with companies making commitments through certifications;

(5) sustainable ecosystem where businesses adopt a circular approach to their operations and become a purpose-driven ecosystem.

Take a minute and think of some of the everyday brands you use. How far are they on their journey to corporate sustainability? I would imagine that many brands are hovering between stages 2 and 3. Few brands are at stage 4 and even fewer reach stage 5.

One brand I’ve continually admired is Patagonia who really put responsibility at the heart of their business. From their leadership and mission; active monitoring and transparency of their manufacturing process; their focus on emissions and energy use; encouraging recycling, repairing, reselling; their conservation efforts; to their attitudes towards workers’ rights and wages; donating to community projects, and committed activism.

Alex Weller, the Marketing Director of Patagonia, sums up this responsibility: “You can’t reverse into a mission and values through marketing. The organizations that are struggling with this are probably the ones that are thinking about marketing first. The role of marketing is to authentically elevate that mission and purpose and engage in it, but the purpose needs to be the business.”

Sadly, Patagonia is one of the few exceptions, not the rule.

Mariana Mazzucato, the Italian-US economist didn’t mince her words when she said “Many businesses talk soothingly about corporate social responsibility, impact and social purpose, but very few put these at the core of their operations.”

Brands seem to be all talk and very little action. Many are resorting to advertising to show and highlight their green and environmental credentials. This practice has gone on for many years and has largely been unregulated.

This has led to the rise of ‘greenwashing’ - the practice that many businesses use to deceive or mislead their customers into believing that their brand is eco-friendlier than it really is.

How can you spot greenwashing? Here are the 7 deadly sins of greenwashing: (1) offering no proof; (2) making irrelevant claims; (3) fibbing with facts that aren’t true; (4) using false labels or certifications; (5) being vague and ambiguous; (6) comparing products to be greener when they are all non eco-friendly; (7) hiding trade-offs obscuring the true picture (source: kiwanohotels.com).

I’ll give you one recent example: I have been a big VW Bus fan for many years. And I was really excited about their new ID Buzz, a new electric version of the classic Microbus. The launch campaign featuring Obi-Wan Kenobi, R2-D2 and C-3PO is currently on air/online and plastered on many billboards in and around Prague.

I downloaded their product brochure and was particularly interested in the car’s green credentials.

Or in this case the total lack of it:

Just look at the last two sentences – ‘Sustainable, suitable for everyday use and robust’ and ‘the ID. Buzz combines climate awareness with individual mobility.’ – this is classic greenwashing 101.

I think the copywriter took some creative liberties when writing this. How is the ID. Buzz sustainable? Simply because it’s an electric car – come on! There’s no proof given apart from stating zero local CO2 emissions. Well, the arguments surrounding electric vehicles are inherently more complicated, less glamorous and less simplistic than the advertising suggests. It’s vague, obtuse, there’s no credible proof, and I thought VW would have upped their game since Dieselgate. It seems they still haven’t learnt their lesson.

The car is available from 57,000 Pounds / 67,000 Euros / 68,000 Dollars – at that price you don’t buy it on a whim. As a consumer and someone who is trying to be more sustainably-minded, I expect a car manufacturer (or any brand for that matter) to be more upfront, honest and informed when it comes to highlighting and communicating their sustainability practices.

Telling me you’re sustainable and climate aware might sound very nice – but the reality is that it’s all guff and lacking in substance – and it insults my intelligence.

And it’s not only VW who are guilty. The Greenwash hall of shame is populated by all sorts of established and well-known brands who all should really know better:  Innocent Drinks, Oatly, Hyundai, Shell, Ryanair, Alpro, Quorn, Pepsi Lipton, BP, Fiji Water, H&M, Tesco, Mercedes, etc have all been called out for exaggerating their green credentials and making claims that could not be substantiated.

A European Commission report from 2021 revealed 42% of companies’ “green” claims are exaggerated, false, or deceptive. I think that number flatters to deceive and is actually far higher. Yet it highlights a worrying and uncomfortable truth that greenwashing is a substantial problem both in the advertising and marketing industry.

Consumers are increasingly concerned about understanding the climate and environmental impact of the products and services they use. Marketers and advertisers have a duty to ensure their green messages aren’t misleading. Greenwashing shouldn’t be seen as the quick way to make a fast buck off consumers.

Greenwashing is highly addictive and tempting. It’s easy to do (at a minimal financial cost) and to get away with (for now).  It’s a convenient step for many corporations to take, not the hard and arduous one that is actually required.  And the roots of greenwashing go way beyond just advertising.

Businesses are driven to create demand and drive consumption. The ‘buy now, sell at all costs’ approach. But this obsession with continuous growth, never-ending profits and quarterly results needs to change rapidly: we need to find new, more sustainable business models promoting a more conscious approach with durable, longer-lasting products. We need to cultivate a global mindset where we should be happier with less, not more.

Think of the Fairphone smartphone trying to develop a low-impact smartphone. Yet isn’t it a little ironic how Apple and Samsung have both just released their 2022 flagship smartphones in green – is that a coincidence, clever marketing or just another sign of the greenwash times we live in?

And meanwhile companies continue to make bold pronouncements by using elusive terms such as carbon neutral, carbon positive or net zero. It’s an illusion that hides an inconvenient truth. They’re simply not doing enough, fast enough.

I confess to not knowing how to solve this problem in the long-term but my advice for the short-term is simple: if you’re a brand that truly cares, don’t greenwash at all.

Be transparent. Be specific. Don’t use vague or dubious buzzwords. Avoid irrelevant claims. Don’t use suggestive imagery or colours. Be true and authentic. Understand your customers. Be meaningful and relatable. And above all don’t lie.

Consumers will react quickly if they perceive a brand is exploiting a social or environmental issue for their own good. The same goes for greenwashing.

Pushing the boundaries just for the sake of a few more sales isn’t worth it. Sooner or later, whether through government regulation, lawsuits or public outcry, companies will need to respond responsibly.

One thing though is clear: sustainability strategies are here to stay. I believe those companies that take on and tackle these challenges meaningfully, constructively and honestly will be the true winners – they will wield more cultural influence and consumers will reward them with their custom… all without the need to greenwash.

#greenwashing #problemsolving #environment #sustainability #future #thelitteredsofa