Opinion: We need to be savvy to know and recognize the difference between real action-based commitments and non-binding, watered-down vows
By Chris Moran and Claire O’NeillCCU
COP27 in Egypt once again shone a light on the climate crisis and sustainability issues. Increasingly extreme, frequent and catastrophic weather events around the world are making the existential threat a frightening reality; climate change and biodiversity loss are more alarming and tangible than ever.
More than 190 countries, called ‘parties’, that have signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have gathered for the 27th ‘conference of the parties’ (COP) to collectively assess progress and advance climate action around the world. Greta Thunberg has previously pointed out that COP27 was awash in greenwash and more, and ironically the host country has come under scrutiny for differences around the environment in recent weeks.
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers about a company’s environmental practices or the environmental benefits of a product or service”. However, it can also be conducted, intentionally or unintentionally, by governments or other entities that make misleading claims about the environmental performance or impact of their activities.
We need your consent to load this content rte-playerWe use rte-player to manage additional content which may place cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please check their details and accept them to load the content.Manage preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1’s Today With Claire Byrne, Adam Maguire on what greenwashing is and how to spot it
Although the term has been appearing more and more in the mainstream media in recent years, more attention needs to be drawn to the different types of greenwashing and unpacking, on how to identify greenwashing and how we can respond to it. A helpful way to understand greenwashing is to use the “7 Sins of Greenwashing”, a set of 7 different ways in which greenwashing can happen. These sins, identified by Terrachoice in 2007, help consumers identify and understand misleading and/or false environmental claims.
The Sin of Hidden Compromise
This sin focuses on a narrow pro-environmental attribute while neglecting to draw attention to larger and broader environmental issues. This sin, essentially ‘the tree hiding the forest’ is the most used. Examples include technology promoting energy efficiency without disclosing the hazardous materials used in manufacturing or paper straws being promoted as the sustainable option without considering the large amount of water used in manufacturing.
We need your consent to load this content rte-playerWe use rte-player to manage additional content which may place cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please check their details and accept them to load the content.Manage preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1’s Drivetime, Green Party MEP Grace O’Sullivan talks about greenwashing and EU rules on how companies report on their environmental impact
The sin of non-proof
As the name suggests, this sin is committed if environmental claims are made without any credible evidence to back them up. TV adverts from companies such as Ryanair and Innocent Smoothies have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the UK’s advertising watchdog, because their environmental claims were found to be misleading. In the case of Innocent smoothies, the ASA’s decision said that “many consumers would interpret the overall presentation of the ad to mean that purchasing Innocent products was a choice that would have a positive environmental impact.” The ASA later ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
The sin of blur
This sin relates to broad and ill-defined claims, which are therefore likely to be misunderstood by consumers. For example, the term “natural” is used to claim the environmental benefits of a product or service. Both arsenic and uranium are “natural” ingredients, but they are also toxic. Sins #2 and #3 may overlap since terms such as “green”, “sustainable” and “ethically sourced” are vague and meaningless if not supported by evidence.
The Sin of Worshiping False Labels
This sin is committed by companies that create “sustainability” certifications or labels that are simply wrong. These can mislead consumers by creating the illusion that a product or service has been independently certified as environmentally sustainable through a legitimate third-party screening process when this is not the case. in reality. Third party certification such as B-Corp, Fairtrade, Energy Star, FSC, Organic Association which have recognizable logos should be trusted as opposed to those claiming “100% organic certification” or “organic certification”. ‘energetic efficiency “.
We need your consent to load this YouTube contentWe use YouTube to manage additional content which may place cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please check their details and accept them to load the content.Manage preferences
From UCC, the 7 sins of greenwashing
The Sin of Irrelevance
This concerns environmental claims that may be true but irrelevant because they are simply irrelevant. An example is the environmentally harmful chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which were banned under the Montreal Protocol more than 30 years ago. Products that claim to be ‘CFC-free’ therefore commit sin #5 because they imply that they are more environmentally friendly than their competitors in this regard when in fact they are not.
The sin of the lesser of two evils
This sin relates to environmental claims of products that are inherently harmful to the environment. Although all products use natural resources and energy to some degree, some industries and products are more harmful to the environment than others. Earlier this year, the Advertising Standards Suthority of Ireland (ASAI) banned a sponsored article in which an Irish personality spoke about the use of a Land Rover Defender suggesting the environmental benefits of using the vehicle. One of the various issues raised and confirmed by ASAI was that the car, described as a “mild hybrid”, had a “an internal combustion engine that burned fossil fuels, which they (the plaintiffs) considered to be unfriendly to the environment”.
Denouncing greenwash for what it is allows us to make an informed judgment on the credibility of the proposed solutions
The sin of lying
The final sin describes environmental claims that are false. An advertisement by oil giant Shell was banned by the ASA in 2008 for claiming that its oil sands project in northern Canada was “sustainable”. In this case, Shell was judged for using the word “sustainable” vaguely (sin #3) and for falsely claiming that the project “helped secure a sustainable future” (sin #7).
As we see another COP come and go, we need governments to move beyond soft promises and empty promises. While last year’s COP26 was applauded by some for “accelerating the speed” of climate action, it was also criticized for “watering down” commitments from “phasing out” coal to “reducing progressive”.
As citizens and consumers, we need to be warned. We need to know and recognize the difference between real action-based commitments and soft, watered-down vows. Denouncing greenwash for what it is allows us to make an informed judgment on the credibility of the proposed solutions.
Chris Moran is a PhD student at Cork University Business School at UCC. He is a Research Council of Ireland Laureate under the Environmental Protection Agency Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme 2022. Dr. Claire O’Neill is a Marketing Lecturer in Sustainable Marketing and Consumption at UCC University Cork Business School.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
#sins #greenwashing