[Photo credits displayed at end of article]
As consumers become more interested in the need to protect our environment, corporations recognize this and are taking advantage of our desire to make environmentally friendly changes.
What some corporations are doing is greenwashing - A practice where companies create an environmentally friendly image to the public to boost sales.
At the same time, they downplay or ignore harmful corporate policies and the hidden dangers in their products.
The following list highlights some of what I find most offensive.
Help spread the word!
Clorox Green Works
In January 2008, Clorox launched a new line of cleaning products called Green Works. They claim their line is “at least 99 percent natural”. What’s in the other 1 percent?
One answer: Kathon, a petroleum-derived preservative used in Clorox’s Green Works product line. They also use the unregulated term “natural” to define their product rather than having a legitimate third-party certification.
Nestle’s Poland Springs “Eco Shaped” water bottle
Yes it uses 30 percent less plastic than traditional bottles, but the energy that goes into creating and transporting bottled water is wasteful. Plus most recyclable bottles end up buried in landfills and may never breakdown .
Nestle recently secured a permit to extract millions of liters of groundwater in Ontario, Canada despite concerns of surface water being drawn underground as a result.
BP
From British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum, this company successfully spent tens of millions on an aggressive ad campaign highlighting how they will fuel the future cleanly while creating a green image. Their ads fail to mention how much they pollute and how little they spend on alternative energy despite record profits.
In 2007, BP decided to invest in Canada’s oil sands despite the company’s self-imposed ban on the production of crude oil from tar sands. This change in policy has led Greenpeace to state that this is “the biggest environmental crime in history.”
Toyota
Toyota claims all the green credibility in the automotive sector due to its hybrid Prius and their Why Not? ad campaign that asks, “Can a car company grow in harmony with the environment? Why not?” They forget to mention that they lobbied against improved fuel economy standards until pressured from thousands of customers and environmental groups.
Aveda
Aveda is a company that highlights the natural content of its beauty products and sustainable production methods. However, many of its products contain the same harmful chemicals as their competitors.
Just take a look at the contents in their hairspray.
Scott’s
This lawn fertilizer company, has created a new line of products called EcoSense to counter the damage done by their synthetic products. Fertilizers end up in lakes and rivers causing serious damage to the ecosystem. Pesticides accumulate in human tissue and can cause serious health problems. This has led to lawn chemical bans in many places.
Scott’s plans to counter this by selling vinegar in a bottle as a weed killer.
Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart is an easy target for just about anything. They have made significant efforts in reducing energy use and waste throughout their operations. However, their entire business model relies on people buying cheap, imported products and driving to their stores to get them. Also, since they are such a massive business, many of their initiatives could be driven by cost and public relations (PR) rather than environmental concerns.
Exxon
Exxon is another easy target.
They recently launched a new ad campaign basically recognizing climate change and their concerns. Exxon has continually funded groups that have attempted to discredit climate change science rather than scientifically disprove it or find solutions.
Let’s not forget the Exxon Valdez oil spill and their court battles trying to evade paying damages.
A Supreme Court ruling allowed Exxon to get off with only paying 500 million dollars in damages, the equivalent of a week’s profit!
IKEA
Ikea generally gets good marks on the environment but they have sent me junk mail that promotes their parking spaces reserved for hybrids or cars that get specified mileage. Just another retailer that relies on and promotes the suburban, consumer lifestyle.
The Nuclear Power Industry
The Nuclear Power Industry gets full marks for greenwashing by promoting themselves as an alternative energy source because they do not emit greenhouse gases while generating electricity. In Canada they promote themselves as clean, reliable and affordable.
I’m not an expert on the reliable, but I don’t consider nuclear waste clean nor do I consider multi-billion dollar plants that run over budget to be affordable. Maybe they are creating a new mythology about nuclear energy.
Greenwashing is spreading to about every product or service. Businesses are realizing that promoting any “green” aspect to their products enhances their brand and can generate sales. Consumers can vote with their wallets and call out the companies that greenwash so we can weed out the weak claims and increase credibility for the real green businesses.
As always, buyer beware.
Photo credits in order
Greenwashing by dsain (Creative Commons)
Poland Springs “New Eco-Shape Bottle” by Clampants(Creative Commons)
Giving It Up for GAS by bitzcelt(Creative Commons)
About the Author
Related Posts
29 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
You are welcome Julie. I would start by looking for certification symbols on product packaging. A good site with more information about that to have a look at is http://www.buyerbefair.org/learn_certification.ht...
Also, it is very important to read all the labels carefully. This makes a big difference in what ends up in my home. As for Collective Wellbeing's line, they are certainly better than most brands out there. Not all their products are preservative free and certified organic. That is where careful reading of labels comes in. There FAQ site is pretty straight forward on what one can expect with their line.Thanks for taking time to read my article and leave a comment.
↵ -
I'll take wal-mart here…. Of course they don't care about the environment! They care about money. what hurts their supply of money? energy costs, bad pr, and consumers changing their buying habits. so Wal mart changed. Most companies could care less but they'll go green b/c of the economics behind it. However, you should give credit where credit is due. Wal mart has made great strides in going green. They've shrunken the size of their stores, put solar panels up, are putting wind turbines up, have forced their suppliers to shrink the size of their packaging, and are now selling organic food as well have made sure that their fish comes from sustainable fisheries. Frankly, i don't care if they are only doing it for the money. at least they are doing it. and thier entire business is about people buying stuff…which is the point of any business. they sell, you buy. I dont like their business practices (it is awful how they treat their employees!!!!) and i dont shop there but you have to give them credit when it is due and you can't fault them for being a business.
↵ -
Thank you Marica for your education.
↵ -
I didn't criticize Wal-Mart for being a business. I'm looking at their greenwashing relative to their underlying operations. All businesses will go "green" for the money. They should be honest about it and not use "green" as a cover for other not-so-green practices. Thanks for the comments.
↵ -
well, how are they being dishonest? I don't think they've ever claimed to be a green company
↵ -
Are you kidding? They claim to be green all the time… do you ever watch T.V.? Anyways, if Wal-Mart really wanted to make a contribution to "going green", they could do it by using their massive profits from "rolling back" prices and putting small businesses out of business. No matter how you look at it; Wal-Mart is an evil corporation that is hurting the economy and trying to cover up their bad reputation by hopping on the "go green" band wagon.
↵ -
I could not have said it better. Thanks Natalie, my thoughts exactly!!
↵ -
THANKS MARICA, WE ALL NEED MORE EDUCATION TO HELP OUR BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY. I'LL KEEP READING AND DOING ALL WE CAN. KARON
↵ -
I agree its a little snobby for Ikea to give hybrids preferential treatment but it certainly doesn't make them unworthy of eco-friendly status.
↵ -
Unless of course they were sending you physical paper mail…. (I assumed it was email)
↵ -
Is it still 'greenwashing' if the good outweighs the bad? Seems to me Toyota's done something pretty remarkable by making the Prius as trendy and popular as it is – and well-known, it's a household name – as it is. I'm going to go to bat for Ikea, as well: "Just another retailer that relies on and promotes the suburban, consumer lifestyle." I think Ikea differs from Wal-Mart in that it's a 'special occasion' kind of store – people aren't driving to Ikea every day for milk. There are some large purchases that are always going to need to be brought home in cars – as it happens, the Ikea in my hometown is extremely accessible by public transit, but there's no way I can haul a six-foot Billy bookcase that I can't lift on my own onto a bus. Overall though, this is a great list – and a great reminder to think for ourselves and not to take "green" claims at face value, whatever the brand.
↵ -
Lots of physical paper mail.
↵ -
Great article, keep up the good work. It was very informative and it helps to know.
↵ -
actually, wal mart helps the economy but that's not the issue… just because wal mart has bad business practices doesn't really matter. would you rather them not do anything? i'm just saying you need to give credit where credit is due and wal mart has shareholders to answer too so they aren't going to just suddenly be like "ohhh lets give all our profits away." i'd rather them jump on the ban wagon and do something than just sit back and do nothing and ps- i dont watch tv.
↵ -
Awsome article Marica!!
↵ -
How can wall mart help the economy when these huge stores cause dozens of cottage industries and local family run shops loose businees and ultimately close down- welcome to the death of town centres: a huge knock on effect. Conbined with the their huge imports of cheaply made foreign items, there is no benefit for local or national industry, except for the short term advantage of more jobs. Matt you don't know what you're talking about!
↵ -
Great article! My only question is, does it really matter if a company like Wal Mart is doing things out of concern for the environment or out of concern for profits? I think that as long as they are taking the right measures, it doesn’t really matter why they’re doing it.
↵ -
Unfortunately, nuclear power may be a great stepping stone for us to reach a working carbon-neutral society. But, there is still debate as to wether or not it would have a smaller carbon footprint.
I think, the point I would like to make is that some things are hard to place into a “green” or “not green” category. Often, it is not so cut and dry.
For example, some argue that recycling of paper and plastic is worse than just throwing it in a well managed landfill.We must keep an open mind and use objective research to really know what is what.
↵ -
Nuclear power is very unfairly treated in this article, the fears of ‘nuclear waste’ as some environmentally threatening concept are antiquated and simply unfounded. Nuclear reactors have the potential to bring the world miles ahead in environmental responsibility by creating huge amounts of reliable electricity while eliminating the need for more harmful energy production methods, like coal and dam-building. Although there are two sides to everything, you came across very dismissing of a legitimate hope for the future without any real research or forethought, just focusing on what you may have heard once from an editorial in the local newspaper.
↵ -
Interesting, especially the Walmart green or not issue. I love having my conventional wisdoms stood on thier head., Wouldn’t they be more green by being more efficeint? Ecomomy of scale and what not. Everything comes from China wether it’s in Patagonia stores or Walmart.
My villian of the week, , the roof rack. Burning carbon to recreate.
↵ -
Hmm…I wouldn’t call this article ‘education’ as other commenters have; more opinion. Especially with comments such as “many of their initiatives could be driven by cost and public relations” – keyword ‘could’ being very speculative argument there, as just one example (the article is full of other similar examples of why it’s more opinion than education). Mixed bag – I’m unsure if it does its own cause an injustice due to these imprecisions and speculative language.
Either way, it does do a good job of raising awareness of the fact that many companies are capitalising on ‘green’ image marketing (not least due to the vagueness of the commonly used terms, due to it sadly still being early days in terms of these efforts), with less than stellar, actually demonstrable, credentials.
↵ -
the oil spill in Mexico would surely be one of the greatest environmental disasters for this year.~:”
↵ -
Not bad but I’m not sure how you single out Toyota as all car companies fight higher fuel efficiency standards and the fact they where one focused the first brands at least in America that focused on fuel efficiency and making dependable cars that let you hold on to one longer before resources have to be used to make you a new one. I’m not saying they are saints but their listing here is misguided.
↵ -
I really enjoyed the article. Many consumers are blinded and so easily manipulated that the real green businesses are left to the side.
↵ -
It’s interesting to read this article from the other side of the BP oil spill. You had the hindsight to call out BP’s terrible choices, but so many people (including, unfortunately, me) didn’t understand the potential consequences until it was too late. Thanks for such a thought-provoking article.
↵ -
I think Aveda has been unfairly singled out here. This corporation was built on respect for the environment, and has been since I was a kid. I know of no other company, particularly in the beauty industry, with such a long time commitment. From their efforts to reduce packaging, choosing packaging made of natural materials as often as they can, to using recycled and recyclable materials as much as is humanly possible, they are light years ahead of any other company, organic or not. And more than other companies that use organic ingredients, Aveda sources their ingredients very carefully, setting up numerous cooperatives to empower women and those in poverty, creating cottage industries for them and promoting sustainable collection. They do not use slave labor or sweat shops like most other beauty companies. They are in fact the only personal care company at this time I trust to not exploit people or the environment. And the article you linked to certainly did not in any way support your argument.
↵ -
Thw ord organin was mentioned in the Walmart article; however, organic is another misused word as the same with all natural, etc. Companies use these words to get people to buy wholesome un fertilized foods that are healthy. This is a lie.
Take Driscoll raspberries, strawberries and others in stores. I am sensitive to pesticieds and can tell when a fruit has it. I used to buy fruit at the local chain casue cheap. The fruit had pesicides. I then went to an organic food chain plus other stores that claimed the Driscoll fruit was organic, which means pesticed free. It wwas not and the lables were changed to say organic, but that was it. The food in Europe and over sees is real and better, here the FDA is a joke as with all other agencies.
↵ -
If you’re so sure that the food isn’t organic, report Driscoll. Companies that illegally label non-organic food as organic are liable for massive fines, at least $10,000 for each individual violation.
You can file a complaint here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateE&navID=Certifiers&rightNav1=Certifiers&topNav=&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPFileaComplaint&description=Filing%20a%20Complaint&acct=nopgeninfo
↵
