Update on Greenwashing
As companies step up their spending on green marketing, the confusion about what's truly green is getting worse. One way to cut through the clutter is to figure out whether we should care about green products or green companies.
The guidelines are easy to follow:
We should absolutely not support green products from companies that use them to distract us from their larger negative environmental and social impacts. We need systemically green companies to address the challenges we face, not business-as-usual companies that hold up one green hand while hiding another toxic, CO2-emitting, waste-producing one behind their backs.
To learn how consumers think about the issue, New Scientist magazine recently teamed up with Earthsense, which polled US shoppers on their perceptions of the "greenness" of various companies, and with Trucost, which has compiled a quantitative assessment of companies' global environmental impact. Together, they looked at whether consumer opinion matched reality. Unfortunately, it didn't. Take, for example the contrast between Fresh Del Monte Produce and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. The research concludes that:
"Both of these companies are seen by consumers as very environmentally friendly, yet they stand at opposite ends of the spectrum for environmental impact among our sample of food and beverage firms. Words like "fresh" and "green" immediately suggest a wholesome image. This is central to the identity of Green Mountain, a producer of whole-bean and ground coffee, including organically grown varieties. It is, indeed, the greenest of all our food and beverage companies, according to Trucost's analysis.
"Fresh Del Monte Produce similarly projects a green image, but London-based Trucost's numbers paint a different picture. Growing fruit and vegetables involves heavy use of fertilisers and pesticides, but the main issue again is water consumption, which accounts for more than three-quarters of the company's high environmental impact score."
That's quite a gap between belief and truth. But fear not -- the age of transparency is coming as I predict in The Responsibility Revolution, the new book I have written with Bill Breen. Analyses like New Scientist's will allow us all to make more responsible decisions, and companies will have a harder and harder time projecting green images while hiding bad habits in their back pockets.
Until it all becomes clear, companies are well advised to use the seven principles for corporate responsibility defined in The Responsibility Revolution, and consumers should make sure that they have the Good Guide loaded on their mobile devices before they go shopping.
Read the First Chapter!
For a limited time, you can read the first chapter of The Responsibility Revolution FREE!
Download now 
Speaking
Jeffrey Hollender is a well-respected leader in the socially and environmentally responsible communities.
Comments
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 14:48 — Anne Michelsen
You are so right...
...about image vs. reality.
And it goes both ways. Many companies that don't necessarily project a green image are changing to more sustainable practices.
The Good Guide is an excellent place to start, but so far it's limited mostly to the sorts of products you find in the grocery store. And as far as I can tell it focuses on individual products rather than companies.
Are you aware of any other sites that rate companies for their social and environmental impact? Newsweek had their Top 500 list, but my problem with their list is that a significant portion of the rating depends on reputation, not only amongst environmental analysts but amongst corporate peers. Which takes us right back to image vs. reality.
Your thoughts?
Anne Michelsen
www.TheGreenInkwell.com
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 14:39 — consultgal
How to handle Clorox vs Burt's Bees?
I think the Good Guide is a great start. However, you explicitly say, "We should absolutely not support green products from companies that use them to distract us from their larger negative environmental and social impacts." The Good Guide currently lists all of Burt's Bees' products quite high for environment, health and society. My guess is that they are looking at Burt's Bees as its own separate entity when determining these ratings, whereas Clorox now owns Burt's. What is the appropriate consumer choice there?
Courtney Martin
www.consultgal.com
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 09:02 — Inspired Protagonist
Tough Choice
I avoid products when I know the parent company isn’t aligned with the values of a specific product or division. The challenge is being able to keep track of who owns who. When my lips are dry I choose Kiss My Face.
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 16:04 — avalondreamer
Parent Companies
I beleive Tom's Toothpaste and other products in the line is now owned by Colgate. Why are the wholesome companies selling out? Where are their values to the cause? If they were truly green, they would sell to another reputably green company.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 09:56 — kanadianchick
Parent companies
There is a great documentary on this called "Food.inc" that talks about, among a host of things, the way that green companies are considered to be 'selling out' by a lot of environmentalists because they're being acquired. However, as the film points out, if the goal is really to make a better choice for our own health and that of the planet, the BEST way to do this is to get MORE people to buy green/organic/local/fair trade products. Most companies aren't about values, they're about profits. Everything you put in your grocery cart is a vote for a different way of doing things, and the parent companies are obviously taking notice. There are more varieties of organic and green than ever before. More small green companies are being acquired by less moral parent companies. What does this mean? It means the market is exploding with people who are going green, little by little. By 'selling out', the wholesome companies are making a much bigger impact--they're getting their products to become more mainstream. Calling it a sell out is a bit draconian in my view. As I see it, if parent companies are moving to sell more green, they're impacting the planet less also--whether it's about values or not. You can be moralistic all you want, but I think by buying those green products that are produced by companies that have been acquired, you're also sending the parent company a very powerful message. And given the increase in green products on the shelves even in the last few years and despite a devastated economy, something tells me that companies are taking notice. I, for one, am not going to quibble about the values of a parent company. Instead, I'm going to vote green with my purchases. If enough companies take notice, they might actually do more to move towards being 'overall green.' Isn't that a win?
Sat, 03/13/2010 - 09:11 — morydd
Pot and Kettle?
Would greenwashing include things like dying diapers brown to give consumers the impression that they're more environmentally friendly?
Sun, 03/14/2010 - 16:49 — Inspired Protagonist
Jeffrey's reply to Parent Companies
It’s usually all about the money! People who start these companies can get burned out and want to retire, so they often sell for the most money they can find. Seventh Generation expressed interest in purchasing Tom’s, but they preferred Colgate-Palmolive. We need a responsible, sustainable company to purchase these brands and protect them from the large multi-nationals, but none yet exists.
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 15:44 — Inspired Protagonist
Jeffrey Replies to Pot and Kettle
We list all our ingredients on our packaging and on our website, and we readily share this information in consumer conversations.
The statement reads: **The color of disposable diapers is typically achieved though the addition of pigments. This is also true of the brown layered materials in Seventh Generation diapers.
Thu, 06/10/2010 - 11:41 — litehearted
The Gulf oil spill: Is it better to kill birds covered in oil?
Jay Holcomb, IBRRC's executive director, tells Audubon, "IBRRC has conducted research on most of the commonly available cleaning agents and 'Dawn' meets all the criteria we have established for appropriate cleaning agents."
Dawn is owned by P&G. They conduct animal testing.
I use Seventh Generation Free and Clear Dishwashing Soap in my home, and find it is an excellent product! Plus it features the The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics' (CCIC) Leaping Bunny Logo ~ The Leaping Bunny Program certifies companies as 'cruelty-free' that don't test on animals during any stage of product development.
Personally I would like to see the International Bird Rescue Research Center use your product over Dawn dish soap -- however, Proctor and Gamble are providing it at no cost because of the positive publicity it generates. I've often wondered whether their television ad campaign showing cute animals being scrubbed by Dawn is 'staged' ? i.e. animals are getting washed merely for the commercial and not because they were involved in an environmental disaster...
QUESTION: Where can I buy Natural Fabric Softener Sheets in Canada? In the past I've purchased perfume free disposable sheets, but it concerns me that this ends up in the garbage ~ I would much prefer to buy your product which is recyclable or compostable after use -- but I don't see it on the shelves of Loblaws, Sobey's or Canadian Tire?
Fri, 06/11/2010 - 08:05 — Seventh Generation
Re: Natural Fabric Softener Sheets in Canada
Our fabric softener sheets are not available in Canada, yet. Have you tried the liquid softener? We have it available in two scents and they should be available in your favorite stores.