Home » How We Think » Three Ps » Greenwashing
Snack food packaging caught my eye recently. This time, it was health claims made on the packaging (not environmental claims about the packaging) that made me think.
I came across a vending machine with two small packages of Cheez-It® Baked Snack Crackers, each labeled as a one-serving size.
One of the options was the 0.77-ounce, 100 Calorie Right Bites pouch, which touted the benefits of the low calorie count, 100 percent real cheese and 0 grams of transfat. The snack had 230 mg of sodium and cost 75 cents.
In the same machine was a 1.5-ounce, 210-calorie bag of the exact same crackers, made of 100 percent real cheese and 0 grams of transfat. The snack had 320 mg of sodium and cost 50 cents.
Now, let’s examine the data: The first option, the healthier choice according to the packaging, had half the contents of the other bag but was essentially the exact same product (made of 100 percent real cheese and 0 grams of transfat). And, proportionally, the sodium content was actually higher (health scientists, how is that possible?). Furthermore, the cost of the smaller packaging was 50 percent more. And, yet, people were buying the Right Bites package because of the perceived health benefits.
If people had simply bought the 1.5-ounce bag and divided the crackers into two snacks, they would have had two of the same “healthy” snacks for 50 cents (which is three times less than the $1.50 they would spend for the two smaller bags). The threefold difference seems like a ridiculous price to pay for essentially no benefit.
For me, this example shows the strong parallels between misleading health and environmental claims. In the environmental realm, such claims that are irrelevant, vague or misleading are considered greenwashing. So, is this packaging guilty of “health-washing”?
I am pleased to report that introduction of the term greenblushing continues to generate national and international attention.
That tells me it’s a significant challenge and deserves mention in the same breath as greenwashing. Neither is sustainable.
It has also sparked a broader discussion about other kinds of challenges companies face when attempting to communicate about sustainability. For example, one blog reader, Chris Farage, VP of Communications & External Affairs for Parker Hannifin Corporation, a multinational manufacturer of motion and control technologies and systems, offers this term: “greenbashing.”
I like his definition: “the motivation of some activists in the green movement to attack companies for their environmental performance,” even if they are making progress and being transparent in their communication. These naysayers are the people who look at the Three Ps, and place the “P” for Planet ahead of the other two. In fact, some of them don’t even acknowledge the other two.
Chris is right on and rightly concerned about greenwashing, greenblushing and greenbashing. Here again, none of them are sustainable – and deserve to be called out, addressed and prevented, don’t you agree?
In an October 26, 2009 post, I introduced the concept of greenblushing. Since then, a number of people have confirmed for me that it’s real and growing.
And it can have serious repercussions – limiting companies’ ability to capitalize on investment intangibles, market and customer acceptance, and employee goodwill that are inherent in their sustainability efforts.
As a reminder, I’ve defined greenblushing as “limited or no information disseminated by an organization so as to understate or ignore its commitment to and actions on environmental responsibility.” It’s walking the walk but being too unsure and shy to talk the talk. It’s roughly the opposite of greenwashing.
Symptoms include downplaying or not communicating your sustainability achievements, and believing you need “all the answers” before you can talk about your progress and the ongoing journey. The fact is full-fledged participation in sustainability indexes and sustainability reporting is a high hurdle that is dominated by large, high-profile, public companies.
Proactive communications on such an important issue should not be a high hurdle. And I don’t think companies should be deterred by people who question their motives (e.g. profiting from their efforts). In fact, shouldn’t we be celebrating the cases that enrich all Three Ps?
Next week, to continue to try to get the word out, I’ll be at the Sustainability Symposium sponsored by Baldwin-Wallace College in suburban Cleveland. The March 1-2 event is free and open to the public and I hope to see you there. If not, I hope to see you here and @ThreePs on Twitter, helping to keep this conversation going.
Last week’s joint sustainability seminar, presented by Dix & Eaton and Summit Energy Services, Inc., focused on walking the walk and talking the talk. Appropriately, we covered the walk first, and my previous entry hits the highlights on that subject.
Now, about talking the talk, here are my recommendations:
- Start small and build, by focusing on a particular audience or issue, utilizing existing communications tools, and committing to continuous improvement.
- Dare to be a leader, which could include taking the “high road” when dealing with a tough issue and even “sleeping with the enemy” in pursuing joint problem-solving.
- Manage reputation and perceptions just like you manage the technical aspects of your sustainability program; great performance on the technical and operational aspects of sustainability is not enough for a achieving a good reputation and positive perceptions.
- Avoid both greenwashing and greenblushing, the latter of which ThreePs is introducing as “limited or no information disseminated by an organization so as to understate or ignore its commitment to and actions on environmental responsibility.” It means you’re walking the walk but you’re too unsure, shy or wary of recognition to talk about your performance.
Put the walk and the talk together and you’ve got the makings of a successful, sustainable program.
You can also follow the conversation as it happened by searching for #wwtt on Twitter. Thanks to all who attended and have been following the online conversation.
Tomorrow morning, on Tuesday November 10, Dix & Eaton will be presenting a sustainability management seminar on “Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk.” Special thanks to John Hoekstra, manager of sustainability for Summit Energy Services, Inc., for co-presenting with me.
Big agenda planned: consumer perceptions; sustainability roadmap; energy, carbon, water and waste strategies; reputation management; greenwashing vs. greenblushing; and sustainability indexes.
Unfortunately, the room can accommodate only about 20 people so we’re going to be live tweeting the event. Follow @D_and_E and/or #wwtt for live updates tomorrow. Program and tweets start at 8:30 sharp; ends at 10 a.m.
In the world of sustainability, we know to be wary of greenwashing, which the watchdog group CorpWatch defines as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.” It’s “talking the talk” without “walking the walk.”
Starting today, greenwashing has an opposite term.
Introducing… the equally challenging condition I have coined “greenblushing,” which I define as “limited or no information disseminated by an organization so as to understate or ignore its commitment to and actions on environmental responsibility.” It’s walking the walk but being too unsure and shy to talk the talk.
How big of a problem is it? Right now, probably more so than greenwashing. While warranted in some cases, the attack on greenwashing has had a chilling effect on proactive, successful companies, who are now wary of telling their sustainability stories.
What are some symptoms of greenblushing?
1. Believing you need “all the answers” before you can talk about your progress and the ongoing journey
2. Being reluctant to talk about your sustainability activities, even when asked to or recognized by outside parties
3. Downplaying your achievements internally, which can be very de-motivating
4. Afraid to bring it up with customers in case they’re ahead of you or not particularly interested
5. Always assuming there’s more risk than reward in talking about your sustainability activities
6. And, finally, feeling that what you’re doing is “not that special,” when, in fact, others could learn a lot from your ideas
You’ve been warned before about greenwashing, but beware of the other extreme, greenblushing.
I just completed a new Dix & Eaton “Emerging Trends” article about the need to initiate or expand two-way communications on sustainability with key constituents, particularly employees and key suppliers. It’s the conversation you can’t afford not to have.
But there are two recent announcements that I must share with you as you consider your options and join the conversations:
Greenwashing is assumed to be alive and well: Some industry analysts and researchers believe “talking the talk but not walking the walk” in sustainability is ubiquitous. Scot Case, of the environmental consulting firm TerraChoice, told Congress recently that 98 percent of 4,000 consumer products evaluated made false or misleading sustainability claims. In addition, more than two-thirds of Americans believe a “green” designation for a company is “just a marketing tactic.”
Standards lack standardization: More than 300 different organizations claim to certify organizations, products or services as “green” or “sustainable.” The alphabet soup of organizations and certifications seems to have no limits, as indicated by my “green certifications” Google search result that returned 4.5 million images.
That’s a whole lot of sobering, discouraging news. Fortunately, good sustainability communications strategy and leadership can still be a difference-maker.
Virtually every publication – local, trade, business, consumer – has special issues or sections on sustainability or “green.” And trade and professional associations have committees, working groups and task forces.
In other words, sustainability has become big business, and many businesses and industries are embracing it. And some are profiting from it, which is why there are 3 P’s. Invariably, there are many critics – people who question the motives. Despite some notable exceptions such as the World Wildlife Federation, many environmentalists don’t want to give credit even where it’s due.
From my seat, the problem with many activists is all they talk about is an organization’s motives. But what about actions and results? They should count more than motives and words.
Greenwashing is bad business, but bashing companies making good environmental progress is bad behavior by activists. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
