As consumers become ever more environmentally aware, organisations of all sizes have taken it upon themselves to market their products and services with a 'green' emphasis. Unfortunately, in a number of cases, the eco-credentials outlined in their marketing copy doesn鈥檛 reflect real life. We look at some particularly toxic examples.
What is 鈥楪reenwashing鈥�?
Put simply, 鈥榞reenwashing鈥� is an unscrupulous practice adopted by certain businesses and organisations to make themselves appear more eco-aware and environmentally friendly than they actually are. Here are some classic examples from the last couple of years.
The Coca-Cola COP-Out
In 2022, the 27th UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt proudly declared Coca-Cola as one of its lead sponsors.
Coca-Cola has repeatedly topped annual lists of the world鈥檚 biggest plastic polluters, and their decision to sponsor the conference 鈥� not to mention COP鈥檚 decision to accept the cash 鈥� was roundly criticised as a cynical attempt to make the company鈥檚 image more 鈥榚co-friendly鈥� and worse, one which was enabled by the UN. The fact that even COP isn鈥檛 immune to this practice shows just how widespread greenwashing has become.
Walmart鈥檚 Eco Panda-ing
In 2022, US retailers Walmart and Kohl鈥檚 agreed to pay a $5.5 million collective settlement over allegations that for 7 years, they鈥檇 used misleading claims when marketing products such as bath rugs and bedsheets as being manufactured from bamboo derivatives.
The retailers claimed that the items were manufactured in eco-friendly processes, using words like 鈥渟ustainable鈥� and 鈥渉ighly renewable鈥� in their marketing, implying that the companies cared deeply about stewardship of planet through their products.
Unfortunately, all these 鈥榖amboo鈥� products were actually made from rayon, a semi-synthetic material with a well-known negative environmental impact.
Following imposition of the fine, a spokesperson for Walmart said: 鈥淲e are committed to being the most trusted retailer and we hold ourselves accountable when issues like this are raised.鈥�
Or, to put it another way, 鈥淥K, you鈥檝e got us bang to rights. Sorry.鈥�
Oatly鈥檚 Obfuscation
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a high-profile advertising campaign by non-dairy milk brand Oatly for misleading green claims, forcing Oatly to remove the ads and acknowledge that they 鈥渃ould have been clearer鈥�.
In 2022, Oatly stated that they were a 鈥渟cience-based company and take pride in being precise,鈥� but their marketing didn鈥檛 provide remotely enough evidence to support their claims about food industry emissions.
The ads compared the carbon footprint of Oatly鈥檚 milk with dairy milk 鈥� not all Oatly products mind you, and not all milk. Just one variant of each.
Even better, the company implied scientific consensus by referencing 鈥渃limate experts鈥� to support its claim about a vegan dietary regime reducing environmental impact. The ASA found this to be the recorded opinion of (checks notes)鈥︹�ne researcher.
Not So Innocent
Brands should take great care not to overstate their environmental credentials or to create the impression of an environmental benefit where one doesn鈥檛 exist.
In 2022, Smoothie brand Innocent had an advertisement banned by the ASA after a ruling that Innocent had 鈥渕isled鈥� customers. Complaints from viewers claimed that an advertisement promoting Innocent drinks exaggerated the environmental benefit of the products.
Innocent鈥檚 response 鈥� in the manner of greenwashers everywhere 鈥� was monumentally specious, claiming that they鈥檇 simply intended to convey a 鈥減urpose-driven message鈥� (eyeroll) and show that recycling was better than disposing of their packaging. (As though nobody knew that already.)
In response, the ASA issued a report concluding that the overall presentation of the advertisement, graphics and content gave a wholly false impression. It was clearly designed to lead consumers into believing that 鈥減urchasing Innocent products was a choice which would have a positive environmental impact, when that was not the case鈥�.
Persil鈥檚 Dirty Laundry
This is an example that shows if you are going make environmental claims then you must at least provide a few scraps of evidence.
Unilever鈥檚 cleaning brand Persil is one of the UK鈥檚 best-selling. In 2022, the company decided to trumpet its perceived eco-contribution with a 鈥楧irt is Good鈥� television ad campaign, in which it claimed the Persil brand to be 鈥榢inder on the planet鈥�.
This so-vague-it-barely-exists statement was illustrated with some exemplary greenwashing visual cliches 鈥� children collecting waste plastic from the seashore, a woman adopting her 鈥榮erious鈥� face while adding the hashtag #plantmoretrees to a social media post etc. None of which of course, explained why Persil cleaning products are 鈥榢inder on the planet鈥�.
The Advertising Standards Authority promptly banned the ads, declaring itself unimpressed with the campaign鈥檚 lack of clarity and complete absence of facts.
This meant we never got to find out precisely what Persil detergents are 鈥榢inder on the planet鈥� than.
Nuclear missiles, maybe?
So Much For Greenwashing鈥�.
If you and your organisation wish to make a genuine and concerted effort to protect and improve the environment, why not sign up for the upcoming Climate Literacy for Sustainable Futures Skills Bootcamp?
This is the third run of this hugely popular course, and with places generously co-funded by the Department for Education, it doesn鈥檛 require major outlay either.
