Corporate ‘greenwashing’ must go

False advertising and performative activism are rampant

JACKIE MARQUEZ / OPINION EDITOR / THE USD VISTA

April is the month of environmentalism. Earth month is celebrated all April long, and Earth Day is Saturday April 22. These grassroots campaigns have just recently risen in popularity. When Earth Day was made a national holiday in 1970, it originated as a celebration of the natural world and primarily focused on educating people about environmental issues/raising awareness for environmental protection efforts. Environmentalists held demonstrations and teach-ins, but they were relatively small-scale. 

In the past 50 years or so, Earth Day festivities have grown exponentially. This year, celebrations take place worldwide. Not only will there be demonstrations, there are also planned events like clean-ups, protests and parades. These celebrations have grown so large that even corporations have joined in on the festivities. 

In recent years, corporations started using Earth Month as an excuse to promote “green” products. Green products, also known as eco-friendly products, are products that are beneficial for the environment. They may be recyclable, energy efficient and/or organic. 

While some products marketed as environmentally friendly are actually better for the environment, others are not. The term “greenwashing” can be used to describe the false advertising  around these products. According to Investopedia, greenwashing is “the act of providing the public or investors with misleading or outright false information about the environmental impact of a company’s products and operations.” 

The rise of corporate greenwashing around environmental celebrations is concerning for a few reasons. First, greenwashing is misleading to consumers. Second, greenwashing is performative rather than substantive. And third, it allows companies to unfairly profit off environmental efforts. 

Greenwashing relies on misleading or plain untruthful marketing strategies to promote products. EcoWatch, an environmental news source, explains the many strategies companies use, such as selectively disclosing information about a product. Selective disclosure is when a brand shares the positives about a product’s sustainability while avoiding the negatives. Take for example Starkbucks’ switch to strawless cup lids. The chain switched to a sippy-cup lid in order to phase out their use of plastic straws. In a “Starbucks’ Stories and News” article Chris Milne, Starbucks’ Director of Packaging Sourcing, explained the company’s logic behind the switch. 

“By nature, the straw isn’t recyclable and the lid is, so we feel this decision is more sustainable and more socially responsible,” he said. 

What the company fails to acknowledge, however, is that the updated lid contains more plastic than the straws. According to The Guardian, the new plastic lid is heavier than the plastic straw, and thus contains more plastic.  While Starbucks claims that this amount is negligible due to the lid’s recyclability, it is unreasonable to assume that all lids will be recycled. According to The Economist, only 9% of plastic is actually recycled. By withholding the negative impact of the lid’s increased usage of plastic, Starbucks exemplifies selective disclosure of information about their products’ sustainability. 

Other notable strategies of greenwashing include using buzzwords or vagueness. Brands may claim on their packaging that the product is “non-toxic,” “recyclable” or “made with natural ingredients.” These descriptions suggest that these products are more natural or environmentally friendly than their counterparts. However, they are vague enough that outright proof isn’t necessary. While some claims may even be true, they don’t reflect anything about the products’ manufacturing process. For example, the product itself may be “non-toxic,”  but its production could still pollute the environment. On top of this, companies may also use suggestive sustainable imagery on their packaging or advertising. This is a visual tactic where marketers associate their product with natural images or the color green to make it seem more environmentally friendly than it actually is. 

All of these marketing strategies insinuate that a product is environmentally friendly without giving facts to back it up, and this advertising is mostly for performative reasons. According to The University of Wisconsin-Madison, an action is “performative” when it’s “done to increase one’s social capital, rather than because of one’s devotion to a cause.” By greenwashing their products, companies portray themselves as environmentally conscious to appeal to consumers who value sustainability efforts, but they do very little to actually make a difference. This helps them build a stronger brand image and it attracts customers. Not only does this build social capital, it also helps them gain capital in general. 

According to a study by Nielsen IQ, a platform that studies consumer behavior, customers are willing to pay more for “green” products, in that 69% of respondents would pay more for a product with natural or organic ingredients; 58% would pay more if a company was environmentally friendly and 56% would pay more if a company had a reputation of being committed to social values. Essentially, companies can — and do — get away with up-charging for “green” products to generate larger profits and social capital, without having to actually change.  Given this, greenwashing is outright exploitation. It ultimately capitalizes on consumers’ desires to minimize environmental harm, without meeting consumer expectations.

With exploiting customers under  the  guise   of    sustainability, greenwashing has the potential to turn consumers away from actual sustainable products. It reduces environmentalism into another excuse to turn a profit, and it distracts from companies’ unsustainable practices. So, the next time you’re in the market for an environmentally friendly product, do a bit of research beforehand. Look at the language and images the product uses, and then check if the company actually dedicates itself to the cause. In doing so, you may do more for the environment than if you were to actually buy the product.