To help you avoid the common pitfalls of green marketing, we have prepared a helpful guide on three practices to avoid when promoting your company’s sustainability efforts: greenwashing, greenhushing, and greenwishing.
Do your green claims stack up?
The rise of ESG-related regulations means that companies need to be aware of how to express their environmental claims in a way that is truthful and transparent. But striking a balance between shouting about your green initiatives, and being realistic about what is actually achievable within any given timeframe isn’t always that straightforward.
To help you avoid the common pitfalls of green marketing – and their legal, financial and reputational consequences – we have prepared a helpful guide on three practices to avoid when promoting your company’s sustainability efforts: greenwashing, greenhushing, and greenwishing.
GREENWASHING
What is it?
Greenwashing is a deceitful form of marketing used to persuade consumers that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is. It is based on promoting the company’s products, services and activities as environmentally-friendly, even in the absence of relevant evidence. The term was coined by journalist Jay Westerveld in 1986.
Red flags:
- Unsubstantiated claims – for example, a brand claiming that its products are made from recycled materials without providing traceability and transparency in its supply chain.
- Minimum legal requirements passed as achievements – for example, claiming that a product is “CFC free”, even if CFCs have been banned worldwide in 1987.
- Vague language – words such as “green”, “sustainable”, “non-toxic” do not have a legal definition and can be easily misused to manipulate readers.
- Misused ecolabels – for example, using the recycling logo on plastics that cannot be recycled.
Can you give me an example?
In 2022, a company that produces juices and smoothies was called out for insincere TV adverts. The adverts claimed drinking the company’s smoothies would help “fix up the planet”, despite the lack of any connection between purchasing the drinks and fighting pollution. As a result, the Advertising Standards Authority banned the ad in its original form.
What are the consequences?
False green claims can lead to serious legal consequences, the extent of which depends on where the company is located. In the UK, the Government is currently working on a Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill, which will give the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) the authority to impose direct civil penalties on greenwashing companies. The fines can be of up to 10% of global turnover for big companies, and up to £300,000 for individuals.
Greenwashing can also lead to financial repercussions due to reputational damage, and loss of consumer and investor trust.
On a broader scale, a serious consequence of greenwashing is that this practice is weakening public trust in corporate sustainability efforts, undermining the efforts of companies that are genuinely trying to embrace a sustainable mindset.
GREENHUSHING
What is it?
First coined by consulting firm Treehugger, greenhushing refers to the practice of avoiding disclosing science-based net zero targets to avoid public scrutiny. This is normally due to companies fearing backlash in case their sustainability targets are not achieved, not ambitious or impactful enough, or too far into the future. However, some companies may choose to greehush for legitimate reasons, such as wishing to test their green credentials for longer periods, or being deterred by the cost and complexity of gathering relevant data.
Red flags:
- Failure to share sustainability targets online and on social media.
- Declining to answer when asked about sustainability milestones.
- Vague language – for example, expressing a commitment to sustainability in non-measurable ways, such as “we follow net zero best practice”.
- Sharing sustainability targets, but failing to update the public on progress.
Can you give me an example?
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) – a non-profit that runs a global environmental disclosure system for investors, companies and public institutions – runs an annual campaign to call out companies that fail to respond to requests of disclosing their ESG data. Their 2022 Non-Disclosure Campaign targeted 1,473 companies over 50 countries, including famous names such as Adidas, Amazon, Tesla and Volvo.
What are the consequences?
Carbon disclosure obligations vary according to where companies are based. In the UK, quoted companies and large businesses must disclose their annual energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and more than 30 companies have already been fined by the Environment Agency for under-reporting their emissions, or for failing to submit their reports entirely.
Greenhushing also prevents companies from attracting investment from environmentally-conscious stakeholders, and from gaining the trust and loyalty of consumers who are looking to buy from sustainable businesses.
GREENWISHING
What is it?
A term coined by sustainability researcher Duncan Austin in 2019, greenwishing refers to wishful thinking in the world of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG). It happens when organisations believe in their ESG agenda, but fail to achieve the intended results of their initiatives, or overestimate the results they have achieved.
Red flags:
- Overoptimistic or “long shot” targets – environmental goals that are either unrealistic, impossible to measure, or too far into the future.
- Irrelevant targets – targets that are measurable and achievable, but do not have any real-world consequences and as such do not contribute to climate change mitigation.
- Disregard of available evidence – failure to research evidence that can confirm or refute the impact of sustainability initiatives; or failure to implement appropriate measures after evidence has been made available.
- Small changes that do not require systemic change – for example, encouraging employees to recycle but relying on suppliers with questionable environmental practices.
Can you give me an example?
Since greenwishing normally arises from good intentions, and has only been recently pinpointed as part of problematic sustainability practices, there is currently no regulation against it. As such, no specific company has been officially accused of greenwishing. However, when coining the term, Duncan Austin attacked the business sustainability movement at large, claiming that despite over 20 years of ESG implementation, the manifestations of climate change are accelerating rather than slowing down.
What are the consequences?
As opposed to greenwashing, greenwishing is not based on intentional deception. However, continuing to promote aspirational measures after it’s been established that they are not effective can quickly lead to greenwashing – exposing companies to the same legal and reputational consequences.
Moreover, setting unrealistic targets and failing to track progress and adjust initiatives accordingly can cause both investors and the public to question a company’s real commitment to sustainability. As such, greenwishing can be a bad PR move that erodes public trust and weakens investors’ confidence.
Promoting your sustainability efforts without over or understating your commitment to the environment can be a delicate balancing act. That’s why at Pod, we advocate for a thoughtful, conscientious approach to green marketing as best practice. If you would like to know more about it, get in touch with our green marketing experts at https://marketingpod.com/contact.
N.B. The information contained in this entry is provided by the above supplier, and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher
