In today’s environmentally-conscious world, communicating a corporate message of sustainability can be incredibly beneficial to a brand. While a company should communicate its notable progress toward sustainability, it should be mindful of “greenwashing.” In our last couple posts, we have taken a look at specific instances of greenwashing here and here. Today we hope to give more examples and the define of greenwash.

Greenwash, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is “disinformation disseminated by an organization, etc., so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.” The term greenwashing was coined by environmentalists to describe the deceitful efforts companies had undertaken to portray a good environmental image. Companies used to (and often still do) run ads after incidents like oil spills, plant explosions, or chemical dumping to appear environmentally conscious and reduce brand damage. The term originally was specific to these advertising efforts, but as companies have diversified efforts to appear environmentally virtuous, the definition of greenwashing has expanded. Now, everything from corporate reporting, distribution of educational information, and donations to non-profits or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) could be greenwashing. Nonetheless, the intent of greenwashing tactics for any of these activities is the same: to appear ecologically friendly.

Unfortunately, greenwash is in many ways a subjective term. People often cannot describe what a commercial containing greenwash looks like, but most know it when they see it. Websites like the Greenwashing Index, jointly promoted by EnviroMedia Social Marketing and The University of Oregon, allow users to upload, rate, and discuss the level of greenwash in each particular ad. Users can rate ads from one to five; one meaning they believe the ad is authentic, and five to denote that it’s “bogus.” Some examples users uploaded to the site include:

• Ortho ecosense Brand Outdoor Insect Killer–It says right on the bottle “not intended to imply environmental safety…” but the green spray nozzle, ecosense brand name, and green lettering on a nice light blue background sure do imply “green.”
• A print ad by Royal Dutch Shell showing flowers emanating from smoke stacks. This ad received an average rating of 4.6 from Greenwashing Index users. User ddickison of Charlston, South Carolina said, “Can’t read the fine print, but it’s difficult to imagine how any text can explain away the improbability of smokestacks emitting flowers.”
• A commercial for a Toyota Prius, which certainly evokes “feel good” emotions, is misleading in saying that the Prius is harmony between man, nature, and machine. Also misleading are the endless fields of flowers blooming and grass growing as the Prius drives by, as if to say that the car makes nature happy.  See for yourself:

Regardless of how guilty these companies are of greenwashing, the ads were selected by consumers as examples of greenwash. And in the end what really matters is whether or not the customer believes the company is being genuine. If an oil company spends a ridiculously small amount of money on developing renewable energy, but spends all its advertising budget on patting itself on the back, consumers are going to recognize that and add it to sites like the greenwashing index. A car company who puts a tremendous amount of money advertising its hybrid, but produces more pickup trucks in a month then hybrids in a year may not actually be the “greenest” car company on the planet. True green comes from actually being green, not just advertising green.

Most companies are getting “slightly less damaging to the environment” and “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “sustainable” confused. Many consumers are watching companies greenwash, and are beginning to respond negatively. Greenwashing can seriously damage a brand, and cause consumers to lose what little trust they have of companies. However, those who communicate a message of sustainability in a straightforward and effective manner are being rewarded. We’ll bring you more on the effects of greenwashing and why it’s so important next week. In the meantime, take a look at ads in your industry, and let us know if you spot vague or misleading claims.

Sprint and Samsung have launched what the two companies are calling an “eco-friendly” cell phone. Samsung’s phone, the Reclaim, does boast some environmental improvements over other phones, namely:

• Made from 80 percent recyclable materials (not to be confused with recycled materials)
• 40 percent of the phone’s outer casing is made from bio-plastic derived from corn
• Is free of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), phthalates, and nearly free of brominated flame retardants (BFR)
• Outer packing and inside the box phone tray are made from 70 percent recycled materials
• Images and text on the box and phone warranty are printed with soy-based ink
• Phone’s paper manual has been replaced with a virtual manual
• Phone charger meets the highest energy efficiency standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and comes with a visual indicator of when the phone is fully charged

Samsung and Sprint deserve credit where credit is due. The Reclaim is certainly environmentally-friendlier than most cell phones, and Sprint is working on some sustainability initiatives that are important and noteworthy. But to say that this cell phone is eco-friendly as Omar Khan, senior vice president of Strategy and Product Management for Samsung Mobile, did is a stretch.

Samsung Reclaim is more than just an eco-friendly device, it’s also a powerful and stylish phone that’s easy-to-use. When you combine the Reclaim’s impressive feature set with its bio-plastic hardware and eco-friendly packaging, you’re using a phone that is good for you and the environment.

A home compost pile is good for the environment. Planting a tree is good for the environment. A cell phone manufactured across the world with precious metals like copper, nickel, gold, palladium, plastics, lead, mercury, cadmium, and other hard to dispose of inner materials is not. Yes, using corn based packaging and recycled boxes are a nice touch. So is removing certain harmful additives like PVCs, most of the BFRs, and donating two dollars from every phone to the Nature Conservatory. Just because the phone contains 80 percent recyclable material, does not make it good for the environment. Plastic soda bottles made from oil are 100 percent recyclable, and 100 percent unfriendly to the environment. If the plastic bottles were made from 100 percent recycled material, you might be able to get away with saying that they’re eco-friendly. Saying something is “X” amount recyclable is misleading as a claim for being an eco-friendly product.

We realize there are business and technological limitations to creating a cell phone that is good for the environment. However, consumers understand that technical limitations exist, and do not expect companies to create products that are not profitable. Consumers will not forgive a company they see as misleading, or not forthright. The cute butterfly and animated ear of corn on the Sprint web page, and the word “eco” emanating from a leaf on the back of this green colored device seem a bit like examples of misleading marketing.

Companies should be encouraged to discuss green initiatives with consumers. We recommend that accomplishments are highlighted in a straightforward manner. If a company wishes to share its green initiatives with the public in a non-misleading way, we encourage it to do so. We’ll even help. For example, Sprint is implementing some very important and effective sustainable initiatives such as:

• Recycle 50 percent of operational waste from commercial facilities by 2017
• Transitioning to using 10 percent renewable energy by 2017
• Significantly increase phone recycling efforts (which is a tremendously important task)

Samsung for its part deserves a nod for producing a slightly more eco-friendly cell phone. However, producing a greener device, and one that is “good for the environment” or “eco-friendly” are two very different things. While this device is certainly a step in the right direction, efforts should be made to market the product appropriately.

Do you believe the new Reclaim is an eco-friendly phone, or do you agree with us that this is another case of greenwashing?

Sustainability is today’s corporate buzzword, and everyone’s new favorite marketing tool. However, if your company is making unsubstantiated claims about how environmentally friendly your products are, beware the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Four companies found this out the hard way last week when the FTC charged them with violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, also known as the Textile Act. The companies, Jonäno, Mad Mod, Pure Bamboo, and Bamboosa, had claimed that their products were made with 100 percent bamboo fiber, and were touting the antimicrobial and biodegradable benefits of their garments. According to the FTC, the fibers are little more than rayon, which “…is a man-made fiber created from the cellulose found in plants and trees and processed with a harsh chemical that releases hazardous air pollutants. Any plant or tree could be used as the cellulose source—including bamboo—but the fiber that is created is rayon.”

Though the companies charged with making false claims may have produced the rayon using cellulose from bamboo, the process of turning cellulose into rayon would dissolve the bamboo plant material and nullify any natural antimicrobial benefits. Additionally, rayon is not a biodegradable fabric, so the advertising claims of the offending companies are misleading and inaccurate.

Professor of Textile Engineering at Philadelphia University, Chris Pastore says, “Bamboo is a natural candidate for greenwashed claims. It bears a physical resemblance to flax, the plant used to make linen through a simple process that leaves its natural fibers largely intact. Flax looks like a reed and bamboo looks like a giant reed. People imagine it’s the same process. But to make rayon, bamboo or any cellulose source it is typically ground up, dissolved and process into a viscous liquid with chemicals such as the highly toxic carbon disulfide. It is much more energy intensive and much more polluting.” Pastore states.”

Of the four companies labeled in the charges brought by the FTC, three have settled, agreeing to cease their “false” advertising. In this new era of green claims, consumers need to be able to trust that the products they purchase are indeed environmentally friendly. The FTC has issued a consumer alert, “Have you been bamboozled” to educate and provide information to consumers on why these bamboo claims are inaccurate.

The FTC is clearly sending a message to companies; they should be prepared to authenticate their environmental claims. If a company cannot, they run the risk of being labeled a “greenwasher” and losing any environmental credibility they might have had. In our next post, we will examine how to prevent greenwash, thereby avoiding the FTC’s scrutiny, and helping to retain environmentally conscious consumers.

Photo credit: telmo32 / flickr

This is World Water Week in Stockholm, where the goal is to raise awareness around access to water as development and climate stress an already limited resource. As water scarcity continues to gain attention, so should the companies actively working to reduce their water footprint.

Kraft Foods is a recent example of a company making a big splash in the news for using less water. They have managed to reduce their water use by three billion gallons in the past three years, and have exceeded their water reduction goal two years early.  As Steve Yucknut, vice president of sustainability, says:

We’re changing behavior and getting results. Around the world, thousands of our employees are working on projects that help us reduce our environmental impact. We focus on manufacturing, since that’s where we use the most water for internal operations. And we pay particular attention to water-scarce areas, where the need is greatest.

Here is a company who appears to really understand the risks posed by water scarcity, and has taken steps to mitigate those risks. As we look at some of the programs Kraft has implemented, what is impressive is how effective small changes like fixing leaks, reusing water, rethinking cleaning processes, and developing closed loop systems have been in generating major reductions in water use. These changes have been so effective Kraft shrank its water use 21 percent since 2005.

Not only are they saving water, but improving inefficient machinery, infrastructure, and processes lead directly to cost savings. For example, in their Atlanta, Georgia bakery, employees reduced the amount of water used for cleaning specific equipment and also eliminated unnecessary re-cleaning of equipment. Thus increasing the number of line production hours.

We believe every company can and should review their water, source material, and energy needs. By ensuring that we conserve, even abundant resources, we create a more competitive business and a better planet. Is your business creating a sustainability program? We’d love to share ideas, technologies, and programs from organizations large and small.

For more about Kraft Food’s sustainability program, which includes details on how they’re making progress on reducing CO2, solid waste, and energy use, see their Better World website.

So far this week we have written about one company implementing sustainable practices to increase productivity and save money, and another company pledging sustainable practices after a public campaign against them. Today to round out our theme of corporate moves toward sustainability, we focus on a company rising to a challenge.

zero impact challenge, 2009

Patagonia, a company known in their industry for good environmental practices, has taken on a challenge from Backpacker Magazine to produce a backpacking boot with the least environmental impact. The Zero Impact Challenge, as Backpacker Magazine calls it, both inspires companies to reevaluate and redesign their products, and creates more environmentally friendly products.

In prior years, the Zero Impact Challenge has taken on producing lower impact backpacks and sleeping bags, but for 2009, the challenge has shifted to the hiking boot. Patagonia Footwear has decided that, as part of their effort in taking on this task, they will act transparently, providing sketches, letters, videos, and findings during the development process. Throughout, TreeHugger is going to be closely watching and reporting on the progress.

ecotone

Working on the challenge for Patagonia will be Clark Matis, founder of Merrell and technical designer for Patagonia Footwear, Robin Cheu, a production specialist from China, and JDK Design working on creative development. Together, they have created the Ecotone concept as a guide to manage the different components of inventing a low impact hiking boot. According to TreeHugger, the team will focus on:

• Fit: support, flex, variable volume, heel hold, and toe room
• Protection: stability, traction, durability, critical protection points, and cushioning
• Efficiency: light weight and optimized energy transfer
• Climate Control: fast drying, waterproof, vented, breathable, and temperature regulating
• Clean Design: “nothing more than is necessary”

Backpacker Magazine will accept prototype submissions in September. Patagonia plans to continue development with the goal of introducing an entire footwear collection in the spring 2011.

I for one plan on buying the winning pair of hiking boots both to support the  company’s hard work, and to test the end product on the stunning trails of the Colorado Front Range.