Understanding and Preventing Greenwash - Essay Example

Corporate greenwash is the use of spin in the advertisement and promotion of products and services to depict them as environmentally friendly. Being environment friendly became a social value in the late 20th century with growing concerns over carbon emissions and the probability of anthropocentric climate change because of human effluence. Corporations, as with most social ills, received the brunt of the blame for producing the pollutants that will inevitably lead to the unsustainability of current modes of living. Therefore, it became the strategy for corporations, even as early as the 1980s when the term “greenwashing” gained popular usage as a neologism to describe seedy corporate tactics, to advertise products as “green”, exploiting corporate social responsibility and corporate ethics as a means of promoting one’s products and services as more altruistic (or ethical) than those of competitors. From the perspective of the corporation, greenwashing is advantageous for those in one’s target market because it gives an additional selling point. Even if the greenwash is an exaggeration, rather than an outright lie, the marketing of that product is able to create a short- and long-term benefit scheme with which to sell the product. However, a corporation facing the accusation of greenwashing can quickly find itself in a public relations feud with environmental groups that are increasingly loud and vocal with those sympathetic with what it is trying to achieve. Additionally, because of the prevalence of greenwashing in American industries, it is likely environmental marketing groups like TerraChoice and ENN are set on making an example of demonizing corporations accused of greenwashing their products and services, due to the prevalence of the practice among primary competitors in most industries. Therefore, responding to an accusation of greenwashing from consumer or environmental interest groups is a tricky situation no corporation should underestimate, especially given the increasing weight the value of environmental sustainability is being given in the new “green economy”. What defines the concept of a greenwash, however, might befuddle some in-house marketers, advertisers, and public relations people for a loop both in understanding the nature of acceptable practices in product promotion and in the proper response to an accusation of such fraud. Irrefutably, the best way of preventing an accusation of an act is no consciously avoid committing such an act in the first place; but, of course, it is difficult consciously to avoid committing an act that one cannot define or describe. Therefore, in order to establish a framework within which to develop a contextually independent primary response to such an accusation, it is necessary primarily for a definition of a greenwash to materialise. To that end, it is also important to note the distinction between environmental policy statements and environmental policy implementation1. Perhaps this is why trust in advertising rests at an abysmal 13 per cent in a 2009 survey2. Seeing this distinction between what a company says it will do and what it actually does turns many customers into sceptics, and it is the sceptic’s tendency to begin seeing all of this company’s claims as potentially untrue. In a publication released by the Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), greenwash is defined as the misleading or unfounded dissemination of disinformation by an organization with the purpose of portraying itself or its products as environmentally responsible3. This definition emphasizes the role of intentionality in the dissemination of the disinformation; that is, what the corporation does when it is greenwashing is intentional as a matter of conforming to industry practice in the shift toward environmental responsibility. These shifts are being caused primarily by increasing consumer demands for responsible products, despite the economic downturn, and imminent government action and restriction on products that are not environmentally friendly. Therefore, to compensate, companies utilize fluffy language, images, comparisons, evidences, and outright lies to make up the difference. Greenwashing one’s products and services may type into any of the following four forms: (a) misguided, (b) greenwash noise, (c) effective environmental communications, and (d) unsubstantiated4. A misguided greenwash occurs when a company has made significant improvements to the greenness of their products, but are unable to communicate these changes effectively, so it relies on untrue generalizations to sell them. Greenwash noise is the use of green messaging to sell products even when there is little to support their claim. An unsubstantiated greenwash is the use of green branding to support the appeals; however, there are contradictions in the company’s efforts to support its green policies. Lastly, effective environmental communications is implementation of environmental policy and the successful communication. When it comes to accusations of greenwashing, customers will penalise a company, whether the accusations are true or untrue, with less demand. This is because the sceptic seeks evidence to support his sceptical and mistrustful image of corporate social responsibility claims made in the context of advertising and marketing5. Within the typing framework established previously, it is certainly conceivable one may cater a response to an accusation of greenwashing not only to the type of accusation made, but also to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the accusation based on an internal evaluation of marketing practices within one’s own firm6. Recognizing the environmental strengths and weaknesses of the firm’s products, and how those weaknesses are compensated for when the product is brought to market. Regardless, a change in corporate environmental policy implementation (not necessarily policy statements) is always compulsory when facing the charge of a greenwash. Depending on whether one’s internal review of marketing practices concludes the greenwash was (1) non-existent (that is, the accusation was itself false), (2) misguided, (3) noise, or (4) unsubstantiated, one can develop a plan of response to improving public relations with those customers who may lose faith in the environmental value of the product. If, upon review, the public relations representative for the company concludes the accusation of greenwashing is itself false, and the company’s product is actually doing what the advertisements say it is capable of doing environmentally, the literature on effective corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behaviour applies quite readily. Based on empirical results from corporate communication research, the most effective response to an accusation, true or untrue, is a concession: the giving into the accuser’s demands. Although this runs contrary to the instinct of executives’ general unwillingness, a concession avoids an argument with the sceptics, and shows the target market that the company is willing to take criticism in order to build better practices with respect to corporate responsibility. While this may negatively affect public relations for the corporation in the short-term, the long-term benefits of the concession outweigh stopgap and contrived alternative solutions7. Part of making concessions is a public reshaping of policy. While it is not always necessary to publically restructure a corporation’s environmental policy statements, such a restructure in usually necessary in implementation of these policies in order to improve public image. In the making of a concession to environmental groups, it is necessary for a corporation to do so with the full intention of staying true to the promises, for making a promise and then not following through upon that promise is more difficult for a corporation having already been accused of greenwashing. Public relations representatives and in-house marketers thus ought to work together to reformulate the greenwashing strategies when they contemplate how to market the product to consumers. If the accusation of greenwashing was unfounded to begin with, and a concession remains the most optimal response, this process of revising corporate policy implementation should entail minimal restructuring costs. If the corporate public relations representative concludes the accusation of greenwashing is based upon the use of actually misguided claims, then the damage done by the accusation is not severe. In most cases, the use of misguided greenwashing should be identified within an organization before an accusation from an external stakeholder or other agency is made. This is because misguided greenwash usually relies on oversimplified and vague generalisations that lack data to support claims of “environmental friendliness” or other appeals to greenness. By deriving data that actually corroborates the claim that the corporation and its products actually are what they say they are, the company still has a chance to move toward effective environmental communications before a public relations situation is created. Ridding the promotion of products with misguided promotion may be accomplished by changing both policy statements and implementations8: the former with respect to a more specific, targeted claim instead of a vague clam, and the latter with respect to more investment in research to determine whether the product actually is what the marketing department say it is, if such data does not already exist. If the corporate public relations representative concludes the accusation of greenwashing is based upon the use of noise, then responding to an accusation of greenwashing is a matter of evaluating both the company’s impacts through the value chain, developing and implementing an effective environmental strategy, and communicating these changes to the target market (BSR, p. 4). Greenwash noise is likely the result of green appeals in the marketing policies of almost all common consumer products. A 2007 study of commonly advertised consumer discretionary goods found that more than 99% of environmental claims made were guilty of making misleading or deceptive green marketing9. Such supersaturation of so many consumer goods markets creates the opportunity for marketers to create artificial claims and thus makes it difficult for those corporations with legitimate claims to rise above the noise. In terms of issue management and organizational accounts, it is critical for corporations caught within this noisy environment and accused of making a false appeal to engage in an open dialogue with the public. This kind of communication, through the noise, actually may present an opportunity for the corporation in how it chooses to respond to the accusation. By meeting the demands of the protesters, in addition to making its own claims about the accusation, the corporation may effectively engage in brand differentiation through the process of restructuring its environmental policy statements and its environmental policy implementation, and become known as an innovator in the implementation of environmentally responsible practices within its industry10. This, of course, requires substantial changes to invest in research developing new ways of making the product environmentally friendly, if such data does not exist, and presenting this data as a kind of progress report to the public. Like with misleading greenwashing, greenwashing noise requires a close affiliation with the public that may, in the interest of making concessions, yield long-term benefits for corporate public relations. If the corporate public relations representative concludes the accusation of greenwashing is based upon the deliberate use of unsubstantiated claims, then the indictment of corporate fraud in the public image is the most damaging. That is, not only has the corporation lied about being socially- and environmentally-responsible, it has done so in a scheming fashion, giving more credibility to the sceptics who will continue to doubt a corporation’s future green appeals, whether true or not. When accused with ethics violations, executives choose either (a) denial, (b) excuse, (c) justification, or (d) concession in a four-category typology, where (c) is by far the most common11. The use of justification seeks to establish the legitimacy of the organization’s disputed policies; nevertheless, justifying the use of deliberately misleading marketing tactics, especially when the corporation perhaps lobbies against environmental policies or devotes more resources to green communication than green policy implementation, is not an effective response to the complaint of greenwash. A corporation must restructure both its environmental policy statements and its environmental policy implementation, aligning the two in a way geared toward repairing public relations damage done by the previous inconsistency between its marketing message and its actual business priorities. This realignment encompasses the use of concession by executives, even when it may seem that in most cases justification is the most proper response. The advent of greenwashing is the inevitable result of a global normative shift toward the value of environmentally friendly products. However, this has created a greenwashing noise across all industries that both threatens and advantages some companies for creating a new, ethical brand identity12. Indeed, actions speak louder than words in the corporate world, especially when trying to appeal to an ever more sceptic target audience. Bibliography Balmer, J. and E.R. Gray. “Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a competitive advantage.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 4:4 (1999): 173-177. Bradford, J.L. & D.E. Garrett. “The Effectiveness of Corporate Communicative Responses to Accusations of Unethical Behavior.” Journal of Business Ethics 14:11 (1995): 875-892. Edelman. 2009 Trust Barometer 2009. edelman.com/TRUST/2009. Fan, Y. “Ethical branding and corporate reputation.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10:4 (2005): 341-350. D.E. Garrett, J.L. Bradford, R.A. Meyers, and J. Becker. “Issues management and organizational accounts: An analysis of corporate responses to accusations of unethical business practices.” Journal of Business Ethics 8:7 (1989): 507-520. Horiuchi, R., R. Schuchard, L. Shea, & S. Townsend, Understanding and Preventing Greenwash: Business Guide (London: BSR / Futerra Sustainability Communications, 2009). Lewis, S., “Measuring corporate reputation,” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6:1 (2001): 31-35. Prakash, A. Greening the Firm: The Politics of Corporate Environmentalism. Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2000. Ramus, C. A. and I. Montiel. “When Are Corporate Environmental Policies a Form of Greenwashing.” Business Society 44:377 (2005): 377-414. P. Schaefer. The Six Sins of Greenwashing - Misleading Claims Found in Many Products December 3, 2007. ENN. http://www.enn.com/green_building/article/26388 (accessed March 18, 2010). Read More