Green credentials tested
The word greenwashing has risen from a rarely used word to one in common usage today. What does it mean?
In common parlance, greenwashing is widely understood to be the exaggeration of a company’s environmental credentials or to put it more crudely bigging up such credentials through marketing spin or media hype.
There are, however, three specific categories of greenwashing identified by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), the consultancy and business network whose actions are founded on creating a world in which all people can thrive on a healthy planet. These three categories of greenwashing sit around the base line of Effective Environmental Communications as can be seen in Table 1.
|
CATEGORY #1: EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS |
Effective communication and good environmental value |
Sustainability is built into a business’s strategy and core mission statement. Every organisational process and operation is considered, challenged, and improved to reduce an entity’s environmental and social impact. Efforts and successes are then communicated accurately using an evidence-based approach to back claims made. These brands operate as green leaders. |
|
CATEGORY #2: MISGUIDED GREENWASH |
Poor communication, some environmental value |
In this instance, corporate greenwash is not used intentionally but is rather the result of ineffective communication that undermines the substantial efforts made to improve a company’s environmental performance. Most often, misguided greenwash includes the use of sweeping generalisations, using terms such as natural, eco, or environmentally friendly with the absence of data to back these statements up. A revised communication strategy is needed here to deliver data-driven and focused marketing messages. |
|
CATEGORY #3: GREENWASH NOISE |
Poor communication, poor environmental value |
These are companies who try to shout louder than their competitors about how green they already are. These brands spend more time and money presenting themselves as green relative to the actual time and money spent on making a change and becoming more sustainable. Much work needs to be done to move these brands into the Effective Environmental Communications category, but this is possible by: 1. Addressing the brand’s environmental impact through the value chain. 2. Developing and implementing an effective environmental strategy. 3. Communicating environmental efforts accurately using a scientific, data-driven approach. 4. Achieving third-party certification. |
|
CATEGORY #4: UNSUBSTANTIATED GREENWASH |
Effective communication disguises poor environmental value |
These brands are involved in positive environmental projects and provide data to back up their claims. However, these claims mask a company’s damaging environmental impacts. Brands that fall into this category cause the most harm to the environment because their behaviour could lead to public disillusionment and disengagement from the environmental debate. |
DOSE OF SCEPTICISM
The categories shown in Table 1 very effectively cover the whole spectrum of greenwashing and perhaps even more significantly signpost a certain lack of real commitment to achieving decarbonisation efforts against an agreed timeline.
It is then not so surprising that a large dose of scepticism about companies’ Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) credentials was identified as one of the key findings of a recent UK survey of the subject among 2072 business leaders, entrepreneurs and marketing professionals. Specifically, key findings were:
- More than a third (36 per cent) said that messages supporting ESG credentials had “no effect” on them whatsoever.
- Seventeen per cent said they questioned the validity of ESG claims made by businesses.
- Just 16 per cent said that they look more favourably on those who regularly share updates on their environmental and social responsibility initiatives.
The survey’s originators Bath-based Clearly PR, notes: “…the extent to which many businesses are talking about their ESG credentials has become frenzied.” And that: “This is clearly alienating many customers…” plus “There is, it seems, too much banging on the green and purpose drum and there is evidence to suggest that customers view excessive ESG communications as hyperbole rather than authentic. As such, in many cases, they have either become immune to the ESG messaging emanating from businesses or destring of their validity.”
Related Articles
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS