Capitalising on eco-anxiety: inside the world of ‘greenwashing’

Vera (Year 13) looks at the issues surrounding ‘greenwashing’ – where false or misleading claims about the eco- friendly nature of a product are made to support sales.

 

Have you ever been enticed by rough brown packaging or images of green fields and butterflies while shopping? It’s only natural to be lured by the green statements on packaging such as ‘all natural’ or ‘eco-friendly’. But have you ever stopped to think about what these statements truly mean?

It is easy to paint a company as ‘eco-friendly’ with a skilled hand in marketing and an assumption that the consumer will not look into the claims plastered on their advertisements. This is terribly harmful for the environment and is summarised by a term known as ‘greenwashing’.

Greenwashing is the practice of a company making claims about its environmental impact that are either misleading or false; a commercial sleight of hand to distract its eco-conscious consumers from its true environmental impact. The term was coined by Jay Westerveld in 1983 while he was on a student research trip to Samoa. He had stopped by Fiji to surf and while sneaking into the Beachcomber resort to steal fresh towels, he saw a note to costumers telling them to refuse new towels to protect the local reefs. He found the claim ironic since the resort was currently expanding into local ecosystems but had painted itself as environmentally conscious. Westerveld and a fellow student later wrote an essay in a literary magazine and gave a name to the resort’s practice. The term was picked up in the Oxford English dictionary by the year 2000.

It would be best to explain greenwashing with an example. One early case is that of DuPont in 1989. DuPont is an American chemicals company – previously the world’s largest in terms of sales. A 1989 advertising campaign announced new double-hulled oil tankers. The ad sees clapping dolphins and other marine animals in a crystal blue sea with Beethoven’s Ode to Joy playing in the background as they claim to be ‘safeguarding the environment’. This was all while DuPont was the single largest corporate polluter in the United States.

To give a more recent example (and my personal favourite) we have H&M, a popular Swedish fast fashion brand. The company launched their ‘H&M Conscious’ campaign in 2010 and it has continued to develop ever since. Some of their products now sport a green tag to signal that they are sustainably sourced. To qualify for this special tag, the garment must contain at least 50% sustainable material, such as organic cotton or recycled polyester. They make an exception for recycled cotton, of which only 20% must be used for the green tag, due to quality restraints. H&M also has a textile collection programme in many of its stores. If you donate clothes to the collection bin you are eligible for a £5 voucher on your next purchase of £25 or more at H&M. All of this makes H&M look like the posterchild of fast fashion looking to make a positive environmental impact. But the company makes these claims whilst maintaining 52 micro-seasons per year, perpetuating the cycle of fast fashion. Most of the clothes it takes in for donation at not recycled but instead sent to developing countries without the infrastructure to deal with toxic waste. The £5 voucher incentive merely encourages more consumerism and more wastage of fabrics and other resources. Its green tag clothing has a fairly low baseline but since few consumers are going to look into detail at the material of their clothing it serves as a successful flag for do-good shoppers. I see H&M not as the posterchild for eco-conscious fast fashion, but as the posterchild of greenwashing.

Lastly, we have the ethical greenwashers. Fiji Water sells expensive bottled water in Instagram-friendly packaging. One particular ad campaign used the voice of a young girl saying “Fiji water is gift from nature to us, to repay our gift of leaving it completely alone. Bottled at the source, untouched by man. It’s Earth’s finest water”. Beautiful choral music plays in the background as images of grand green mountains and lush forests pan across the screen. These claims are made despite plastics taking many hundreds of years to degrade and ignoring the carbon emissions impact of shipping water from Fiji across the world. Adding to this, the WHO states that 47% of Fijians don’t have access to clean, safe drinking water. The brand’s story appeals to their customer’s moral conscious that allows – nay encourages – them to buy bottled water. Yet Fiji does not show the consumer the devastating lack of access to drinking water across the Fiji islands.

And why would they? It would hardly be an effective business model to say to your customers: ‘buy this clothing – even though you are effectively burning through the Amazon by doing so’ or ‘buy our water – even though most of Fiji can’t drink it’. Greenwashing works. By the early 1990s, polling showed that companies’ environmental records influenced the majority of consumer purchases. A 2015 Nielsen poll showed that 66% of global consumers were willing to pay more for environmentally sustainable products. Amongst millennials, the percentage rose to 72%.

Making changes to reduce the environmental impact of consumer products is always a good thing – even if they are small changes. I support H&M’s campaign to use more recycled fabrics. I believe that if DuPont’s double-hulled oil tankers truly reduced the environmental damage they made on a continued basis, then they should absolutely go ahead with the idea.

What becomes dangerous, however, is when these companies take to social media feeds and billboards to boast their incredible environmental achievements. It is dangerous because it only encourages the consumer to purchase more of the damaging product, offsetting any improvements they may have made. It is also misleading to the busy customer who does not have the time or resources to look into every environmental claim a company makes. Innumerable people have willingly spent more on what they assume to be eco-friendly products, when their claims could be entirely baseless.

Greenwashing often comes with noble intents. But the consequences may not always be noble. It is important to remain wary as a consumer of the potential motives of a company when you hear eco-jargon. It is even more important for the companies themselves to hold themselves accountable for the claims they make about their environmental impact. Greenwashing is a dangerous habit, but can easily be defeated with transparency and a little research.

 


Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/20/greenwashing-environmentalism-lies-companies

https://www.goingzerowaste.com/blog/how-to-tell-if-youre-being-greenwashed

Greenwashing: A Fiji Water Story

What price quality?

Photo: David Levenson
Rachel Brewster, Director of Marketing & Communications at WHS, looks at the challenges of how we engage with the news in the digital age.

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.”
Thomas Jefferson

“Gradually I came to realise that people will more readily swallow lies than truth, as if the taste of lies was honey, appetizing, a habit.”
Martha Gellhorn

The great American journalist and war reporter Martha Gellhorn reported on virtually every major conflict of a 60-year career. But she did not live to report on the age of the internet. What would she make of “alternative truths”, the polarisation and poisoning of debate and the resurgence of propaganda that those of us who eagerly embraced the possibility and promise of the world wide web now bewilderingly ponder? Would she understand news as a commodity, freely available in bite-sized digital chunks over a 24/7 news cycle with “consumers” self-selecting what to read and hear within ever narrower echo chambers, largely unregulated and poorly challenged?

With the digital revolution, the ‘what’ of the news is only ever seconds away, via live streaming, through a myriad of news and social feeds, or indeed in the tweets of a certain president. There is little time for the ‘why’ and the ‘how’, and the absence of context – and, too often the propagation of downright lies – have fragmented public discourse. As our Rosewell Lecturer Tim Marshall reminded us in school recently, the direct and indirect consequences of this fragmentation can be seen from divided America to the gilets jaunes, from Brexit to authoritarian Hungary.

This is not to say that digital-first news has to be inferior to a nostalgic idea of ‘Fleet Street’. Indeed, the traditional ‘old’ press has seen rapidly declining circulation figures, advertisers taking their business to online providers and the slashing of editorial budgets. Fewer journalists cover ever more stories and quality has often suffered as a result. Highlighting the shortcomings of ‘digital-first’ news is not about ‘the scourge of the internet’ or wanting to turn back the clock. But pushed to the brink and with Jefferson’s words ringing out, the stakes have finally become too high:  governments are looking to readdress the balance, regulate and hold Facebook, Google and others to account.

Market forces can and are acting more quickly than governments. Investors who had poured money into some of the newer kids on the block, such as BuzzFeed and Vice, amidst the hype for what they would represent, are now backing off, with the realisation that selling the news is not an easy money-maker. Multinationals that moved so much of their advertising spend to digital platforms have started to baulk at their brands being compromised by the positioning of an ad against inappropriate content online. Digital-first news organisations are being forced to restructure or consolidate in order to cut costs.

“A chill has gripped the once hot digital media sector, with companies formerly lauded as the future of news laying off staff and cutting costs to stay afloat.”
Anna Nicolaou and Patricia Nisson, FT

Meanwhile, newspapers that themselves underwent seismic changes to embrace digital (in a dual print and online offering) have started to resurrect themselves. They are winning back some of the advertisers they lost. They have campaigned hard to grow their online readership. The New York Times (4 million) and Washington Post (1 million plus) have dramatically increased their subscriptions; here in the UK, The Times announced in July that it had half a million digital subscribers. Even the Guardian, which has eschewed a subscription model and opted for a ‘supporter’ model instead, announced in its year end accounts last year that it was on track to break even this year, after years of staring into the financial abyss.

Reuters Digital Report Graph 2018
Source: Reuters Digital Report 2018

How else are quality newspapers trying to shift the tide?

Economies of scale

  • News UK (which publishes The Telegraph, amongst other titles) and longstanding rivals the Guardian News and Media group have joined forces to allow advertisers to spend across their digital titles in one go, making significant savings and winning back custom.
  • The most extensive example of investigative journalism in recent years – the Panama Papers (revealing the financial dealings of nefarious international figures and companies) – came about as a result of a collaboration of over 100 media partners, sharing resources and expertise, as well as costs. This sort of investigative journalism, involving months of research, would otherwise barely be possible.

Marketing

  • Live events are big business and they have helped fuel international growth. The FT in particular has a strong global brand that sees it fill conferences across the world; the Guardian runs courses and lectures from King’s Place; alongside talks, merchandise and other spin-offs are ever more common in the drive for subscriber acquisition and retention.
  • In-house press officers have long helped publicise stories from the newsroom, aiming for take-up across broadcast media and wider online channels. Marketing teams are now bigger, with news organisations making strategic appointments to spearhead engagement.

Focusing on comment

  • Comment pages have grown in both their print and online offerings. Misinformation and erosion of trust have led many readers back to traditional brands for commentary on what to make of unprecedented political events.

“[Trump’s] presidency has created an urgency around news that has made old-fashioned journalism more in vogue then it has been probably since Watergate.”
The Economist

What price quality - Reuters Digital Report 2018 graph
Source: Reuters Digital Report 2018

Normalising the paywall

  • The way that ‘mainstream media’ has been dismissed for propagating ‘fake news’, all the while that mis-practice and international interference in elections is being investigated has of course galvanised readers, perhaps more than any campaign. (Though this powerful NYT campaign is worth a look and for an in-depth understanding of journalism in action, watch Reporting Trump’s First Year.) There has been a growing realisation that something we previously took for granted is not free. That news reporting with integrity and depth, which challenges our understanding of the world and holds politicians, business people and society to account is a craft of great value.

“Journalism is all about telling people about other people. It’s a craft dedicated to explaining how the world goes round, what is shaping our lives…”
Gillian Tett, FT

Reuters Digital Report 2018 graph
Source: Reuters Digital Report 2018

“News is an industry in transition, not in decline… The quality press has staged a remarkable resurrection.” 
John Micklethwait, Bloomberg Businessweek

Yet it remains a precarious time for journalists and the media organisations that employ them. As educators, we have an important role to play. We will continue to foster news literacy through our  Futureproof programme (run by our Director of Innovation and Digital Learning) and in lessons and co-curricular activities that interrogate the news. We give as many opportunities as possible to our girls to practise student journalism – whether it’s writing or editing the brilliant Unconquered Peaks, last year’s GDST student magazine Wave (spearheaded by WHS girls) or the monthly stories coming out of the Young Reporters Scheme and published in the local press online, championed by our English department. The Head’s challenge is for us to set reading a newspaper as homework – the logical next step.

And as global citizens, we now must all answer the question: What price are we willing to pay to protect quality news-gathering? So next time you’re looking for a birthday present, buy a (digital or non) subscription for a quality newspaper and spread the word.

 “If we don’t hold them accountable, who will?
We can’t hold them accountable if we don’t have a newspaper.”
(From the film The Post)

Rachel Brewster
Director of Marketing & Communications

Sources and further reading / watching:

http://www.digitalnewsreport.org
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/31/national-newspapers-in-uk-enjoy-first-print-advertising-rise-since-2010-research-finds
https://www.economist.com/business/2017/10/26/how-leading-american-newspapers-got-people-to-pay-for-news
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-03/john-micklethwait-the-future-of-news
https://www.politico.com/media/story/2015/05/the-60-second-interview-gillian-tett-us-managing-editor-financial-times-003775
https://techonomy.com/2017/03/whatever-happened-to-the-internets-promise/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8lfhc – Reporting Trump’s First Year: The Fourth Estate
https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/15/facebook-invest-local-newsrooms/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/technology/two-months-news-newspapers.html
https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/pages/panama-papers-about-the-investigation/ 
Columns by Simon Kuper at FT.com