Demystifying GreenWashing, GreenHushing & GreenWishing

Just when you thought you had a handle on sustainability terminology, a trio of terms known as the 'three greens' emerges, causing a fair share of perplexity among the public. Let's delve into each one to demystify the concepts of greenwashing, greenwishing, and greenhushing.

Picture a mirage in the desert of environmental responsibility. Greenwashing is the art of adorning products, services, or companies with misleading or exaggerated environmental claims. It's akin to a fa?ade that attempts to make something appear more sustainable than it truly is. From vague eco-friendly claims to selective emphasis on minor green aspects while ignoring larger environmental impacts, greenwashing deceives consumers and obscures the reality behind a product or organization.

Let us see some examples

1. Starbucks’ ‘More Sustainable’ Straw-Less Lid

As part of a sustainability drive to reduce waste sent to landfills, Starbucks released a “straw-less” lid that offered consumers an open-faced plastic lid instead of the traditional version of its takeaway cup that featured a disposable straw.?Starbucks’ Chief Sustainability Officer said?that “recyclable, strawless lids for customers across the US and Canada is another step in our journey to reduce our environmental footprint.”?

The only problem? The new lid contained more plastic than the old lid and straw combination. The company noted that the new lid was made with polypropylene, a material that could be recycled. However, critics flagged that?only 9% of the world’s plastic is reportedly recycled, meaning that this change would likely result in more plastic being sent to landfills.?

2. H&M Conscious Collection

The fast fashion industry is notorious for its environmental impact, so a level of greenwashing is to be expected there. But you might be surprised at the sheer amount of greenwash that was revealed in a 2021 report from the Changing Markets Foundation.

They looked at clothing from major high-street fashion brands to check the truthfulness of their sustainability claims and found 60% of claims overall were misleading. That’s bad but?H&M were found to be the worst offenders with a shocking 96% of their claims not holding up.

Put simply, virtually all of the Scandinavian Fashion Giant’s claims were designed to trick people concerned about their environmental impact into buying. So, the next time you consider buying from a major retailer like H&M because of imprecise green-tinged language like ‘conscious’, reconsider. The percentages say we’re likely being lied to.

3. HSBC

According to lots of credible sources, the?world’s biggest banks are funding the climate crisis, mainly through investments with a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions – especially fossil fuels.

HSBC ranks?13th for the top banks financing fossil fuels in the UK. And still finances carbon-heavy industries like thermal coal mining. Yet, a bit of progress in greenwashing awareness was seen when 45 people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that HSBC’s advertisements were misleading. The offending ads were then banned but you can still see them in the image above.

HSBC argued that they’re financing many of these industries to help them eventually transition to net zero, and it would be impractical to terminate funding. But while they highlighted their climate-friendly initiatives in their adverts, they failed to mention their considerable contribution to the climate crisis at the same time – an?estimated $8.7 billion into new oil and gas in 2021. It’s an environmental nuance that was absent in the ads – and that, our friends, is greenwashing.

An irony of all this is that the day before the adverts were banned, HSBC were running workshops on how to spot and deal with greenwashing. They might need to take their own advice…

GREENHUSHING

Imagine the sound of a gentle breeze quietly whispering about hidden environmental initiatives. Greenhushing occurs when positive environmental actions or initiatives are deliberately concealed or downplayed by companies or organizations. First proposed by the firm Treehugger, Greenhushing entails reducing external communication about climate commitments to avoid critique for failing short on them and extends to those doing legitimate sustainability performance improvements. It is the result of both the heavy criticism directed at climate-claims as well as a lack of aligned methodologies and governmental guidance on an industry-wide framework.

So how can brands avoid greenhushing?

• Be transparent.?Little steps are appreciated, if customers can see that actions within a company are genuine and not contradicting. For example, if you’re a small business, don’t worry about not having enough means for a big certification like B Corp. There are other ways to show true sustainability off: try a behind-the-scenes, be transparent about your supply chain, or show how your business is circular.
• Admit imperfection.?Some brands deserve criticism. But others should be confident enough to talk the walk if there aren’t any fair reasons for major backlash, while also admitting imperfection. Yearly sustainability reports that admit faults and describe meaningful improvements can help.
• Let the laws do the talking.?Stricter laws against greenwashing are coming but they should only punish those who are actually greenwashing. If that’s not you, then don’t be stricken by panic and retreat into a shell.
• Choose your partners carefully.?A good agency, for example, should know how to communicate sustainability and avoid the pitfalls of either greenwashing or greenhushing. Quite a few of the most egregious?greenwashing cases?have been committed by clumsy marketing teams that don’t know the area.

Greenwishing

Perhaps the most emergent term, ‘greenwishing’ was?coined by?Duncan Austin in a 2019 essay. It's like tossing a coin into a fountain, making a wish for sustainability without any tangible follow-through. Greenwishing is the act of expressing desires or intentions to be environmentally friendly without taking concrete action. This is a realm of empty promises, grand aspirations, and lofty rhetoric without the substance to back it up. It involves using vague language and making sweeping commitments without any real plans or efforts to create meaningful change.

Whilst the last couple of decades have seen an influx in dialogues, commitments and people taking up chief sustainability officer roles at companies, in practice, real-world environmental metrics are progressively worsening at unprecedented rates. Greenwishing is the failure of sustainability efforts to materially contribute to climate change mitigation. Ultimately, Austin concludes that we must advocate for policy change and form alliances to achieve the necessary?systemic change.

It is?believed that?well-intentioned greenwishing can quickly digress into greenwashing when leaders establish that their aspirational measures will likely not materialise into substantive climate change mitigation. Continuing to promote these measures is therefore greenwashing.

Greenwishing can be considered dangerous for several reasons:

1. False sense of accomplishment: Greenwishing creates a false sense of accomplishment without any actual progress towards sustainability. By making empty promises or expressing intentions without following through with concrete actions, individuals, companies, or organizations give the illusion of being environmentally responsible without actually making meaningful changes. This can lead to a sense of complacency and hinder genuine efforts to address environmental challenges.
2. Misleading stakeholders: Greenwishing can mislead stakeholders, including consumers, investors, and the public, into believing that a company or individual is actively pursuing sustainable practices when they are not. This deception can lead stakeholders to make choices based on misleading information, potentially supporting unsustainable practices or overlooking truly sustainable alternatives.
3. Undermining trust and credibility: Greenwishing erodes trust and credibility in sustainability initiatives. When promises are consistently unfulfilled or intentions remain unacted upon, it diminishes the trust that stakeholders place in the commitments made. This can lead to cynicism, skepticism, and a general loss of confidence in sustainability efforts, hindering progress in the broader sustainability movement.

4. Diverting resources: Greenwishing can divert resources, attention, and efforts away from genuine sustainability actions. When energy, time, and resources are focused on publicizing grand aspirations or empty promises, they may be allocated away from implementing tangible changes or investing in real sustainable practices. This diversion can hinder progress and impede the allocation of resources towards meaningful environmental solutions.

5. Discouraging genuine efforts: Greenwishing can discourage individuals or organizations from undertaking genuine sustainability efforts. When the focus is primarily on making grand claims without follow-through, it can create a perception that sustainable actions are mere marketing tactics rather than a genuine commitment. This may discourage others from making sincere efforts, as they may believe that the public only values superficial appearances rather than substantive sustainability actions.

To address these dangers, it is crucial for individuals, companies, and organizations to move beyond greenwishing and prioritize concrete actions and measurable results. Genuine commitment, transparency, and accountability are essential for building trust, advancing sustainability, and effecting meaningful change.

The FIFA World Cup Case

Last year the football World Cup is being coined the first-ever carbon-neutral World Cup. FIFA claims that in order to deliver this pledge, it will reduce emissions and offset any unavoidable ones. Every ticket holder's flight will be offset, Qatar will ensure stadiums are close together to reduce travel, and public transport will be encouraged as much as possible.

But athletes and sports bodies have decried the claims in a letter to FIFA, and climate change organisations have deemed the accounting to be shoddy. Whilst fans are being lied to, who is holding FIFA accountable?

“Climate change is our fiercest opponent and every member of the team needs to bring their a-game.” - a joint letter from football players and organisations addressed to FIFA.

THE FALSE CLAIMS

1.PROBLEMATIC OFFSETTING

Investigations have revealed that the offsets planned to be used for the World Cup are some of the poorest quality available.

The tournament’s organisers are so far not showing any signs that would suggest they care about the quality of the carbon credits they are purchasing. The World Cup organisers have created their own offset quality standard that is much lower than globally recognised best practices (which are themselves far from perfect).

2. POOR ACCOUNTING

Large portions of the World Cup’s emissions have been entirely misrepresented in Qatar's accounting. A large number of new stadiums in a relatively small space are unlikely to be efficiently used after the tournament, yet the way their climate impact has been measured has underestimated emissions from most stadiums by a factor of eight, according to a report. In addition, in 2021, FIFA announced it would become net zero by 2040, but given the lack of a detailed plan for how it intends to get there and the mega size of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico, it remains unclear whether FIFA is serious about this target or whether it will continue to use creative accounting to dodge truly tackling its climate impact.

3. CARBON NEUTRALITY SMOKE SCREEN

FIFA has worked with, and paid, sporting celebrities such as David Beckham, Tim Cahill and Ronald de Boer to promote the carbon neutrality claim of the World Cup. But in reality, FIFA and its flagship tournament continue to inflict an outsized impact on the climate. Fossil fuel sponsorship can still prominently be seen at the World Cup. This year, Qatar Energy is a flagship sponsor of the World Cup, despite the carbon neutrality claims.

All of these practices can undermine genuine efforts to promote sustainability, confuse consumers, and erode trust in green initiatives.

By unraveling the complexities of greenwashing, greenwishing, and greenhushing, we can foster a greater understanding of the challenges we face in the realm of sustainability. It is crucial for individuals, organizations, and society at large to remain vigilant, demand transparency, and embrace authentic actions that truly contribute to a greener future.