Gaslighting and Greenwashing on Earth Day

Update April 2021:

Originally posted April, 2020

“It’s frustrating, and it works.”

- Sweetgreen’s co-founder Nicolas Jammet about greenwashing, in a recent LA Times piece.

Greenwashing, green sheen, pandering, virtue-signaling, woke-washing… whatever name you’d like to give it, we need to give it a few minutes of attention today.

Why?

Today is Earth Day 2020, marking 50 years since the first event was held to foster support for environmental protection. The movement carries slogans like “fighting for our future before it’s too late” as it works to “sound the alarm on climate change.”

Movements like this bring with them energy, momentum, and conversation – appealing to brands eager to be part of global narratives and align with the latest public attitudes.

As 6 in 10 Americans said global climate change is a major threat to the country (up from 44% in 2009 according to a March 2020 Pew Research Center study,) brands know this is a priority for many consumers.

And, both buyers and employees look to brands to lead this conversation. Recent studies make clear who the general public expects to step up in regards to environmental protection:

• Government officials. Nearly 2/3 of US adults say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for the president and Congress, (Pew Research Center, Jan 2020) while more feel the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of global climate change (Pew Research Center, Oct 2019).
• Business leaders. The gap created by government inaction and regulation rollbacks has caused many to turn to the institution of business to solve this challenge. A majority of employees (73%) agree it is important for their CEO to speak out on climate change (Edelman Trust Barometer Report 2020).
• The public themselves. 96% of people feel their own actions (donating / recycling / buying ethically) can make a difference (Futerra, 2018). Edelman also found that a majority (64%) of customers are belief-driven buyers in 2020, choosing, switching, avoiding, or boycotting a brand based on its stand on societal issues such as sustainability.

As with other social movements like women’s rights and LGBTQ equality, brands are increasingly expected to operate in alignment with values well outside of what their products or services do. This has triggered a natural instinct for organizations seeking find common ground with buyers over these values in order to earn their trust and remain relevant.

Enter, greenwashing.

Not a new tactic, by any means, greenwashing is a term that describes the rush to align with the priority of sustainability and environmental protection among buyers. It could indicate literally green-washing packaging and design choices, but it’s increasingly used to describe pandering - brands saying what buyers want to hear about sustainability without meaningful action - gaslighting consumers into questioning reality.

---

3 ways companies pander to environmental concerns:

1. Spin

“Greenwashing is all about misdirection, showing one thing that distracts you from what is really going on.”

Leyla Acaroglu on Medium

Some brands spin industry terms and dance around the meaning of phrases that signal eco-consciousness to consumers who are both looking to make a more conscious buying decision and willing to pay more for sustainable brands (Nielsen, 2015). They know full well that deep research is something few consumers have time or patience for.

This leads to firms “blurring the distinctions between biodegradable, compostable and certified compostable” according to the LA Times, which clarifies that “biodegradable” merely means it will decompose over 100 years.

100 years! 

Other terms e.g. “natural” or “recycled” often cover up other harmful, exploitative conditions without additional facts about energy or water use, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

2. Pander

Others are guilty of talking out of both sides of their mouth, so to speak, claiming they are taking steps to reduce their impact on the environment (e.g. go carbon neutral) while spending millions to fight climate legislation and regulations.

“Although many companies have publicly stated support for policies to stem global warming, some companies also finance trade associations that are actively lobbying against those same policies,” said Bryan Pini, president and chief investment officer for Mercy Investment Services.

This Bloomberg piece points out that many companies’ public statements about fuel efficiency standards, methane emissions from oil and gas production, and more were at odds with lobbying being done by their trade associations.

3. Branding over business model

 Many large firms, naturally, rely on what’s easy to fix - branding – rather than making sustainable changes to their business model. This could be changes to their own branding – e.g. images of nature, adding green to packaging – or adding eco-conscious brands to its portfolio.

Consumer goods research from CDP shows that the rate of large brands like Coca Cola and P&G acquiring small, ethical brands to meet new consumer preferences has doubled over the last five years.

Mike Scott in Forbes writes:

“Buying ethical brands is all very well, but it will not be sustainable if fundamental business models, based on driving more consumption, don’t also change.”

As reporter Remi Rosmarin wrote today in a great Business Insider article,

“fashion's trend-driven ways press us to buy new pieces every season, while sustainability asks us to pare down.”

---

Examples

SO, in line with the rest of my work on this topic, Earth Day 2020 is as good a day as any to delineate between what is pandering, and what is legitimate.

As with all campaigns, we have to plot them against the measure of real action. Here’s an updated spectrum for greenwashing:

All campaigns fall somewhere between sham and sustainable.

They are either on the “legitimate” end of the spectrum representing true sustainable values from an organization, or are more accurately called out as a sham, seeking only to exploit public opinion, the popular narrative, and the fruits of the labor of the past 50 years of the environmental protection movement.

7 campaigns that lean towards lip service

1. VW’s lip service around di*sel

Despite ads like these that promoted “clean diesel” 2015 Volkswagen came under fire for rigging 11M diesel cars with technology enabling it to cheat emissions tests, emitting pollutants at levels up to 40X the US limit, and leading to a $14.7B fine to settle allegations of deceptive advertising and more.

Now, the company is capitalizing on its own mistake to sell electric vehicles.

2. EasyJet's math.

Via Feedough  and The Guardian:

In 2008 EasyJet claimed to emit 22% less carbon dioxide than other planes on the same route. Instead, the figures used were relative to emissions per passenger – and EasyJet planes could carry more passengers than traditional airlines.

Nice maths.

3. MPOC is DOA 

Via Feedough - In 2008 the Malaysia Palm Oil Council launched this TV ad portraying it as eco-friendly. It was quickly exposed for violating advertising standards, as palm oil plantations are closely linked to rainforest species extinction, habitat loss, pollution, and other harmful effects.

The Advertising Standards Authority found the ad specifically “breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.6 (Environmental claims).”

4. BP’s brand is beyond belief

Oil & gas brands like BP have had an image problem for years.

Per The Guardian in 2008….

“BP is keen to play up its investment in alternative energy with images of wind turbines and plants. But no amount of clever advertising can hide the fact that its billions of pounds of profit and investment is still all about fossil fuels.”

Today, these companies are working hard to adjust their image via digital strategy. Per Teen Vogue:

“The younger generation, led by the millennials, have a profound sense of social justice,” said Parsley Energy CEO Matt Gallagher at an oil and gas industry conference in February. “It needs to be part of the fabric of the companies that they go to work for and also the companies that they interact with and they buy from.”

By and large, oil firms are trying to rectify this problem, in part, by avoiding mention of their core product — gasoline, the stuff you put in your car. In the first three months of 2020, ExxonMobil posted 10 videos to YouTube. Six of them dealt with renewable energy, biofuel or electric cars. Shell posted five videos in the same period. Every one of them covered ways to cut carbon emissions.

And my favorite line from this article:

Imagine if Arby’s bragged about everything on its menu except roast beef. That’s more or less what oil companies are doing.

Welp.

5. Kauai’s guilt-free guise

Kauai Coffee’s “100% compostable” coffee pods were meant to remove the guilt from single serve pod use. “Enjoy the great taste and convenience of single-serve coffee without worrying about the environmental impact” said the company.

But, the capsules are only certified by environmental advocacy group BPI to decompose at “industrial facilities” – hard to come by if consumers were bothered to seek them out in the first place.

6. SeaWorld cares? 

Via The Guardian:

SeaWorld Orlando’s attempt to get environmentally concerned customers drinking from its “Cup That Cares” sounds like another boondoggle. The souvenir cups – introduced last year in partnership with CocaCola – promote the park’s “Antarctica: Empire of the Penguin” exhibit. Embedded inside each plastic vessel is a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip that communicates wirelessly to a transceiver inside soft drink vending machines in the park. Each time the cup is refilled, the machine reads the chip and displays how much CO2 he or she has saved based on how many times it has been refilled.

SeaWorld has not responded to specific questions with regard to just how the software determines the customer’s CO2 savings upon each refill, aside from noting that the savings grows each time the customer purchases a refill. Presumably the savings would be lower for the basic Cup That Cares model – which costs $9.99 – than for the create-your-own model which doubles as a penguin toy and can be embellished with “40 accessories such as eyes, hair, glasses, hats, bow tie, necklaces and even miniature Shamu? ice cream bars and SeaWorld shopping bags”, according to the company. This next-level cup costs $15.99, but each plastic accessory is sold separately.

7. Fiji Water

This short video essay is worth the watch.

Fiji Water marketing aims to portray the brand “as part of nature, rather than what it really is: Water, bottled in plastics, that take many years to degrade, shipped via intensive transportation from Fiji to destinations around the world. Both these practices wreak havoc on the environment. It takes an average of 450 years for plastic bottles to break down in the environment.”

What’s worse…

“47% of Fijians don’t have access to clean, safe drinking water according to the WHO.”

Legitimate campaigns to feel good about.

Positive Example 1: Patagonia

Sustainability and environmental responsibility have been core to this brand’s ethos for years. It has a 40-year history of environmental conservation and activism with a mission to: “Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.”

The firm:

• Funds grassroots activism through 1% for the Planet, an initiative launched in 1985 that pledges 1% of sales to the preservation and restoration of the natural environment. To-date the company has awarded over $89M in cash and in-kind donations.
• Aims for longer-lasting products, banking on consumers to spend a little more up front to buy fewer products over time. 
• Launched a Worn Wear program to sell used merchandise that’s been cleaned and repaired including sending a team on a trip across the country to repair customers’ old gear for free and teach consumers how to do so themselves.
• Incorporates second-hand clothing sales at some stores
• Includes customers in the brand ethos by having them pledge to only buy what’s needed, and to hand down / recycle products
• Donates a portion of its revenue to environmental causes
• Uses solar energy at its company HQ in Ventura, CA
• Makes its stance clear and speaks up about environmental regulation rollbacks.
• Launched a documentary with Fair Trade USA to highlight living conditions of factory workers
• Founded the Sustainable Apparel Coalition with other organizations pledging to reduce their environmental footprint.
• Donated $10M of what the company saved in “irresponsible tax cuts” to “groups protecting air, land, and water, and finding solutions to the climate crisis” per a 2018 open letter from CEO Rose Marcario.

And more. The results? As of 2018, Patagonia is worth $1B.  

Positive Example 2: Sweetgreen –

This almost landed in the “sham” category.

Sweetgreen was recently called out by the aforementioned LA Times article for failing to live up to the brand’s unique position in-market of being sustainable through and through.

Since 2010, in-store signs have assured diners “Nothing from inside Sweetgreen goes to the landfill.” But for most of the time since, that hasn’t been entirely true.

Yes, Sweetgreen was caught greenwashing. But, read the article, as the full story demonstrates not only the company's history of commitments, but their intentions today.

When executive Kevin Quandt realized some of Sweetgreen’s salad bowls weren’t fully compostable, he took action:

But once those BPI-certified bowls and sporks enter the green bin, it’s out of sight, out of mind for the average consumer — and the average business, too. And haulers know it.

To be sure that Sweetgreen’s waste contractors weren’t all dumping compost into a landfill such as the one in New York, Quandt had to individually audit the waste stream at each one of the chain’s 80 locations. As leases came up for renewal, he was able to insert clauses requiring landlords to provide organic waste trash containers — a provision that often enabled Sweetgreen neighbors to begin composting as well. 

Positive Example 3: Reformation

This firm was described in today’s Business Insider piece as “one of the brands leading the charge” towards eco-friendly practices in the fashion industry, a hotbed for waste as 26 billion pounds of textiles end up in landfills each year. (EPA)

Founder Yael Aflalo, deliberately sought to buck harmful industry practices that led to this waste, and instead make their fabrics, manufacturing process, and even hangers in a manner that minimizes their carbon footprint. They even give factory tours to let shoppers see the conditions. 

3 trends in eco-friendly marketing:

1. Make it easy. 70% of millennials want businesses to make it easier for consumers to do their part in addressing issues such as health, the economy, and environmental sustainability (MSLGROUP). "The success of our sustainability initiatives is determined by how effortless they are to adopt," - Yael Aflalo founder of Reformation.
2. Transparency. Investors are calling on brands to be more transparent about their lobbying activities. “Lobbying must be transparent, disclosed annually to shareholders, and consistent with the Paris Agreement. Our pensioners and our planet depend on it.” - New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer
3. Educate. Consumers can educate themselves through resources like Remake, which lists brands that meet sustainability criteria. For some marketers, giving some the benefit of the doubt, it may be a matter of better education. According to Leyla Acaroglu of UnSchool, “many companies do it by accident, as they don’t have the expertise to know what is truly environmentally beneficial, and what is not. It’s important to be able to quickly identify instances of greenwashing, and replace them with truly sustainable practices both as a consumer and as an employee." See the UnSchool sustainability course.

Next steps

I'm working on a documentary and book about the collision of social movements like this and marketing. It's called Pandermonium. Send examples to me here on LinkedIn, and learn more about the film / book here.

----

Every week I send out new ideas, writings, and interesting links on marketing, business, and life. It’s free & curated by me. Get on the list.