FA greenwashing

Melanchthon – Gymnasium Nürnberg

-Kollegstufe-

Kurs: English

Kursleiter: Steffen Birkelbach

Verfasser: Oleksiy Khoroshko

Thema: Greenwashing with its roots and tactics

and how to deal with it

Abgabetermin: 23.12.2010

Bewertung:

schriftliche Arbeit / Punkte: .…..

mündliche Prüfung / Punkte: ……

eingetragen am: ……

Zurückgegeben am: ……

Dem Direktorat vorgelegt am: ……

Unterschrift des Kursleiters: ……

Index

1. Introduction 3

2. Greenwash 4

2.1 Definition 4

2.2 Reasons why companies do greenwash 4

2.2.1 Historical context of companies dodging 4

environmental responsibility

2.2.2 Purposes of greenwash 7

2.2.2.1 Profit greenwash 7

2.2.2.2 Deep greenwash 7

2.3 Companies mostly inclined to doing greenwash 8

2.4 Instruments of greenwash 9

2.4.1 Not really a lie, but also not the whole truth 9

2.4.2 Engagement of other credible supporters – 11

third party technique

2.4.3 Unclear information 12

3. BP – beyond petroleum or best propaganda 13

3.1 Promising start backed by no convincing data 13

3.2 Alternative energy or alternative alibi 14

3.3 “We don’t need no education” 14

– not from the worst possible teacher

4. The actual problem about greenwash 16

5. Counteracting greenwash 17

5.1 Public 17

5.2 Government 18

5.3 Avoiding the danger of being mistaken 18

as a green company

6. Conclusion 19

7. List of figures 21

8. Bibliography 21

8.1 List of books and papers 21

8.2 List of websites 23

9. Eigenständigkeitserklärung 24

3

1. Introduction Bio-jeans, a bank calling itself “Umweltbank” (environment bank)1, search engines

promising you to save 0,1 m² rain forest for every search you use it for2 or the claim:

“Pennsylvania presents the future coal - clean green energy”3 – we get used to see

these and other less conspicuous claims and advertisements of companies day by day.

Every one of us has once seen and bought at least one alleged environmentally friendly

or clean product – it might be eggs with a “Biobio” logo on them or a car with a hybrid

engine, which supposedly needs less gas than normal cars and consequently saves

the environment. Many of them are examples of companies trying to greenwash

themselves and thus attract buyers’ interest. Green business is not a niche market any

more. Companies earn billions of dollars every year by using these techniques and the

number of these products keeps growing. In the following, I want to examine the origins

of greenwash, portray its tactics, explain the actual problem about just another way of

deception in our society and show how to fight it. How can greenwashing accelerate

global warming and pollute our environment? Who is the actual culprit in this shifty

business - the company or the buyer himself?

1 See: http://www.umweltbank.de/ (retrieved: 21.12.2010), translated by Khoroshko O. 2 See: http://de.forestle.org/ (retrieved: 21.12.2010) 3 See: http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ad_single.php?id=971 (retrieved: 21.12.2010)

4

2. Greenwash 2.1 Definition In order to avoid confusion of greenwash with other disinformation strategies, it is

necessary to define the term at the beginning. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary4

defines it: “Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an

environmentally responsible public image; a public image of environmental

responsibility promulgated by or for an organization etc. but perceived as being

unfounded or intentionally misleading.”5 Another term from a study of University of

Michigan is: “Greenwash can be defined as the selective disclosure of positive

information about a company’s environmental or social performance, without full

disclosure of negative information on these dimensions.”6

To put it easy: “The term for ads and labels that promise more environmental benefit

than they deliver is greenwash.”7

It is important to mention that just non-disclosing any information about a company’s

environmental impacts at all, even if most of them are terrible, cannot be called

greenwashing.8

2.2 Reasons for doing greenwash 2.2.1 Historical context of companies dodging responsibility “We as companies are in general bound to make profit”9, that is how the German

energy company RWE introduced its sustainability report of 2005. The first goal of any

company is to make profit. The responsibility towards the workers and the environment

is only of secondary importance for them. This is where all the environmental problems

begin.10

Until the oil crises of 1973 and 1979, there was barely somebody taking seriously the

environmentalists appealing to use the resources of the earth more sparingly and to

take care of the environment. At that time, environmental awareness and sustainability

4 10th Edition 1999, revised 2001 5 Lyon Th. P. and Maxwell J. W. “Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure under Threat of Audit” University of Michigan, Ross School of Business Working Paper No. 1055, 2006, page 5 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=938988## (retrieved: 21.12.2010) 6 ibid., page 6 7 Dahl R., ”Greenwashing: Do you know what you’re buying”, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 118, June 2010, page A247 http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.118-a246 (retrieved: 21.12.2010) 8 See: Lyon Th. P. and Maxwell J. W., op.cit., page 6 9 See Staud T., “Grün, grün, grün ist alles, was wir kaufen“, Köln, Kiepenheuer&Witsch, 2009, page 10, translated by Khoroshko O. 10 See: Staud, loc. cit.

5

were not real priorities in the society. However, as soon as the public has faced the

consequences of the run out of oil when the highways stayed empty and the people

were impeded to use their mobility due to the exploding oil prices they have realized

their dependence on the raw materials and the importance of using resources more

considerately. From that time on, the opinion of environmentalists gained more

recognition in the society, people begun to think “green” and it became generally quite

popular to stand behind green activists.11 As an evident consequence of this new

thinking, the first German federal party “Die Grünen” (The Green) was founded in

1980.12

Another decisive force accelerating the new upcoming public concern about the

environment was the development of the media in the western world. In the 70’s a big

part of the households in Europe and America has already had a TV set. Newspapers

and magazines provided more and more information. The number of safety related

papers about the companies has been constantly rising since the 70’s (see graph

below). This is why the public became better informed about the activities, including

failures, of big corporations.

11 See: Schöps B., „Greenwashing – Die negativen Aspekte der Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation“, Salzburg, GRIN, 2009, Abstract 12 See: http://www.gruene.de/einzelansicht/artikel/1980-1983.html (retrieved: 21.12.2010), translated by Khoroshko O. 13 Saraf S. and Karanjikar N., “Literary and Economic Impact of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy”, http://www.iitk.ac.in/che/jpg/papersb/full%20papers/S%20-%20108.doc, page 7 (retrieved 21.12.2010)

Figure 1: Publications related to process-safety13

6

From this time on, the firms have become targets for aroused public interest that was

concerned about environmental issues. Media and information were the new

economical power. As the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the father of modern public

relations, Edward Bernays, has put it already in 1928: “In the face of an aroused public

conscience the large corporations were obliged to renounce their contention that their

affairs were nobody's business.”14 The public criticism was mainly directed at the so-

called transnational corporations (TNCs) - big producing corporations acting around the

globe, providing a big part of western population with their products and thus causing

the biggest negative impacts on the environment.15 Since the corporations had to react

to growing public and consequently governmental concern there were different

strategies they followed. In the past, most of the TNCs have denied the fact of causing

any harm by their activity. Thus, they wanted to dodge responsibility for their actions.

For example, the firm DuPont denied its contribution to ozone depletion for over 14

years until the destruction of ozone layer accelerated even more.16 Another example is

Exxon Mobile, which denied the effect of global warming and for this purpose has been

financing “neutral” scientists for years, who researched and published results

underpinning the theory of global warming.17

If denying does not succeed any more the companies try to resist or delay the

consequences like controlled production or imposed fines on contaminating products by

lobbying.

Another strategy is job “blackmail”: Firms threaten governments to move their

production to another country if they impose any restrictions on their production.18

Meanwhile the group of people, who try to consume ethically, has gained even more

recognition. A big part of the consumers has changed its buying behaviour. Ethical

consumerism has become popular in nowadays economy. “Eighty three per cent of the

consumers claim at least to think about a company’s green reputation when

shopping.”19 This is not a minority any more, it is not a niche business – ethical

consumerism has become a driving economical force.

14 Staud T. op.cit., page 10 as cited in: Bernays E., “Propaganda”, 1928, History is a weapon, Chapter V http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html (retrieved 21.12.2010) 15 See: Greenpeace, “Greenpeace book of greenwash”, 1992, page 1, http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4588 (retrieved 21.12.2010) 16 See: Greanpeace, ibid.,page 2, in: Doyle, “Hold the Applaus!”, page 57 17 See: Staud T., op.cit., page 15 18 See: Greenpeace, op. cit., page 2 19 Gillespie Ed, “Stemming the tide of greenwash”, Consumer Policy Review, Volume 18, Number 3, 2008, page 80 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/37410633/Stemming-the-tide-of-greenwash (retrieved 21.12.2010) in: The Guardian, “The rise and rise of the ethical consumer” (retrieved: 06.11.2006)

7

2.2.2 Purposes of greenwash 2.2.2.1 Profit greenwash

Companies consequently stay under pressure of the public and the government that

has to respond to the public opinion. The pressure has gained weight after the broad

acknowledgement of the global warming and the TNCs’ contribution to it.20 So why do

not we escape public outrage and at the same time open a new market for us by just

creating a green image? - This is a comprehensible conclusion of companies. While it

would be too expensive for some of them to restructure their whole production or

business, it is just impossible for the others to meet such consumers’ demands. Some

processes of production just cannot be environmentally friendly. An ex-CEO of Metro,

who has established the foundation “Forum for responsibility” and is now publicly

promoting sustainability for firms, testifies that back then he could only do less than

thirty per cent of what he thinks to be right today.21 The roots of greenwash lie right

there. Companies cannot stand the seduction of earning money for almost no effort.

2.2.2.2 Deep greenwash

There is another aim the companies try to reach by greenwashing – they try to

influence political decisions and distract public criticism. Greenwashers pretend to be

solving environmental problems on their own, implying that additional laws are not

needed any more. This kind of greenwashing is also called “deep greenwash”. It does

not even intend to earn money, at least not directly. Companies want to assuage public

concerns by promoting voluntary measures (see 2.4.1 - technical solutions, eco-prizes

awards, educational literature, codes of conduct, model projects). Thus, companies get

less vulnerable to public criticism and avoid inconvenient political decisions. They often

combine these efforts with lobbying.22 Exxon Mobile’s advertisement strategy of 2007 is

a great example for it. This corporation contended that the number of their oil accidents

was at a low point for years. However, it did not mention that the amount of oil having

leaked in these few accidents was three times more than in the years before. And the

deep greenwashing about this advertisement is that the company has chosen the

newspapers, like „European Voice“ that are very popular with politicians in Brussels, to

put the ads in, as well as the Brussels’ airport, a place very often passed by the

20 See: Müller U., “Greenwash in Zeiten des Klimawandels – wie Unternehmen ihr Image grün färben”, Köln, Lobby Control, November 2007, page 1 http://www.lobbycontrol.de/download/greenwash-studie.pdf (retrieved: 21.12.2010) 21 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 13 22 See: Dahl R., op. cit., page A250

8

politicians.23 Furthermore, companies may even receive some federal subsidies from

the government for their alleged effort and higher costs of changing to green

production.24

Therefore, greenwash is becoming more and more popular with companies and this

effect does not appear to slow down. The number of green advertising in major

magazines exploded from 3,5 to 10 percent in the period from 2006 till 2009.

Environment consultancy Terra Choice Environmental Marketing provides statistics that

there has been an increase of 79 percent of products making green claims over the

company’s report 2 years earlier. Ninety-eight percent of those claims were guilty of

greenwashing.25 Accordingly, ethical consumerism has risen in the UK up 81 percent

between 2002 and 2008. “You wan to buy green – you expect companies to be green –

they can’t resist the temptation to tell they are, often without justification.”26

2.3 Companies mostly inclined to doing greenwash To start with, we have to remember that greenwash, strictly speaking, means not fully

disclosing information about the activities of a company. In order to find out, which

companies are generally more likely to do greenwash, it is necessary to distinguish

between companies that have a bad reputation in terms of greenness, those that are

thought to be environmentally friendly and those which have an intermediate positive

green image.

All of them have in common that they strive to have a positive reputation. Companies,

which already have a “green” image, do not gain a lot by boasting with their successes

in terms of greenness. However, they would considerably damage their reputation if

occasionally some negative environmental impacts suddenly appeared. Therefore,

these companies prefer not to disclose any information about their activities in order not

to risk losing their image. They do not lose anything by withholding information.

23 See: Müller U., op.cit., page 19 in: Union of Concerned Scientists 2007, “Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science.” Cambridge, MA. www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf 24 See: ibid., page 3 25 See: Dahl R., op. cit., page A247 in: TerraChoice Environmental Marketing. The “Six Sins of Greenwashing™”: A Study of Environmental Claims in North American Consumer Markets. London:TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, 2007, http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/ findings/greenwashing-report-2007/ (retrieved: 17.05.2010) 26 Gillespie Ed, op.cit., page 80

9

On the other hand, companies known to have bad environmental impacts have nothing

to lose any more, since everybody knows anyway that they are environmental culprits.

They can only improve their image by disclosing all their activities because bad impacts

can hardly damage their reputation, while those few good ones will be very noticeable.

Moreover, they at least put themselves as being honest about their actions.

However, the companies from the last group who are known to have good as well as

bad effects on the environment are firstly afraid to lose their face and secondly they

want to improve it. They can fall as well as rise in public esteem, that is why they are

interested in concealing bad environmental impacts while showing off good ones.27

This theory explained in a study of University of Michigan seems to be comprehensible;

however, it is difficult to differentiate companies by reputation between not good and

very bad. Therefore, it is difficult to classify one single firm to one of these groups. For

example, BP is a company with a bad reputation and still it establishes one of the

biggest greenwashing campaigns (see 3). That is why it does not really fit this theory.

Another statement of one of the authors of this study to this topic saying: “The

companies that are most likely to engage in greenwashing are the dirtiest ones,

because dirty companies know they have a bad reputation, so little is lost in making a

green claim if the opportunity arises”28,- seems to be more appropriate for companies

with bad reputation.

In the end, the most notorious lines of business are water, energy and car business.29

2.4 Instruments of greenwash Speaking about greenwash means addressing one particular unfounded claim: “Look

how green we are!” There are dozens of ways to say that. Greenwashers seldom use

only one single technique, more often they combine many of them, so that you as a

buyer do not notice the way you are cheated.

2.4.1 Not really a lie, but also not the whole truth Every good lie bases on a truth. The same way many greenwashing advertisements

work. Greenwashing rarely tells complete lies; it mostly leaves out parts of the truth.30

27 See: Lyon Th. P. and Maxwell J. W., op.cit., page 19 28 See: Dahl R., op. cit., page A250 in: 19. Lyon T.P, Maxwell J.W. Greenwash: “Corporate Environmental Disclosure Under Threat of Audit” 24 March 2006. Ross School of Business Paper No. 1055. Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=938988 (retrieved: 17.05.2010) 29 See: Gillespie Ed, op.cit., page 81 30 See: Staud T., op.cit., page 21

10

Selectively portraying information that you as a company want your customers to know

is a direct way to do that. Therefore, you choose few components and leave out

inconvenient information so that your information makes you as a company appear

good, but in reality, you are not that green as you pretend to be, “e.g., paper produced

from a sustainably harvested forest may still yield significant energy and pollution

costs.”31

Irrelevant claims are another phenomenon of this technique. Consumers seek for

environmentally preferable products; you as a company provide them with such

information, which however is unnecessary for them. ““CFC-free” is meaningless given

that chlorofluorocarbons are already banned by law.”32

You will also hardly find a company mentioning actual political debates in their ads.

Companies try to convey you there is no need to change anything due to their own

allegedly environmental engagement and thus they want to prevent you from thinking if

for example airlines should pay for their greenhouse gas emissions.33

Emphasizing their own technical solutions of environmental problems strengthens firms’

positions in a debate. Unfortunately, these solutions are often by far not that effective

as they promise to be. Royal Dutch Shell claimed it used its produced CO2 to grow

flowers and therefore it did not accelerate the global warming. However if you trace this

information you will find out that only tiny 0,35% of the greenhouse gases produced by

the company are used in Dutch glasshouses.34

How does it actually sound that main polluters award eco-prizes? That is what a

German union of heavy industry companies does, when it awards journalists for

promoting sustainable development ideas among the population.35

Just as paradox seems the fact that some companies participate in creating

educational literature about ecology. Companies might also advise in their brochures

how we can live more environmentally friendly. Although they might be good advises

and good school books, the companies make them with the intention of distracting our

attention from their own activities.36 However, it is more likely that these books will

31 Dahl R., op. cit., page A249 32 Dahl R., loc.cit 33 See: Müller U., op.cit., page 24 34 See: ibid. page 18 35 See: ibid. page 7 36 See: loc.cit.

11

teach you the way the companies want you to be and not real ways to be green (see

3.3).

If a firm admits its poor environmental impacts and claims because of this to change its

policy by creating certain codes of conduct, do not believe in its care for the

environment. Also in this case the forms mostly want to exaggerate their environmental

commitment and escape governmental control and restrictions. You will never know if

and to which extent companies follow their own rules.37

Boasting with model projects is another way of greenwashing oneself. There is one

thing model projects are good for – companies get the attention and public approval

now, while the project is waiting for the future maybe to be carried out or maybe not.

When BP boasted with a model project promising to hide huge amounts of CO2

underground it gained a lot of attention. Even to leave out dubious effectiveness of the

project, everybody perceived the company as a big activist. But the time passed and

the project vanished without trace, only the fame was left back.38

2.4.2 Engagement of other credible supporters – third party technique “If you don’t believe me, ask him!” This is the quintessence of the third party technique.

The firms are looking for somebody else, in best case somebody with a good reputation

to confirm their greenness. The German energy company EnBW has employed a

politician from the party “Die Grünen” (The Green) in order to profit from his green

reputation.39 Audi did not leave out the chance to tout that Al Gore – a living legend in

terms of environmental commitment – once was using a new Audi A6 on his trip in

Holland; this car cannot be environmentally unfriendly per definition, at least for Audi.40

However, it does not have to be a person. An eco-label is also good for image

purposes. If a company does not find any label to approve its green efforts, it just buys

one. There are lawyers in America, who set up websites and certify products. They do

not need to see the product; they do not need test results. They just need to see the

credit card number.41

And if a company does not want to make any effort it just makes up a label.42

37 See: Greenpeace, op. cit., page 3 38 See: Müller U., op.cit., page 6, in: BBC Online, “BP pulls out of green power plant.” 23. Mai 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6685345.stm 39 See: loc.cit. 40 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 34-37 41 See: Dahl R., op. cit., page A248 42 See: Gillespie Ed, op.cit., page 80

12

2.4.3 Unclear information Another quite helpful technique is making some broad, vague statements that do not

have any clear message, but induce positive perception in the public.

One way to apply this technique is using eco-jargon, for example “all green”,

“sustainable” or “environmentally friendly”. Nobody can really define the term

environmentally friendly. Are you environmentally friendly if you put off the lights when

you leave a room or if the whole process of production of your company does not

contaminate rivers, ground and the air? That is why companies tend to use eco-jargon

so often.43 In Sweden, for example, it is forbidden for the carmakers to use the term

environmentally friendly, because no car, no matter how much better it is than the

others, can have any positive effects on the environment. Unfortunately, such

restrictions are too rare yet.44

Unjustified picture language with trees and plants covering whole factories and

spreading out of the cars, harmonic landscapes under blue sky and white doves flying

around. It is always the same pattern with the same purpose to subconsciously link this

pictures with the name of the company, old trick projected on a new area –

environment.

Providing customers with unsubstantiated data is another way to improve a company’s

image without having to change anything about the company itself. They count that no

average person will go home and check the information about greenhouse emissions of

a company. Therefore, there are non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace

which carefully watch companies making such claims and who agitate against such

advertisements.

43 See: loc.cit. 44 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 22

13

3. BP – beyond petroleum or best propaganda 3.1 Promising start backed by no convincing data When you look at this website

photo, do not let yourself be

misled by the first impression! This

is not a website of Greenpeace or

of another environmental activists’

group. This is the website of the

second biggest oil and gas

company of the world – BP.

In 1997, British Petroleum’s

former CEO John Browne announced a new era for his company. In front of the

students of Stanford University, he explained his anxiety about global warming and his

commitment to this problem. This speech marked a turning point of leaving behind the

policy of denying the global warming for years to facing the actual problem. This

revolutionary change promised a new attitude of British Petroleum to be now very

concerned about the whole planet, because all of us, people as well as companies, are

responsible. John Browne has created a new vision of an ecologically correctly acting

company. These great words met big approval in the society. The PR-company Ogilvy

& Mather was responsible for the professional image change.47

In the same year BP bought Solarex Solar Energy Corporation for $45 million. With this

purchase BP became the biggest producer of solar energy on earth. The whole

45 http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=122&contentId=7058789 (retrieved 21.12.2010) 46 http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=2&contentId=7065607 (retrieved: 21.12.2010) 47 See: Gammelin C., “Grünes Getöse”, Frankfurt, Zeit Online, Ölkonzerne, 27.11.2007 http://www.zeit.de/2007/48/BP (retrieved:21.12.2010)

Figure 2: BP homepage45

Figure 3: BP logo46

1999 the company changed its name from mighty “British

Petroleum” to “beyond petroleum” (according to surveys little

letters were perceived more sympathetically) with a clear

message that it thinks and acts beyond the means of oil and gas

and now turns to sustainable energies like solar and wind energy.

Especially the green yellow logo in the shape of a flower makes

the new claims very vivid.

14

advertising campaign cost BP $200 million. And only one week later BP has bought

ARCO – an American oil giant company – for $26 billion, thus it could expand its drill

capacities by far. In comparison, the first buy appears quite slight. This information BP

of course did not tout all over the world. This was a glorious start of the company into a

new environmentally responsible era.48

3.2 Alternative energy or alternative alibi Unfortunately, a weak start covered by promising words was followed by similar

promising slogans with disappointing deeds. Now, since BP had this solar company, it

addressed the importance of relying on alternative energies in its numerous ads.

However, BP did not mention in them the actual share of all kinds of energies they

produce, because the share of alternative energies of BP is poor. In the year 2007 BP

has earned $284 billion. BP Solar’s earnings amounted to only $0.4 billion. They stand

in proportion of 700 to 1. Even more disappointing is the company’s lacking effort to

change this proportion. Because according to BP its investments in all alternative

energies amounted in 2008 to only 7 percent of its all investments. And even in its

category of alternative energies BP put certain other energies, that have dubious

impacts on the environment. Briefly – BP’s commitment to saving the planet faces 700

times stronger contribution to planet’s destruction. Thus, public’s initial delight about

finally finding a company that would not only care for its profits was replaced by

expected disappointment. It was just another campaign to improve one’s image, not

oneself.49

3.3 “We don’t need no education” – not from the worst possible

teacher According to BP, it for 35 years has been engaged in education in schools. Nobody can

proof it, not even them, because the records allegedly were lost. In various countries,

like Germany50 and California51, BP is participating in creating schoolbooks about

preserving the environment and fighting global warming. Children are taught in these

fields by a company that itself produces hundreds of millions of tons CO2 and whose

natural catastrophes year by year shock the public and more important nature that

48 See: Müller U., op.cit., page 16, in: Frey D. “How green is BP?” In: New York Times, 8.12.2002. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E5DF1F38F93BA35751C1A9649C8B63 49 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 70-71 50 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 77-80 51 See: Zornick G., “Californian Public Schools Invited BP to Help Develop Environmental Curriculum”, 08.09.2010, http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/bp-cali-schools/ (retrieved: 21.12.2010)

15

needs significantly more time to recover from them. Starting with dubious claims about

the urgency of the problem of global warming, saying we have more time to change our

economy before it is too late than real experts say, BP delivers almost only

controversial solutions for these issues. Natural gas and hydrogen are mentioned as

alternative energies, which in reality still significantly attribute to greenhouse effect,

while other classical clean energies, like energy gained from water, do not come up in

the list. No wonder, because BP’s business is geared to natural gas and hydrogen.

Letting alone the numerous senseless graphs and pictures like two hands shaking as a

sign for “agreement and obligation” their materials lack real substantial information.

While teaching responsibility towards our planet, the company does not mention

anything about their own actions – about their plans of building pipelines through

natural parks, about human victims during explosions in their facilities, about their

intentions to gain oil from tar sands in Canada – the most polluting way of winning oil.52

Since the company does not manage to convince adults, it wants to secure the new

generation as potential clients for themselves. This just to well reminds of the tactic of

authoritarian regimes of teaching the population the way they want them to have.

No wonder that BP was the first winner of the "Emerald Paintbrush" awarded by

Greenpeace UK for the biggest greenwash campaign of the year53. Especially after its

recent accident in the Golf of Mexico - the biggest oil catastrophe in history - , BP will

need many skills of greenwashing to regain public trust or better it should launch real

actions.54

52 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 77-80 53 See: jossc, “BP wins coveted 'Emerald Paintbrush' award for worst greenwash of 2008”, 22.12.2008, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/bps-wins-coveted-emerald-paintbrush-award-worst-greenwash-2008-20081218 (retrieved: 21.12.2010) 54 See Horovitz B., “After BP cleans up its oil, it has to clean up its image”, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2010-06-14-bpimage14_ST_N.htm, 14.06.2010, (retrieved:21.12.2010) 55 Art Not Oil, “BP brandalism”, http://gallery.artnotoil.org.uk/v/burning+_planet/BP_Logo_brandalism_oildrip_1.gif.html (retrieved: 21.12.2010) 56 jossc, loc. cit.

Figure 5: BP – broken promises55

Figure 4: “Emerald Paintbrush”56

16

4. The actual problem about greenwash So what is the actual problem? If the entire problem amounts only to dishonesty, why is

there so much fuss about it? Are not there enough other lies in the world we should be

worried about? The companies cheat on their customers numerous other ways, often

with negative consequences for their health including even death. Just think about

contaminated milk for babies in China, fake medicine and obesity related food. Are not

those lies worthier to fight against than against mere boasting with one’s friendliness

towards the environment? Your car will not explode under your seat if it produces more

greenhouse gases than promised. There is no direct victim of greenwashing, that’s why

it might appear harmless at first sight. However, if you think further, there is indeed one

victim. It is our environment that is going to collapse. If we ignore greenwash we give

the nature no chance, because then most of our ethical and sustainable consumerism

will be useless. We will direct our money not to companies that try to be green, but to

those that try to seem green. In the end, the companies will not be set any limits since

we think they do not need them because they apparently are environmentally friendly.

They will be able to make profits and keep contributing to global warming with all its

disastrous consequences and keep polluting the environment until it collapses, if we do

not know about or ignore greenwash. This is why this problem is worse than others – it

is more far-reaching.

On the other hand, as soon as the public notices it is being cheated and its money

being uselessly spent, it is going to distrust any environmental claims, even if they are

well justified. If the demand for sustainable and green products falls, since the public

will be disappointed about its efforts to do something good for the planet, the

companies will not be interested in producing environmentally friendly any more.

Consequently, we will face the same problems - global warming and the general

destruction of our planet will accelerate.

Unfortunately, public mistrust to any green claims of companies and government is

what is spreading in the society right now. In the UK, 90% of the consumers are

skeptical about any green claims and 80% want to see proofs for these claims (2008);

in the USA, there is a similar situation. “There is a perverse irony in greenwash

potentially destroying the very market it hoped to serve.”57

In order not to admit that, we need the public to learn about greenwash, to know how to

distinguish it from real green marketing and how to fight it, while not giving up green

consumerism. Otherwise, companies may be afraid of making even valid claims.

17

5. Counteracting greenwash 5.1 Public Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) firstly should publicly criticize greenwashing

companies, because public voice has more weight than one can imagine. In 1995, as

Royal Dutch Shell wanted to sink its old oilrig in the see, the public headed by

Greenpeace has started such a massive protest campaign with big consumer boycotts

that the company had to obey.58 Greenwashers should be fought on their very field they

launch their greenwashing campaigns against us – in the media. Information is the

most important weapon nowadays.

Furthermore, NGOs should make the companies adopt the so-called EMS

(environmental management system). This system is making the firms better informed

about their environmental impacts. Often the firms are not even aware of all of them.

With this system, the public will be sure companies are aware about their

environmental impacts and consequently it would be more difficult for companies to

withhold pieces of information and disclose just partially.59

Even more important is to make the population aware of greenwashing and the

negative consequences of it. We need a well-educated, critical and questioning

society.60 After a closer look and several questions you often can distinct real

environmental commitment from just image making. People have to be taught that, so

that the genuinely green companies are not disadvantaged because of the conspicuous

public.

When you look at an ad of an allegedly green product, question yourself:

• Are the numbers relative or absolute? Put the numbers and projects in the whole

context. What is the relation between the investments in renewable energies and

other investments?

• Which lobby organization do the companies participate in?

• Which institutions do they support?

• Have there been some environmental catastrophes?

• Which information does the company disclose?

• What does the company’s engagement abroad look like?61

57 Gillespie Ed, op.cit., page 81 58 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 10 59 See: Lyon Th. P. and Maxwell J. W., op.cit., page 32 60 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 18-19 61 See: Müller U., op.cit., page 25

18

5.2 Government It is evident, that mere public criticism can hardly dissuade the companies from

greenwashing. It can only back legislation. Unfortunately, it is quite hard for the

legislators to curtail greenwash because it is often too indefinable and fluid. For

example the statement “an oil-fired heating has extremely low emissions”62 neither

gives a certain number nor it is clear which emissions the statement means.

Furthermore, the tactics of greenwash itself are also constantly changing.

Advertisements find all the time new vague words and definitions e.g. carbon offset or

carbon-neutrality claims or terms like “sustainable” or “made with renewable

materials.”63 This complicates the task for the lawmakers, because they have to

contemplate about whether to ban each of them or how to narrow them on a certain

meaning. Anyway, we need strict laws against greenwash and complications are not an

excuse. What lacks our governments are not the ways to ban greenwash, but political

will, because we should not forget the numerous lobby agencies acting against such

laws.

A very helpful measure would be to create some few internationally recognized eco-

labels, so that the consumers do not get confused by the long list of eco-labels and can

separate famous and acknowledged labels from fake ones. An outline of the most

important and trustworthy eco-labels can be found in the internet.64

Some countries like Germany do not even make a real effort to prosecute

greenwashing65, in many others non-binding guides or codes of conduct exist, for

example in Britain the so-called guide “Green Claims Code”66. Nevertheless, as it says,

it is non-binding, so it does not dissuade firms from greenwashing, but at least gives

companies that are green tips how they should advertise so that they are not perceived

as greenwashers.

5.3 Avoiding the danger of being mistaken as a green company

Mostly important in avoiding any accusations in terms of greenwashing is to design a

green product and not to put it as one only because it is less damaging than other

products of the same class. Afterwards some recognized experts should test the

product. Finally with an acknowledged label on it, public will be able to distinguish this

genuinely green product from fake ones. It is then still important to avoid any broad

claims like “environmentally friendly”, but to put clear information backed by numbers.

62 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 24 – translated by Khoroshko O. 63 Dahl R., op. cit., page A248 64 http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/ (retrieved:21.12.2010) 65 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 10 66 See: Gillespie Ed, op.cit., page 81

19

There are some handbooks, guidelines and an international standard called ISO 14001

created by governments and PR agencies helping to avoid greenwashing.67

Incorporating a full-blown environmental management system (EMS) can also help in

this matter. Thus, the public can be sure that the company is at least aware of its

environmental impacts.68

6. Conclusion In the end, we might be given the impression that the companies are the evil ones who

want to secretly impose on us bad products and destroy our environment. Of course,

this statement is shallow. We should keep in mind who leads whom into temptation. As

portrayed in 2.2, we as consumers have created basic conditions for the companies for

greenwashing. Because we have basically two desires: on the one side we need the

products from the companies - oil, cars or detergents, which are per definition pollutive

- additionally we want them for a low price, on the other side we demand sustainability

and greenness. Often the companies cannot meet all of them, they cannot produce

greener products at the same prize, that is why they escape making losses by

greenwashing (others do not want to escape anything, just raise their profits).

If we want the companies to be green, then we have to accept significantly higher

prizes. The problem is that there is always a group of poor people in the society who

are not ready to starve in favor of stable climate. By the way, they are the least pollutive

group of our society.

Are not those who order and use the products as responsible, as those who deliver

them? In the end, we want to drive our cars every day, fly to the south, eat tomatoes all

the year and have a big house with a blue pool. The problem lies in our very lifestyle. It

is not surprising that Lohas - people striving after a Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability

– who drive fancy cars with hybrid-engines instead of little economical cars with a

diesel engine and buy fair-traded strawberries from Egypt, draw up a worse ecological

balance sheet than just a simple poor guy living on a minimal living standard.69 At least

they try.

Our human nature puts us into this dilemma, where people can hardly put their desires,

like consume on part of the customers and profit on part of the companies, in harmony

with their environment. However, it does not mean we should give up striving after this

harmony.

67 See: Dahl R., op. cit., page A248 68 See: See: loc.cit. 69 See: Staud T., op. cit., page 12

20

What we need to do is to prosecute greenwashing, in order not to be distracted from

our effort to save the environment, while, more important, trying to change our lifestyle.

Therefore, we need an educated and responsible society. We do not need a car with a

mighty sounding engine. We also do not need to fly 10000 miles for our holidays. We

have to learn to accept that.

However, since we will never deliberately get back to our living standards of some

thousands years ago, when we made no negative impacts on our nature, our

governments should concentrate their power on discovering new, genuinely clean

energy sources. In the end, only technological progress that has made all of us

environmental culprits can make us clean again.

21

7. List of figures

Figure 1: Publications related to process-safety

Figure 2: BP homepage

Figure 3: BP logo

Figure 4: Emerald Paintbrush

Figure 5: PR – broken promises

8. Bibliography 8.1 List of books and papers

Dahl R.,”Greenwashing: Do you know what you’re buying”, Environmental Health

Perspectives, Volume 118, June 2010

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=938988##

Retrieved 21.12.2010

Gammelin C., “Grünes Getöse”, Frankfurt, Zeit Online, Ölkonzerne, 27.11.2007

http://www.zeit.de/2007/48/BP


Gillespie Ed, “Stemming the tide of greenwash”, Consumer Policy Review, Volume 18,

Number 3, 2008

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/37410633/Stemming-the-tide-of-greenwash


Horovitz B., “After BP cleans up its oil, it has to clean up its image”, 14.06.2010

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2010-06-14-bpimage14_ST_N.htm

Retrieved: 21.12.2010

22

jossc, “BP wins coveted 'Emerald Paintbrush' award for worst greenwash of 2008”,

22.12.2008

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/bps-wins-coveted-emerald-paintbrush-

award-worst-greenwash-2008-20081218


Lyon Th. P. and Maxwell J. W. Greenwash: “Corporate Environmental Disclosure under

Threat of Audit” University of Michigan, Ross School of Business, Working Paper No.

1055, 2006

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=938988##


Müller U., “Greenwash in Zeiten des Klimawandels – wie Unternehmen ihr Image grün

färben”, Köln, Lobby Control, November 2007

http://www.lobbycontrol.de/download/greenwash-studie.pdf


Saraf S. and Karanjikar N., “Literary and Economic Impact of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy”,

http://www.iitk.ac.in/che/jpg/papersb/full%20papers/S%20-%20108.doc


Schöps B., „Greenwashing – Die negativen Aspekte der Nachhaltigkeits-

kommunikation“, Salzburg, GRIN, 2009

Staud T., “Grün, grün, grün ist alles, was wir kaufen“, Köln, Kiepenheuer& Witsch, 2009

Zornick G., “Californian Public Schools Invited BP to Help Develop Environmental

Curriculum”, 08.09.2010

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/bp-cali-schools/


23

8.2 List of websites

http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=122&contentId=7058789


http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=2&contentId=7065607

Retrieved: 21.12.2010

http://de.forestle.org/


http://gallery.artnotoil.org.uk/v/burning+_planet/BP_Logo_brandalism_oildrip_1.gif.htmlRetrieved:21.12.2010

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ad_single.php?id=971


http://www.gruene.de/einzelansicht/artikel/1980-1983.html


http://www.umweltbank.de/


24

9. Selbständigkeitserklärung Ich erkläre hiermit, dass ich die Seminararbeit selbstständig angefertigt und nur die im Literaturverzeichnis angeführten Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. ................................, den ................... ........................................... Ort Datum Unterschrift des Schülers

Documents

FA greenwashing