It’s All a Wash: Green Marketing Misleads Consumers
Supermarket aisles today are a sea of color and choice. A consumer’s purchase depends on their perception of a product, and for some that includes the product’s environmental impact. Brands in a variety of industries — food, cosmetics, furniture, cleaning supplies, appliances, etc. — have become aware of the market benefit of appearing sustainable or environmentally-friendly. It clears the conscience of a consumer to think that their material purchase is contributing to a greater good purpose . Yet, this effect is being abused through a type of advertising called “greenwashing.” Greenwashing is a marketing technique that spread in tandem with the environmental movement of the 1960s (CorpWatch, 2001). As international awareness of one’s individual relationship with the environment increased, brands began to incorporate feel-good labels and images into their products packaging and advertising. Greenwashing takes advantage of the gap between a company’s perception of its product’s environmental impact and a consumer’s understanding of the product’s environmental impact (FTC, 2018).
The Federal Trade Commision, a government agency that seeks to safeguard American consumers, created The Green Guides to regulate the usage of greenwashing. According to their website, the guides “help marketers avoid making environmental marketing claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45” (FTC, 2018). If a brand violates these guidelines — including rules for environmental benefit, toxicity, carbon offset, and more — the FTC can pursue legal action. However, oftentimes, [the Green Guides are not wholly effective and some greenwashing seeps through the cracks.] Greenwash marketing misleads consumers into buying products that may not be “green” via deceptive labeling and visual cues, and consumer environmental knowledge must be improved to protect them from deceit.
This paper will review the findings of three research articles in the field of communication and media, which analyze corporate social responsibility (CSR), “executional” greenwashing, and the effect of vague claims compared to false claims (De Jong, 2018; Parguel, 2015; Schmuck, 2018).
In “Misleading Consumers with Green Advertising? An Affect-Reason-Involvement Account of Greenwashing Effects in Environmental Advertising,” authors Schmuck, Matthes, and Naderer compared the magnitude of effect between vague and false nature advertising claims (2018). Two randomly assigned subject groups of mixed nationality, American and German, were shown an ad for plastic bottled water either with a vague slogan, “Drink ALSE bottled water to help the environment. Together we can save our nature,” or a factually false slogan, “Drink ALSE bottled water. The most environmentally responsible product in the world.”
These phrases were designed based on past taglines from real companies like Nestlé and Fiji Water, criticized for their misleading language. Schmuck et al. found that the participants suspected the false claims as instances of greenwashing at a higher frequency than the vague claims. However, after including a variable measuring the survey respondents environmental knowledge (EK), the data indicated that those with a higher EK score were more likely to identify the false slogan as greenwashing. The researchers employed the affect-reason-involvement model to describe why persuasive messages inform attitude formation. These findings demonstrate that EK, a form of involvement, can influence attitudes and perception of a greenwashed advertisement.
A survey conducted in France asked subjects their perceptions of a fake car brand called LUNA. Respondents were instructed to evaluate the car brand’s website, showing an image of their new model, followed by a questionnaire. Similarly to Schmuck et al., Parguel, Benoit-Moreau, and Russell also measured prior knowledge of environmental science with a variable labeled “expert” and “non-expert.”
Parguel et al. make the case that, although there are regulations in place, they do little to address the consequences of executional greenwashing because “the list of visuals or pictorial elements that can mislead consumers is endless.” Regulations also vary by country and can be informed by cultural background, for example, France suggests against using potentially delusive visuals in green advertisements.
Researchers De Jong, Harkink, and Barth compared the effects of greenwashing on two types of products: perfume and detergent (2018). They then elaborated a step further and stratified their comparison by identifying four different types of sources: “silent green,” “vocal green,” “silent brown,” and “greenwashing” organizations. Silent green refers to organizations with good environmental “performance” who do not communicate about their work, while vocal green organizations do communicate about their good work positively, compared to silent browns, which have poor environmental performance and do not communicate about it, and greenwashing brands have poor environmental performance coupled with positive communication. De Jong et al. hypothesized that participants would be less interested in purchasing silent brown and/or greenwashed products compared to green alternatives.
All of the above research demonstrated the ramifications of greenwashing and how it can lead people to buy items that may not necessarily fulfill the environmentally beneficial claims that they make. The researchers demonstrated that people with relatively less familiarity with environmental processes were more likely to be persuaded by vague or false claims (Schmuck, et al., 2018).
In the United States, environmental education is mandated as part of a proposed curriculum by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 2003). However, across the country, two of the biggest challenges to incorporating units about environmental science and sustainability into lesson plans are “teacher workload and lack of funding” and also, schools reported their highest instance of integration of environmental education was the presence of an environmental club (Chapman, 2014). Also, the efforts by the current presidential administration to undermine the integrity of the Environmental Protection Agency — the foremost government entity on land usage, habitat conservation, natural resource protection, etc. — has weakened an important source of environmental advocacy and spread false information to the public. These and other factors in sum have contributed to the lack of environmental education in the United States, and thus, greater susceptibility to deceit by greenwashed advertising. Actions must be taken to remedy this through a state- or university-mandated environmental literacy requirement (NAAEE, 2008) The University of Georgia has had an environmental literacy requirement since 1993 and has shown marked improvement in student’s environmental knowledge (Moody, G., Alkaff, H., Garrison, D., & Golley, 2005).
Today, green bottles and labels with photos of nature scenes populate the shelves of every supermarket. But the effects of greenwashing reach far beyond the grocery store shelf. This marketing technique has implications for consumer trust of companies, advertisements, and the success of the environmental movement. If products using these marketing techniques are discredited, it ripples and can stigmatize the advancement of environmental causes. Brands abuse the pleasant connotation of being perceived as environmentally friendly and socially responsible for their own financial benefit. An environmental literacy requirement in U.S. and international schools would improve consumer recognition of greenwashing and reduce the effect of deceptive advertising. If people are better informed about ecological science, they will be more skeptical of labels, visuals, and claims (Schmuck et al., 2018).
Conscious consumers who buy greenwashed products have good intentions (SOURCE). They are under the impression that they are making the most environmentally responsible choice, when in reality, they are being deceived by companies abusing the halo effect surrounding environmental work.
References
CBC News (2015). Greenwashing: Busting “eco” labels (CBC Marketplace). CBC News.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nys5TaGGkRk
Chapman, P. (2014) Environmental education and sustainability in U.S. public schools. Project Green
Schools. www.projectgreenschools.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/USGreenSchools12114.pdf
Federal Trade Commission (2012). Guides for the use of environmental marketing claims. Federal
Register, 77(197). www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/guides-use-environmental-marketing-claims-green-guides/greenguidesfrn.pdf
Friedman, L. (2019). Andrew Wheeler, who continued environmental rollbacks, is confirmed to
lead E.P.A. The New York Times.
www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/climate/andrew-wheeler-epa-confirmation
Karliner, J. (2001). A brief history of greenwash. CorpWatch.
www.corpwatch.org/article/brief-history-greenwash
Moody, G., Alkaff, H., Garrison, D., & Golley, F. (2005). Assessing the environmental literacy requirement at the University of Georgia, The Journal of Environmental Education, 36:4, 3–9, doi: 10.3200/JOEE.36.4.3–9
North American Association for Environmental Education (2008). Developing a state environmental
literacy plan. North American Association for Environmental Education. www.cdn.naaee.org
