Greenwashing

Greenwashing (a compound word modelled on "whitewash"), also called "green sheen",[1][2] is a form of marketing spin in which green PR (green values) and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly.

Environment
Environment in
Part of a series on
Green politics
Core topics
Four pillars
Perspectives
Organizations
Related topics

Critics of the practice suggest the rise of greenwashing, paired with ineffective regulation, contributes to consumer skepticism of all green claims, and diminishes the power of the consumer in driving companies toward greener solutions for manufacturing processes and business operations.[3] Many corporate structures use greenwashing as a way to repair public perception of their brand. The structuring of corporate disclosure is often set up so as to maximize perceptions of legitimacy.[4] However, a growing body of social and environmental accounting research finds, in the absence of external monitoring and verification, greenwashing strategies amount to corporate posturing and deception.[5] Indeed, when a company decides to behave responsibly and adopt a sustainable development vision, it has to change its corporate culture in depth. An understanding and appropriation of the concept are necessary. It is not enough to integrate sustainable development into communication in order to persuade the consumer to buy.[6]

While greenwashing is not new, its use has increased over recent years to meet consumer demand for environmentally friendly goods and services. The problem is compounded by lax enforcement by regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, the Competition Bureau in Canada, and the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice in the United Kingdom.

Terminology

The term greenwashing was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westervelt in a 1986 essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing placards in each room promoting reuse of towels ostensibly to "save the environment." Westervelt noted in most cases, little or no effort toward reducing energy waste was being made by these institutions—as evidenced by the lack of cost reduction this practice effected. Westervelt opined the actual objective of this "green campaign" on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, increased profit. Westervelt thus labeled this and other outwardly environmentally conscientious acts with a greater, underlying purpose of profit increase as greenwashing.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Home and Family edition describes seven sins of greenwashing:

  1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-off, committed by suggesting a product is "green" based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues.
  2. Sin of No Proof, committed by an environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification.
  3. Sin of Vagueness, committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
  4. Sin of Worshiping False Labels is committed when a claim, communicated either through words or images, gives the impression of a third-party endorsement where no such endorsement exists.
  5. Sin of Irrelevance, committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but which is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.
  6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils, committed by claims that may be true within the product category, but that risk distracting consumers from the greater environmental impact of the category as a whole.
  7. Sin of Fibbing, the least frequent Sin, is committed by making environmental claims that are simply false.[13]

Evidence an organization is greenwashing often comes from pointing out the spending differences: when significantly more money or time has been spent advertising being "green" (that is, operating with consideration for the environment), than is actually spent on environmentally sound practices.[14] Greenwashing efforts can range from changing the name or label of a product to evoke the natural environment on a product containing harmful chemicals to multimillion-dollar marketing campaigns portraying highly polluting energy companies as eco-friendly. Greenwashing is therefore a "mask" used to cover-up unsustainable corporate agendas and policies.[15][16] Highly public accusations of greenwashing have contributed to the term's increasing use.[17]

Similarly, the introduction of a Carbon Emission Trading Scheme may feel good, but potentially counterproductive if the cost of carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given "free credits." For example, Bank of America subsidiary MBNA offers an Eco-Logique MasterCard for Canadian consumers that rewards customers with carbon offsets as they continue using the card. Customers may feel that they are nullifying their carbon footprint by purchasing polluting goods with the card. However, only 0.5 percent of the purchase price goes into purchasing carbon offsets, while the rest of the interchange fee still goes to the bank.[18]

Such campaigns and marketing communications, designed to publicize and highlight organizational CSR policies to various stakeholders, affect corporate reputation and brand image, but the proliferation of unsubstantiated ethical claims and greenwashing by some companies has resulted in increasing consumer cynicism and mistrust.[19]

Greenscamming

Greenscamming or Greenscam is a type of greenwashing in which environmentally friendly sounding names and designations for organizations or products that are not environmentally friendly. It is related to both greenwashing and greenspeak.[20] For example, a commonly used greenscamming method is for anti-environmental organizations to give themselves environmentally friendly or "green" sounding names that suggest an interest in environmental protection to deceive the public about their true intentions and motives. This procedure corresponds to the aggressive mimicry in biology.[21][22]

Greenscamming is used in particular by industrial companies and associations that use astroturfing organisations to try to dispute scientific findings that they consider threatening to their business model. One example is the denial of man-made global warming by companies in the fossil energy sector, also driven by specially founded greenscamming organizations.

One reason for setting up greenscamming organizations is that it is very difficult to communicate open anti-environmental movements or initiatives to the public as positive. Sociologist Charles Harper stresses that it would be very difficult for marketing departments to market a group with the hypothetical name "Coalition to Trash the Environment for Profit". Anti-environment initiatives are therefore often forced to give their front organizations deliberately deceptive names if they want to be successful in public. This is all the more important in view of the fact that surveys indicate that environmental protection is a social consensus. At the same time, however, there is a danger of being exposed as an anti-environmental initiative, which entails a considerable risk that the greenscamming activities backfire and are counterproductive for the initiators.[23]

Greenscamming organizations are very active in the organized climate denial scene, among others.[21] An important financier of greenscamming organizations was the oil company ExxonMobil, which over the years financially supported more than 100 climate denial organizations and spent about 20 million US dollars on greenscamming groups.[24] In many of these organizations, James Lawrence Powell identified their "admirable" designations as the most striking common feature, which for the most part sounded very rationalistic. In this context, he refers to a list of climate denial organizations drawn up by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which includes 43 organizations funded by the Exxon oil company. None of these organizations had a name from which to derive their opposition to climate change. The list is headed by the organization Africa Fighting Malaria, whose website features articles and commentaries opposing ambitious climate mitigation concepts, even though the dangers of malaria could be exacerbated by global warming.[25]

Examples

Examples of greenscamming organizations include the National Wetlands Coalition, Friends of Eagle Mountain, The Sahara Club, The Alliance for Environment and Resources, The Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, the Global Climate Coalition, the National Wilderness Institute, the Environmental Policy Alliance of the Center for Organizational Research and Education, and the American Council on Science and Health.[22][26] Behind these alleged environmental protection organizations lie the interests of business sectors. For example, the National Wetland Coalition is backed by oil drilling companies and real estate developers, while the Friends of Eagle Mountain is backed by a mining company that wants to convert open-cast mines into landfills. The Global Climate Coalition was again backed by commercial enterprises that fought against government-imposed climate protection measures. Other Greenscam organizations include the US Council for Energy Awareness, backed by the nuclear industry; the Wilderness Impact Research Foundation, representing the interests of lumberjacks and ranchers; and the American Environmental Foundation, representing the interests of landowners.[27]

Another Greenscam organization is the Northwesterners for More Fish, which had a budget of $2.6 million in 1998. This group opposed conservation measures for endangered fish that restricted the interests of energy companies, aluminium companies, and the timber industry in the region, and tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats.[22] The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the National Environmental Policy Institute, and the Information Council on the Environment funded by the coal industry are also greenscamming organizations.[24]

In Germany, for example, this form of mimicry or deception is used by the so-called "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (EIKE), which mistakenly suggests by its name that it is an important scientific research institution.[28] In fact, EIKE is not a scientific institution at all, but a lobby organization that neither has an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website.[29]

Psychological effects

Greenwashing is a relatively new area of research within psychology and there is little consensus between studies on how greenwashing affects consumers and stakeholders. Because of the variance in country and geography in recently published studies, the discrepancy between consumer behavior in studies could be attributed to cultural or geographic differences.

Greenwashing's effect on consumer perception

Researches found that products that are truly environmentally-friendly are perceived significantly more favorably than their greenwashed counterparts. Consumers are more likely to perceive the price of an item marketed as green as a sacrifice when evaluating greenwashed products.[30] Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also found to be mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to.[31] Other research suggests that few consumers actually notice greenwashing, particularly when they perceive the company or brand as reputable. When consumers perceive green advertising as credible, they develop more positive attitudes towards the brand, even when the advertising is greenwashed. Consumers are not aware of greenwashing in advertising, and trust green advertisements even when they are deceptive.[32] Still other research suggests that consumers with higher green concern are more able to tell the difference between honest green marketing and greenwashed advertising; the higher the green concern, the stronger the intention will be for not purchasing from companies from which they perceive greenwashing advertising behavior. When consumers use word-of-mouth to communicate about a product, green concern strengthens the negative relationship between the consumer's intent to purchase and the perception of greenwashing.[33]

Attributions of greenwashing

Consumer perception of green advertisements and greenwashing alike is impacted by where consumers attribute the green messaging. Eco-labels can be given to a product both from an external organization and by the company itself, which has raised concerns considering that companies are able to label a product green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing negative environmental impacts.[34] Consumers expect to see eco-labels from both internal and external sources but perceive labels from external sources to be more trustworthy. Researchers from the University of Twente found that uncertified or greenwashed internal eco-labels may still contribute to consumer perceptions of a responsible company, with consumers attributing internal motivation to a company's internal eco-labeling.[35] Other research connecting attribution theory and greenwashing found that consumers will often perceive green advertising as greenwashing when companies use green advertisements, attributing the green messaging to corporate self-interest. Green advertising can backfire and is perceived negatively especially when the advertisement or environmental claim does not match a company's actual environmental engagement.[36]

Implications for green business

The majority of researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that in order for companies to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing, companies should ‘walk the walk’ when it comes to green advertising and green behavior. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising is found to be most effective when it matches a company's actual environmental engagement. This is also mediated by the visibility of those environmental engagements, meaning that if consumers are unaware of a company's commitment to sustainability or environmentally-conscious ethos, they are unable to factor greenness in their assessment of the company or product.[37]

Limits of greenwashing on consumer perception

Research suggests that consumers’ willingness to purchase green decreases when they perceive the green attributes compromise the product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of the green messaging. Words and phrases often used in green messaging and greenwashing, such as “gentle,” can lead consumers to believe the green product is less effective than a non-green option.[38]

Examples of greenwashing
The Airbus A380 described as "A better environment inside and out."

Common examples present in the marketing of food products (i.e. by making them appear to be healthier just because they have only natural ingredients, whereas even sugars and fat contents can affect healthyness of a product), alternative medicine and natural medicine.[39][40]

  • "Clean Burning Natural Gas" — When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel coal, natural gas is only 50% as dirty. Fracking issues exist when producing the gas, and if as little as 3 percent of the gas produced escapes, effects upon the climate are close to equivalent as when burning coal.[41] Despite this, it is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse and is in practice used to balance the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy.[42] That said, it can be considered a useful "transitional technology" towards hydrogen as hydrogen can already be blended in and eventually be used to replace it, inside gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use.
  • First-generation biofuels are mentioned as being more environmental to fossil fuels, but some (such as palm oil) contribute to deforestation (which contributes to global warming due to release of CO2). Higher-generation biofuels do not have these issues however.
  • Many food products have packaging that evokes an environmentally friendly imagery even though there has been no attempt made at lowering the environmental impact of its production.[44]
  • In 2009, European McDonald's changed the colour of their logos from yellow and red to yellow and green; a spokesman for the company explained that the change was "to clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources."[45]
  • Existing published consumption figures tend to underestimate the consumption seen in practice by 20 to 30%.[46][47] The reason is partly that the official fuel consumption tests are not sufficiently representative of real-world usage. Automakers optimise their fuel consumption strategies in order to reduce the apparent cost of ownership of the cars and to improve their green image.
  • Some environmental conservation groups have criticized the Annenberg Foundation for their attempt to construct domestic pet adoption and care facilities in the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve by repackaging them as part of an "urban ecology center" [48] - a name chosen because it "accommodated the animal adoption process" according to a former spokesperson for the Foundation. The Los Angeles Times called the proposed domestic pet adoption facilities a "bad fit" for the ecological reserve.[49]
  • An article in Wired magazine alleges that slogans are used to suggest environmentally benign business activity: the Comcast Ecobill has the slogan "PaperLESSisMORE", but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing. The Poland Spring ecoshape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good," although 80% of beverage containers go to landfills. The Airbus A380 airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high negative environment cost.[50]
  • Kimberly Clark's claim of "Pure and Natural" diapers in green packaging. The product uses organic cotton on the outside but keeps the same petrochemical gel on the inside. Pampers also claims that "Dry Max" diapers reduce landfill waste by reducing the amount of paper fluff in the diaper, which really is a way for Pampers to save money.[55][56]
  • Advising hotel guests to reuse towels have an environmental impact with little cost, due to less energy and detergent used. More of a PR trick is that some hotels use key cards made of wood rather than made of plastic.[57]
  • "Clean Coal," an initiative adopted by several platforms for the 2008 U.S presidential elections is an example of political greenwashing. The policy cited carbon capture as a means of reducing carbon emissions by capturing and injecting carbon dioxide produced by coal power plants into layers of porous rock below the ground. According to Fred Pearce's Greenwash column in The Guardian, "clean coal" is the "ultimate climate change oxymoron"—"pure and utter greenwash" he says.[59]
  • The conversion of the term "Tar Sands" to "Oil Sands," (Alberta, Canada) in corporate and political language reflects an ongoing debate between the project's adherents and opponents. This semantic shift can be seen as a case of greenwashing in an attempt at countering growing public concern as to the environmental and health impacts of the industry. While advocates claim that the shift is scientifically derived to better reflect the usage of the sands as a precursor to oil, environmental groups are claiming that this is simply a means of cloaking the issue behind friendlier terminology.
  • Over the past years Walmart has proclaimed to "go green" with a sustainability campaign. However, according to the Institute For Local Reliance (ILRS), “Walmart’s sustainability campaign has done more to improve the company’s image than the environment.” Walmart still only generates 2 percent of U.S. electricity from wind and solar resources. According to the ILRS, Walmart routinely donates money to political candidates who vote against the environment. The retail giant responded to these accusations by stating "that it is serious about its commitment to reduce 20 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015."[60]
  • Environmental accounting can easily be used to pretend that the environmental impacts of a company are reduced while actual impacts increase.
  • In 2018, in response to increased calls for banning plastic straws, Starbucks introduced a new straw-less lid that actually contained more plastic by weight than the old straw and lid combination.[61]
  • The term "bioplastics" refers to a plastic product that has been using materials based on biomass or manufactured with organisms. Bioplastics are often conflated with biodegradable plastics however the terms are not synonymous. For example, drop-in bioplastics are still considered bioplastics although the plastic produced has an identical chemical compound to that of its petroleum counterpart.
  • Environmental awards given to fossil fuel companies such as Saudi Aramco by groups such as "The Green Organization" which charge entry and membership fees.[62]
  • In January 2020 the Fur Free Alliance (FFA) pointed that the "WelFur" label is run by the fur industry itself and is aimed at European fur farms.[63]

Opposition

Organizations and individuals are making attempts to reduce the impact of greenwashing by exposing it to the public.[64] The Greenwashing Index,[65] created by the University of Oregon in partnership with EnviroMedia Social Marketing, allows examples of greenwashing to be uploaded and rated by the public.[14] The British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing has a specific section (section 49) targeting environmental claims.

According to some organizations opposing greenwashing, there has been a significant increase in its use by companies over the last decade. TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, an advertising consultancy company, issued a report denoting a 79% increase in the usage of corporate greenwashing between 2007 and 2009. Additionally, it has begun to manifest itself in new varied ways. Within the non-residential building products market in the United States, some companies are beginning to claim that their environmentally minded policy changes will allow them to earn points through the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating program. This point system has been held up as an example of the "gateway effect" that the drive to market products as environmentally friendly is having on company policies. Some have claimed that the greenwashing trend may be enough to eventually effect a genuine reduction in environmentally damaging practices.

According to the Home and Family Edition, 95% of consumer products claiming to be green were discovered to commit at least one of the "Sins of Greenwashing".

In 2008, Ed Gillespie identified "ten signs of greenwashing", which are similar to the Seven Sins listed above, but with three additional indicators.

  1. Suggestive pictures - Images that imply a baseless green impact, such as flowers issuing from the exhaust pipe of a vehicle.
  2. Just not credible - A claim that touts the environmentally friendly attributes of a dangerous product, such as cigarettes.
  3. Gobbledygook - The use of jargon or information that the average person can not readily understand or be able to verify.[66]

Companies may pursue environmental certification to avoid greenwashing through independent verification of their green claims. For example, the Carbon Trust Standard launched in 2007 with the stated aim "to end 'greenwash' and highlight firms that are genuine about their commitment to the environment".[67]

Regulation

Australia

The Australian Trade Practices Act has been modified to include punishment of companies that provide misleading environmental claims. Any organization found guilty of such could face up $6 million[68] in fines. In addition, the guilty party must pay for all expenses incurred while setting the record straight about their product or company's actual environmental impact.[69]

Canada

Canada's Competition Bureau along with the Canadian Standards Association are discouraging companies from making "vague claims" towards their products' environmental impact. Any claims must be backed up by "readily available data."[69]

European Union

In the EU, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) also handles investigations that have an environment or sustainability element, such as misspending of EU funds intended for green products and the counterfeiting and smuggling of products with the potential to harm the environment and health. It also handles illegal logging and smuggling of precious wood and timber into the EU (wood laundering).[70]

Norway

Norway's consumer ombudsman has targeted automakers who claim that their cars are "green," "clean" or "environmentally friendly" with some of the world's strictest advertising guidelines. Consumer Ombudsman official Bente Øverli said: "Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others." Manufacturers risk fines if they fail to drop the words. Øverli said she did not know of other countries going so far in cracking down on cars and the environment.[71][72][73][74]

U.S.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) provides voluntary guidelines for environmental marketing claims. These guidelines give the FTC the right to prosecute false and misleading advertisement claims. The green guidelines were not created to be used as an enforceable guideline but instead were intended to be followed voluntarily. Listed below are the green guidelines set by the FTC.

  • Qualifications and disclosures: The Commission traditionally has held that in order to be effective, any qualifications or disclosures such as those described in these guides should be sufficiently clear, prominent and understandable to prevent deception. Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.[75]
  • Distinction between benefits of product, package, and service: An environmental marketing claim should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the environmental attribute or benefit being asserted refers to the product, the product's packaging, a service, or to a portion or component of the product, package or service. In general, if the environmental attribute or benefit applies to all but minor, incidental components of a product or package, the claim need not be qualified to identify that fact. There may be exceptions to this general principle. For example, if an unqualified "recyclable" claim is made and the presence of the incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle the product, then the claim would be deceptive.[75]
  • Overstatement of environmental attribute: An environmental marketing claim should not be presented in a manner that overstates the environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmental benefits if the benefit is in fact negligible.[75]
  • Comparative claims: Environmental marketing claims that include a comparative statement should be presented in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently clear to avoid consumer deception. In addition, the advertiser should be able to substantiate the comparison.[75]

The FTC has said in 2010 that it will update its guidelines for environmental marketing claims in an attempt to reduce greenwashing.[76] The revision to the FTC's Green Guides covers a wide range of public input, including hundreds of consumer and industry comments on previously proposed revisions. The updates and revision to the existing Guides include a new section of carbon offsets, "green" certifications and seals renewable energy and renewable materials claims. According to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, "The introduction of environmentally friendly products into the marketplace is a win for consumers who want to purchase greener products and producers who wants to sell them." Leibowitz also says the win-win can only claim if marketers' claims are straightforward and proven.[77]

In 2013, the FTC began enforcing the revisions put forth in the Green Guides. The FTC cracked down on six different companies, in which five of the cases were concerned with the false or misleading advertising surrounding the biodegradability of plastics. The FTC charged ECM Biofilms, American Plastic Manufacturing, CHAMP, Clear Choice Housewares, and Carnie Cap, for misrepresenting the biodegradability of their plastics treated with additives.[78]

The FTC charged a sixth company, AJM Packaging Corporation, for violating a commission consent order put in place that prohibits companies from using advertising claims based on the product or packaging being "degradable, biodegradable, or photodegradable" without reliable scientific information.[78] The FTC now requires companies to disclose and provide the information that qualifies their environmental claims to ensure transparency.

History
Demonstration at Leverkusen (Germany) against cooperation of BAYER and UNEP

Keep America Beautiful was a campaign founded by beverage manufacturers and others in 1953, partly to forestall regulation of disposable containers.[79]

In the mid 1960s, the environmental movement gained momentum. This popularity prompted many companies to create a new green image through advertising. Jerry Mander, a former Madison Avenue advertising executive, called this new form of advertising "ecopornography."[80]

The first Earth Day was held on April 22, 1970. This encouraged many industries to advertise themselves as being friendly to the environment. Public utilities spent 300 million dollars advertising themselves as clean green companies. This was eight times more than the money they spent on pollution reduction research.[81][82]

In 1985, the Chevron Corporation launched one of the most famous greenwashing ad campaigns in history. Chevron's "People Do" advertisements were aimed at a "hostile audience" of "societally conscious" people. Two years after the launch of the campaign, surveys found people in California trusted Chevron more than other oil companies to protect the environment. In the late 1980s The American Chemistry Council started a program called Responsible Care, which shone a light on the environmental performances and precautions of the group's members. The loose guidelines of responsible care caused industries to adopt self-regulation over government regulation.[81][82]

In 1991, a study published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing (American Marketing Association) found that 58% of environmental ads had at least one deceptive claim. Another study found that 77% of people said the environmental reputation of the company affected whether they would buy their products. One-fourth of all household products marketed around Earth Day advertised themselves as being green and environmentally friendly. In 1998 the Federal Trade Commission created the "Green Guidelines," which defined terms used in environmental marketing. The following year the FTC found that the Nuclear Energy Institute claims of being environmentally clean were not true. The FTC did nothing about the ads because they were out of their jurisdiction. This caused the FTC to realize they needed new clear enforceable standards. In 1999, according to environmental activist organizations, the word "greenwashing" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary.[81][82]

In 2002, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the Greenwashing Academy hosted the Greenwash Academy Awards. The ceremony awarded companies like BP, ExxonMobil, and even the US Government for their elaborate greenwashing ads and support for greenwashing.[81][82]

More recently, social scientists have been investigating claims of and the impact of greenwashing. In 2005, Ramus and Monteil conducted secondary data analysis of two databases to uncover corporate commitment to the implementation of environmental policies as opposed to greenwashing. They found while companies in the oil and gas are more likely to implement environmental policies than service industry companies, they are less likely to commit to fossil fuel reduction.[83]

Greenwashing practices have also a significant impact on the perceptions of stakeholders in general. A recent study has analysed this issue because the effect on perceptions of the effective social and environmental responsibility of companies, the possible presence of misleading practices and the intentions following an environmental scandal creates significant distortions in the market, in the economic system, as well as increasing the information asymmetry between companies and stakeholders.[31]

See also

References
  1. The Age of Persuasion (January 8, 2011). "Season 5: It's Not Easy Being Green: Green Marketing". CBC Radio. Retrieved 8 January 2011.
  2. "LP: 'The biggest environmental crime in history'". Libertypost.org. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  3. Dahl, Richard (1 June 2010). "Greenwashing: Do You Know What You're Buying?". Environmental Health Perspectives. 118 (6): a246–a252. doi:10.1289/ehp.118-a246. PMC 2898878. PMID 20515714.
  4. Condon, Madison. "Climate Change's New Ally: Big Finance". Boston Review.
  5. Laufer, William S. (2003). "Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing". Journal of Business Ethics. 43 (3): 253–261. doi:10.1023/A:1022962719299. S2CID 153622350.
  6. Ullman, Charlotte (2008). "Compte rendu de l'ouvrage « L'entreprise verte » d'Elisabeth LAVILLE". OpenEdition journal (in French). doi:10.4000/netcom.1764.
  7. Motavalli, Jim (2011-02-12). "A History of Greenwashing: How Dirty Towels Impacted the Green Movement". AOL.
  8. "Grønvaskere invaderer børsen" [Greenwashers invade the market]. EPN.dk (in Danish). Jyllands-Posten. 2008-06-21. Archived from the original on 2008-07-05. Retrieved 2012-12-22.
  9. "Beware of green marketing, warns Greenpeace exec". ABS-CBN News. 2008-09-17. Retrieved 2012-11-14.
  10. Hayward, Philip (2009-02-01). "The Real Deal? Hotels grapple with green washing". Lodging Magazine online. Archived from the original on 2009-02-05.
  11. Suryodiningrat, Meidyatama (2008-08-28). "Commentary: When CSR is neither profit nor public good". Jakarta Post online. Retrieved 2012-12-24.
  12. Romero, Purple (2008-09-17). "ABS-CNB News". Abs-cbnnews.com. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  13. "Home and Family Edition". The Sins of Greenwashing. 2012-09-13. Archived from the original on 2014-07-17. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  14. "Greenpeace | Greenwashing". Stopgreenwash.org. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  15. Karliner, Joshua (March 22, 2001). "CorpWatch: A Brief History of Greenwash". Corpwatch.org. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
  16. 24/7 Wall Street (May 25, 2011). "Top 10 Greenwashing Companies In America". Huffington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
  17. Seele, Peter; Gatti, Lucia (2015). "Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies". Business Strategy and the Environment. 26 (2): 239–252. doi:10.1002/bse.1912.
  18. "Cashing in on the Environmental". Climate Change Central. 2009-11-13. Archived from the original on 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2017-12-02.
  19. Jahdi, Khosro S.; Acikdilli, Gaye (August 2009). "Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Marriage of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding?". Journal of Business Ethics. 88 (1): 103–113. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1. ISSN 0167-4544. S2CID 154891072.
  20. Sharon Beder: Greenwashing. In: John Barry, E. Gene Frankland (Eds.): International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics. London 2002, p. 253-54
  21. Washington, Haydn (2011). Climate change denial: heads in the sand. London: Earthscan. pp. 72–75. ISBN 9781849713368.
  22. Ehrlich, Paul R.; Ehrlich, Anne H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. p. 16. ISBN 9781559634847.
  23. Harper, Charles L. (2012). Environment and society: human perspectives on environmental issues (5th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall. pp. 244–256. ISBN 9780205820535.
  24. Washington, Haydn (2011). Climate change denial: heads in the sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75. ISBN 9781849713368.
  25. Powell, James Lawrence (2011). The inquisition of climate science. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 93–94. ISBN 9780231157186.
  26. See also: Jen Schneider, Steve Schwarze, Peter K. Bsumek, Jennifer Peeples: The Hypocite's Trap. In: Under Pressure (Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication). Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016, doi:10.1057/978-1-137-53315-9_5
  27. Harper, Charles L. (2012). Environment and society: human perspectives on environmental issues (5th ed.). Prentice Hall. p. 245. ISBN 9780205820535.
  28. Michael Brüggemann: Die Medien und die Klimalüge. Falsche Skepsis und echte Leugnung. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Eds.): „Lügenpresse“: Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs. Cologne 2017, p. 137–157, p. 143/44 and 150.
  29. See Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. C. H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, ISBN 978-3406633850, p. 85.
  30. Lee, Jeonggyu; Bhatt, Siddharth; Suri, Rajneesh (2017-12-13). "When consumers penalize not so green products". Psychology & Marketing. 35 (1): 36–46. doi:10.1002/mar.21069. ISSN 0742-6046.
  31. Torelli, Riccardo; Balluchi, Federica; Lazzini, Arianna (2019-08-14). "Greenwashing and environmental communication: Effects on stakeholders' perceptions". Business Strategy and the Environment. 29 (2): 407–421. doi:10.1002/bse.2373. ISSN 0964-4733.
  32. Östoy, T. "An Investigation of the Effects of Consumers' Environmental Attitudes on Perceptions of Green Ads and Attitudes toward the Brand". Journal of Academic Research in Economics. 8: 7–37 – via ebscohost.com.
  33. Zhang, Lu; Li, Dayuan; Cao, Cuicui; Huang, Senhua (June 2018). "The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern". Journal of Cleaner Production. 187: 740–750. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.201.
  34. Lyon, Thomas P.; Montgomery, A. Wren (2015-03-23). "The Means and End of Greenwash". Organization & Environment. 28 (2): 223–249. doi:10.1177/1086026615575332. ISSN 1086-0266. S2CID 154964909.
  35. Gosselt, Jordy F.; van Rompay, Thomas; Haske, Laura (March 2019). "Won't Get Fooled Again: The Effects of Internal and External CSR ECO-Labeling". Journal of Business Ethics. 155 (2): 413–424. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8. ISSN 0167-4544. S2CID 157638391.
  36. Nyilasy, Gergely; Gangadharbatla, Harsha; Paladino, Angela (December 2014). "Perceived Greenwashing: The Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on Consumer Reactions". Journal of Business Ethics. 125 (4): 693–707. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3. ISSN 0167-4544. S2CID 154101047.
  37. Berrone, Pascual; Fosfuri, Andrea; Gelabert, Liliana (August 2017). "Does Greenwashing Pay Off? Understanding the Relationship Between Environmental Actions and Environmental Legitimacy". Journal of Business Ethics. 144 (2): 363–379. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9. ISSN 0167-4544. S2CID 152869329.
  38. Newman, George E.; Gorlin, Margarita; Dhar, Ravi (2014-10-01). "When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements". Journal of Consumer Research. 41 (3): 823–839. doi:10.1086/677841. ISSN 0093-5301.
  39. Kahle, Lynn R.; Gurel-Atay, Eda, eds. (2014). Communicating Sustainability for the Green Economy. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 9780765636812.
  40. Marquis, Christopher; Qian, Cuili (2014). "Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China: Symbol or Substance?". Organization Science. 25 (1): 127–148. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0837. hdl:1813/36445. ISSN 1047-7039.
  41. Bittman, Mark (24 September 2013). "Is Natural Gas 'Clean'? (Opinion)". The New York Times. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
  42. Frodl, Michael G.; Manoyan, John M. (May 2009). "Natural Gas: Safer Cleaner Energy That Pays For Itself". National Defense. Archived from the original on April 25, 2009. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
  43. US Senator Patrick Leahy (April 26, 2004). "The Greenwashing of the Bush Anti-Environmental Record on the President's Earth Day Visits to Maine and Florida". Archived from the original on 2010-02-03. Retrieved June 29, 2007.
  44. Severson, Kim (2007-01-03). "Be It Ever So Homespun, There's Nothing Like Spin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
  45. "McDonald's rolling out 'green' logo in Europe". NBC News. 2009-11-23. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  46. Real-world emissions as well as the fuel consumption under the MCC (Milan City Cycle) were much higher - almost double - those obtained under the European type approval test cycle, Ref: JRC>IES>>13202
  47. ""Real World" Fuel Economy vs. EPA Estimates". Edmunds. May 11, 2005. Archived from the original on June 8, 2009. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
  48. "Ballona Wetlands Land Trust Responds to the Annenberg Foundation's Proposal for Area C". Culver City Times. 2013-12-02. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  49. "A bad fit for Ballona Wetlands (Editorial)". The LA Times. September 20, 2013. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
  50. Hagerman, Eric (2008-10-20). "Little Green Lies—How Companies Erect an Eco-Facade". Wired. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
  51. "ASA Adjudications - Suzuki GB plc". ASA. 2009-06-10. Archived from the original on 2012-07-18. Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  52. "ASA Adjudications Volkswagen Group UK Ltd t/a Seat UK". ASA. 2009-04-22. Archived from the original on 2009-05-02. Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  53. "ASA Adjudications Toyota (GB) plc". ASA. 2008-12-10. Archived from the original on 2008-12-12. Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  54. "ASA Adjudications Lexus (GB) Ltd". ASA. 2008-09-24. Archived from the original on 2009-01-13. Retrieved 2009-07-20.
  55. "The true story of Pampers Dry Max, Part 1: The Diaper Wars". Z recommends. May 31, 2010. Archived from the original on May 26, 2010. Retrieved March 23, 2018.
  56. "P&G". Futurefriendly.com. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  57. https://lvevision-keycards.com/
  58. "Massive Chevron Ad Campaign Derailed, Media Slapstick Follows" (Press release). Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center. 19 October 2010. Archived from the original on 3 December 2010. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
  59. Pearce, Fred (2009-02-26). "Greenwash: Why 'clean coal' is the ultimate climate-change oxymoron". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-02-13.
  60. "Top 10 Ways Walmart Fails on Sustainability | Institute for Local Self-Reliance". Ilsr.org. 2012-04-17. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  61. "Starbucks Bans Plastic Straws, Winds Up Using More Plastic". Reason.com. 2018-07-12. Retrieved 2018-07-18.
  62. "Box 4 – What is the Green Organisation | The Green Organisation". Retrieved 2020-02-01.
  63. Four Paws and Fur Free Alliance warn against "Welfur" animal welfare label, retrieved January 29, 2020 in Four-paws.org.
  64. "Green Watch". choice.com.au. Archived from the original on 2009-05-09. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  65. "Greenwashing Index". Greenwashing Index. Archived from the original on 2012-09-05. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  66. Gillespie, Ed (May 2008). "Stemming the tide of 'greenwash'". Consumer Policy Review. 18 (3): 79. Retrieved March 23, 2018 – via ebscohost.
  67. "Carbon Trust aims to end 'greenwash' by launching company standard". The Guardian. 24 June 2008. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
  68. "Nurofen fine over misleading claims in Australia increased to £3.5 million". Telegraph. France Presse Agence. 16 December 2016. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  69. Naish, J. (2008). "Lies...Damned lies...And green lies". Ecologist. 38 (5): 36–39.
  70. Criminals increasingly targeting EU funds
  71. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 23, 2010. Retrieved April 21, 2009.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  72. "Prove 'clean, green' ads, Norway tells automakers". Motoring.co.za. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  73. "Greenwash Watch: Norways Says Cars Neither Green Nor Clean". Treehugger.com. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  74. Doyle, Alister (2007-09-06). "Norways Says Cars Neither Green Nor Clean". Reuters.com. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  75. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 17, 2008. Retrieved November 17, 2008.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  76. "FTC Reviews Guidelines for Green Claims". Greencleancertified.com. 2016-06-15. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  77. "FTC Issues Revised "Green Guides"". US Federal Trade Commission. 2012-10-01. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  78. "FTC Cracking Down on Misleading, Unsubstantiated Biodegradability Claims". Sustainable Brands. Retrieved 2016-04-06.
  79. Throughlin: The Litter Myth
  80. Black, Brian (2008). Lybecker, Donna L. (ed.). Great Debates in American Environmental History. Westport: Greenwood Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-313-33930-1.
  81. "Greenwashing 101 - The Green Life". Thegreenlifeonline.org. 2012-07-06. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  82. "CorpWatch : Greenwash Fact Sheet". Corpwatch.org. 2001-03-22. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  83. Ramus, Catherine A.; Montiel, Ivan (July 26, 2016). "When Are Corporate Environmental Policies a Form of Greenwashing?". Business & Society. 44 (4): 377–414. doi:10.1177/0007650305278120. S2CID 154581794.

Further reading
  • Catherine, P. (n.d). Eco-friendly labelling? It's a lot of 'greenwash'. Toronto Star (Canada), Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
  • Clegg, Brian. 2009. Eco-logic: Cutting Through the Greenwash: Truth, Lies and Saving the Planet. London: Eden Project. ISBN 978-1-905811-25-0.
  • Dobin, D (2009). "Greenwashing harms entire movement". Lodging Hospitality. 65 (14): 42.
  • Greer, Jed, and Kenny Bruno. 1996. Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network. ISBN 983-9747-16-9.
  • Jenny, D. (n.d). New reports put an end to greenwashing. Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney), Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
  • Jonathan, L. (n.d). Why 'greenwash' won't wash with consumers. Sunday Times, The, Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
  • Lubbers, Eveline. 2002. Battling Big Business: Countering Greenwash, Infiltration, and Other Forms of Corporate Bullying. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-224-0
  • Priesnitz, W. (2008). Greenwash: When the green is just veneer. Natural Life, (121), 14–16. Retrieved from GreenFILE database.
  • Seele, P., and Gatti, L. (2017) Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies. Bus. Strat. Env. 26 (2), 239–252, doi: 10.1002/bse.1912.
  • Tokar, Brian. 1997. Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-558-9.
  • (2009). Greenwashing culprits to be foiled ahead of business summit. European Environment & Packaging Law Weekly, (159), 28. Retrieved from GreenFILE database
  • Nelson, Robert H. "Environmental religion: a theological critique." Case W. Res. L. Rev. 55 (2004): 51.
  • Greenscamming. The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.