Ryken 1

Ross Ryken

May 14, 2012

A Green Area: Identifying Greenwashed Products

If the 70’s and 80’s were the era of rock and roll, then the 90’s and beyond mark the

environmental age. As recently as 2006, Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, excited the

public’s imagination and made “global warming” a household word. Likewise, stunts such as

Greanpeace’s attacks on genetically modified wheat crops have increasingly captured the

public’s attention (Gough 1). Along with this surge in environmental concern (a 1990 poll

revealed that 90% of participants would “make a special effort” to buy products from

environmentally responsible companies) a new challenge emerged: discerning genuine green

products from those bolstered by deceptive marketing fluff (Wasik 8).

This challenge first surfaced with Earth Day 1990; while the event symbolically kicked

off the “environmental decade”, a sinister shadow loomed over the proceedings (Wasik 8). At

the surface, Earth Day saw 200 million participants in 141 countries ceremonially plant trees,

while pledging to drive less and recycle more (Greenlife). Yet the event (which distinctly

omitted talks of corporate reform) was sponsored by notorious polluters such as Monsanto,

Peabody Coal, and Georgia Power (Tokar 14). In fact, Earth Day 1990 gave birth to the practice

of “corporate greenwash”, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “disinformation

disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image”

(Soanes). Greenwashing is of grave public concern due to its immense prevalence in modern

advertising. While the percentage of purportedly green products increased from 1.1% in 1986 to

13.1% in 1993 (Wasik 9), a 1991 study found that wholly 58% of ads for such products

contained some degree of deception (Laverie 258-67). The pervasiveness of greenwashing

Ryken 2

necessitates a guideline for consumers. In this paper, I will establish a framework for

differentiating between a green product (which causes minimal damage to the environment

throughout its lifetime) and a greenwashed product (which is deceptively and inaccurately

presented as a green product). To qualify as legitimately green, a product’s advertised merits

must first and foremost be accurate. Furthermore, both the end product and preceding operations

(such as manufacturing and transportation) must minimally harm the environment. Finally, the

manufacturing company’s holistic practices must coincide with the environmental merits of the

product in question.

When assessing purportedly green products, it is tempting to spotlight advertiser’s intent

as the yardstick. After all, genuine attempts to save the planet seem legitimate, while profit-

motivated products scream greenwash. For example, dubious hotel guests will question linen

cards that encourage lodgers to “reduce energy by choosing to reuse sheets” (Hurst). A valid

argument can be mad

Figure 1: Linen Card at the Marriot Monterey Hotel (Hurst).

argument can certainly be made that this card is intended as a money saving ploy, cleverly

disguised as a noble environmental campaign. Indeed, Shlomo Sher, in “A Framework for

Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics”, focuses solely on advertisers’ intent.

Ryken 3

Sher defines manipulation as attempting to motivate consumers’ behavior by “undermining what

the agent believes is his/her audience’s normal decision-making process” (Sher 1). Sher

provides a reasonable guide for corporations; however, he does little to help consumers assess

products that are already on the market. Usually, corporate intent is impossible to prove in

retrospect since scant inside information is available to the public. Further complicating the

situation, multiple motivating factors often shape decisions. A genuinely green product may

simultaneously benefit a company’s bottom line by capturing a strategic market segment that

creates “decisive advantage” (Stalk 49). To illustrate, Xerox invested $10 million into a toner

cartridge-recycling program. The program not only reduced waste, but also generated $200

million in profits (Wasik 3). Evidently, assessing corporate intent is near impossible for

consumers; therefore, allegedly green products must be judged based on observable criteria.

In order to avoid the label of greenwash, virtually all consumers agree that a product’s

advertised merits must be accurate. At first glance, this seems like an endpoint; if the product’s

label contains no word of a lie, then surely no greenwashing is at play. Yet while this standard

catches outright lies, it fails to account for subtler and more prevalent tactics. First off,

marketing claims are often unverifiable or irrelevant. Take, for example, a glossy ‘CFC Free’

sticker slapped onto a new refrigerator; while the claim is technically true (no CFC’s are

present), it is misleading because CFC’s in kitchen appliances have been banned since 1987.

Even more brazen are fabricated certifications and labels. The FTC shut down “Tested Green”

in 2012, upon discovering that the company certified any product for a $189.95 fee (Gang 24).

In fact, TerraChoice’s recent greenwashing report found that 30% of 4744 tested products

boasted false certifications (TerraChoice 7). Even more shrewdly, advertisers often simply omit

hidden trade offs. Automobile manufacturers frequently tout ethanol-powered cars as

Ryken 4

environmentally friendly flagship products. True, ethanol fuel saves the earth’s dwindling fossil

fuel reserves; however, this new market motivates third world farmers to divert crops that

previously fed local people. While a green product’s advertised merits must be true, an absence

of outright lies does not certify a product as greenwash-free. Greenwashers employ a plethora of

subtle advertising techniques, forcing consumers to look deeper when judging an allegedly green

product.

In order to evaluate a product accurately, consumers must take into account its actual

impact on the environment. In fact, the end product’s environmental impact appears to be the

deciding factor between a green product and its greenwashed counterpart. Take, for example,

the product 360° Eco Vodka by McCormick Distilling. The bottle includes a postage paid

envelope that encourages consumers to mail back the reusable swing-top cap. The glass bottle,

of course, can be recycled. Examining this thoughtfully designed product provokes the correct

assumption: 360 Eco Vodka is minimally harmful to the environment. Nevertheless, similar

assumptions may be alarmingly inaccurate. For instance, the Illinois based Outboard Marine

Corporation (the world’s largest marine engine manufacturer) enthusiastically advertised

“Project LEAP (Low-Emission Advanced Propulsion)” (Wasik 54). While the 35%

improvement in fuel economy presented the motors as environmentally revolutionary devices,

the manufacturing process lay in sharp contrast. In 1988, the Outboard Marine Corporation paid

a $20 million fine for dumping PCBs (chemicals used to manufacture hydraulic motor fluid) into

Lake Michigan (Wasik 55). In advertising Project LEAP, Outboard Marine Corporation

greenwashed their motors by omitting the details of their manufacturing process. Thus, while an

end product’s environmental impact is important, consumers must also scrutinize the

manufacturing process.

Ryken 5

Moreover, prudent consumers will consider the product’s entire history. Green products

are engineered with the environment in mind at every step, from resource extraction to

transportation. According to John Wasik, companies that respect the environment: minimize raw

material and energy use; reduce pollution at all levels of production; design minimalistic

packaging from recycled/recyclable materials; and design user friendly recycling programs

(Wasik 32). Re-examining 360° Eco Vodka confirms the previous assumption; the vodka is

distilled and sold locally (minimizing transportation distances), the labels are printed on fully

recycled paper, and the glass is made from 85% post-consumer material. The product is green at

all levels of production. Yet even meeting these criteria does not guarantee a greenwash-free

product. Ford Motor’s sells the Escape Hybrid, an SUV that meets a voluntary fuel-economy

target and is manufactured at the environmentally integrated River Rouge Complex (grass and

vegetation grow on the roofs). Yet Ford Motors falls far short of an environmental hero. While

hybrids constitute only 0.5% of Fords annual sales, worst in class fuel-economy trucks make up

the majority. Further contradicting the Escape Hybrid’s green image, Ford pays lobbyists $8

million annually to oppose CO2 emissions regulations. Despite Ford’s meticulous efforts to

present a green product, greenwashing is still at play. A green product must not only be

produced with the environment in mind; the manufacturing company must exercise consistent

environmental practices.

Ryken 6

Thus, the final step in identifying greenwashed products requires consumers to examine

the manufacturer’s “holistic management” practices (Wasik 29-38). If an isolated product or

environmental effort is virtuous, but does not match the company’s primary operations, the

product is greenwashed. As a prime example, an advertisement in National Geographic

Magazine flaunted Shell Oil Company’s contribution to the Louisiana Flower Garden Banks

National Marine Sanctuary (The Green Life). Surely this donation is nothing short of noble

deed. Yet while Shell’s annual donation to the marine sanctuary is roughly the cost of a 90’s

Honda Civic ($5000) (The Green Life), a National Geographic ad starts at fifty times that price

($231,210) (National Geographic). The consequences of Shell’s oil drilling far outweigh the

Figure 2: Shell's misleading ad in National Geographic Magazine (Heller).

Ryken 7

company’s meager contribution; in 2009 alone, Shell spilled 14,000 tons of crude oil into the

Niger Delta (The Guardian). Shell’s National Geographic ad is shameless greenwashing because

it contradicts the majority of Shell’s environmental practices. At the opposite end of the

spectrum, the environmentally conscious Sun Chips line (produced by Frito-Lay) aligns with the

manufacturer’s holistic operations. When Frito-Lay introduced their new compostable chip

bags, sales plummeted because consumers disliked opening the noisy bags. Rather than revert to

standard packaging, Frito-Lay further invested in lowering the bags’ noise level from 85 dB to

70 dB (Huliq). On the production side, Frito-Lay’s environmental ethics uphold; the company

increasingly fuels its plants with solar power. Moreover, Frito-Lay continues to grow its 176-

strong fleet of electric trucks; ten new trucks will take to Orlando roads this year. The Newton

electric trucks generate “zero tailpipe emissions, … emit 75% less greenhouse gasses, … and

will eliminate the need for 500,000 gals. of fuel annually” (Fleet Owner). Sun Chips

exemplifies a green product because: the snacks are advertised truthfully; the end product is

minimally harmful to the environment; the chips are manufactured and transported with the

planet in mind; and Frito-Lay’s environmental practices are consistent to the core.

Since greenwashed products are prevalent (and no doubt on the rise), consumers must

arm themselves with a framework for assessing products that claim the green title. While a

company’s intent should be the focus of corporate decision-making, consumers cannot hope to

accurately gauge corporate intentions. Thus, consumers must rely upon observable factors. At a

minimum, a green product must be advertised accurately; lies regarding a product’s

environmental merits indicate blatant greenwashing. Secondly, the end product must be

minimally harmful to the environment, with no hidden trade-offs or omitted consequences.

Moreover, the product must be designed, produced, and transported in an environmentally

Ryken 8

friendly manner. Finally, the manufacturing company’s holistic practices must complement the

green merits of the product in question. So accordingly, a product that fails any of these checks

is greenwashed. Further exploration into the morality of greenwashing is required, as is

discussion regarding what role the government should take in greenwash regulation. Until that

time, however, consumers must understand how to identify greenwashed products in order to

make informed purchasing decisions.

Works Cited

"Advertising Opportunities." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 2005. Web. 22

April 2012. <http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/advertising.html>.

“A Report on Environmental Claims Made in the North American Market.” The Sins of

Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition. TerraChoice, 2010. Web. 22 April 2012.

Dillard, Mechele R. “Frito-Lay Hopes New Quieter SunChips Bag Excites Customers.” Huliq.

24 Jan. 2011. Web. 3 May 2012. <http://www.huliq.com/10473/frito-lay-hopes-new-

quieter-sunchips-bag-excites-customers>.

“Frito-Lay Deploys Trucks.” Fleet Owner 107.1 (2012): 19. Penton Media. Print.

Gang, Jeff. “Don’t Be Fooled 2012: The Worst Greenwashers.” The Green Life Online. April

2012. Web. 22 April 2012.

Gough, Myles. “Greenpeace Destroys CSIRO Wheat GM Trial.” Cosmos Online. 14 Jul. 2011.

Web. 22 April 2012. <http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/4522>.

“Greenwash 101.” TheGreenLife. The Green Life Online. Web. 22 April 2012.

Ryken 9

Heller, Rachel. 2012. Photograph. The Green Life Online. Web. 22 April 2012.

<http://site.thegreenlifeonline.org/greenwash101/>.

Hurst, Mark. 2006. Photograph. This Is Broken. Web. 22 April 2012.

<http://www.goodexperience.com/tib/archives/2006/04/marriott_monter.html>.

Laverie, Debra, and Patrick Murphy. “The Marketing and Public Policy Literature: A Look at

the Past Ten Years.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 12.2 (1993): 258-267. Web.

22 April 2012.

“Shell Reports Record Spillages in Nigeria.” The Guardian. Associated Press, 5 May 2010. Web.

3 May 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/05/shell-oil-spill-niger-

delta>.

Sher, Shlomo. “A Framework for Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics.”

Journal of Business Ethics 102 (2011): 97-118. Print.

Soanes, Catherine, and Angus Stevenson. Concise Oxford English dictionary. 1999. Reprint.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Stalk, George, Robert Lachenauer, and John Butman. Hardball: Are you playing to play or

playing to win? Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Print.

Tokar, Brian. Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash. Boston:

South End Press, 1997. Print.

Wasik, John F. Green Marketing and Management: A Global Perspective. Cambridge:

Blackwell, 1996. Print.