Separating Green from Greed: The Greenwashing fallacy

What is and isn’t Greenwashing?

Next time you take a flight out of Terminal 2 of Mumbai’s Chattrapati Shivaji Mumbai International Airport, you’ll pass some large display ads on your way to the aerobridge. A large integrated energy company promotes their idea of becoming more sustainable, pliant to norms and future proofing their (largely) petroleum based energy company. This is NOT greenwashing.  

After a bit of research on their annual acquisitions sheet and how their revenue is driven, they seem to be talking the talk. They’ve invested in 4 large renewable energy companies, 2 gas powered pipelines and 1 battery manufacturer. 

Not bad. 

Then comes this little initiative:  

Not an iPhone fan myself - obviously I thought this was ridiculous. Their reasoning of - “It allows us to reduce electronic waste and the box becomes smaller in size to ship so each phone’s carbon footprint goes down significantly” didn’t really seem like the right argument. 

Chart 1.1

According to their own data, as mentioned in chart 1.1, they saw a marked rise from 2019 to 2023 in the category “other hardware” which includes you guessed it - chargers.

The other strange thing that kept playing on my mind was profitability. Think about it - in 2019, the iPhone with a charger was 999 USD. In 2020, a slightly improved phone without the charger was… 999 USD. They suggested you to pay $30 for a charger. 3% more in the bottom line.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is greenwashing. 

According to the Wall Street Journal: “Greenwashing is when a company uses misleading communications to market itself as more environmentally friendly than it is”. 

This becomes more apparent when brands use buzzwords like eco-conscious, earth friendly and green promise. These are usually marketing department hard at work to make brands seem more sustainable than they actually are. 

In the same film from above, Shane Shifflett, a reporter from the WSJ, says “It’s becoming increasingly profitable for companies to be seen as being beneficial to the environment.

Consumers are demanding more sustainable products. Investors are increasingly looking to invest in low-carbon footprint companies” 

These statements are probably off the cuff for Shane but are based in reality that he researches on. 

1. “It’s becoming increasingly profitable for companies to be seen as being beneficial to the environment:” In the early 2000s, British Petroleum (or BP) launched a major rebranding campaign with the slogan "Beyond Petroleum," positioning itself as a company focused on transitioning to renewable energy sources. However, critics argued that BP's investments and actions did not match its green rhetoric. The company continued to primarily operate as an oil and gas giant, with relatively modest investments in renewable energy compared to its fossil fuel operations. 

2. “Consumers are demanding more sustainable products.” VW had been actively marketing its "Clean Diesel" technology as an environmentally responsible choice. However, the revelations about the emissions cheating scandal severely damaged the company's credibility and its positioning as an eco-friendly automaker. Volkswagen ended up paying over $33 billion in fines, settlements, and recalls related to the scandal. This case highlighted the severe consequences businesses can face for greenwashing and deceiving consumers about their environmental impact. But they weren’t the only one Mercedes, Ford and Chevrolet have all been fined for emissions cheating software after VW. So…

3. “Investors are increasingly looking to invest in low-carbon footprint companies” In 2022, the German asset manager DWS Group and its former CEO came under investigation by U.S. and German authorities for allegedly overstating its efforts in integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into its investment processes. Specifically, DWS was accused of making misleading claims about the extent to which it considered ESG factors in its investment decisions and the amount of assets that were

truly managed using ESG principles. This alleged greenwashing was seen as an attempt to capitalize on the growing demand for sustainable investment products.

And these are the only a few of the lies we know of.

One of the dumbest initiatives taken by beverage and fast food companies across the board was to replace plastic straws with paper straws. In plastic wrappers.

The state of sustainable fashion is worse. Before moving to FirstPost, Palkhi Sharma Upadhay did a report for Wion on the state of sustainable fashion. She brought us some interesting points of note for the International fashion industry.  

• 42% of claims by companies are exaggerated, false or deceptive.
• It takes 2248 Liters of water to make a single T-shirt
• The fashion industry contributes to close to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s more than aviation and maritime industries (the perceived highest polluters) - combined.

 Being sustainable is not just a marketing keyword. It has to be enabled in practice as part of your organizational culture. More importantly, it should be easy to communicate. If your company is a disruptor in the automotive industry taking on Big Petrol and you trade in carbon credits - fine. But don’t make it a way you pad your bottom line

 The Avatars of Greenwashing

 As a customer and marketer, there are some ways we can cut through the manure. 5 of them to be exact.

1. The trade-off: When companies highlight one environmental fix but ignore what happens as an off-set. Nestle made a major announcement that by 2025, 100% of all of their products will be recyclable. They didn’t however mention that even in the most efficient economies, only 50% of water bottles are actually recycled. So if you make a claim, follow through.
2. The no proof: H&M and their ‘Conscious’ brand (still available in stores - I checked) was pitted as being made from more sustainable or eco-friendly materials, such as organic cotton, recycled polyester, and Tencel (a fiber made from wood pulp). No one wanted to question them. Because hey, big company, doing environmentally friendly work, cheap clothes - sign me up. Right? It took the EU commission to actually go up in arms and bring this to court. Questions were raised about the transparency and verifiability of H&M's claims regarding the sustainability of the materials used in the Conscious collection.
3. The vague claim: One of the primary ways we’re told a product or service is “better for the environment” is unfounded, random signages and claims that resonate with audiences to make them feel better about their purchases.
4. The Lie: Although we’ve mentioned them before, VW’s case was a massive blow the overall automotive industry. They said their engines were “clean diesel” engines. They actually ordered and coded a software patch that allowed the vehicle to release less emissions when it understood that it was going through an emissions test. Allegedly, it released 11x more emissions than rated officially.

5. The bad label: Sometimes company just lie with reference to the what ingredients their products have. Not to cast repeated shame on them but… Patanjali. 

In summation, in 2023, at the UN climate Summit in Egypt, Secretary Antonio Guterres said “The world must have zero tolerance for net-zero Greenwashing. He added, “The current loopholes can be used by corporations and sovereign nations to drive a diesel truck through them”. 

Solving the greenwashing conundrum 

The problem of greenwashing can be solved from the top to the bottom depending on who you are: 

1. Governments and Sovereign nations: Hard regulations.
2. Corporations: Changing corporate culture to reduce waste and optimise production
3. Consumers: Don’t buy what you don’t trust. But trust based on what you read and not what you watch. If you don’t read, ask questions.
4. Activists: Digital or otherwise, the man who spoke against Bournvita probably did not know the challenge when he made the first video. Today he’s heralded as a citizen of tomorrow’s India. 

This is not an unsolvable problem. See through what you buy. Understand who you work with and how they produce. Vote for the individual who has common sense of barring or limiting corporations and institutions that pollute or lie about polluting without impunity.

 Ladies and gentlemen. There is no plan(et) B.