As sustainability emerges being a national concern, more and more consumers expect companies and brands adopt sustainable practices, but many attempts, instead of being authentic slithers in greenwashing.
Consumers attitudes and behavior are increasingly moving towards sustainable lifestyle – a trend accelerate in 2020. That behavior consists in buying foods that it is in season, reducing meat consumption, buying locally grown products, bringing bags instead of buying ones. Survey in U.K. suggests that 55% people say that for companies and brands has become more important to behave more sustainably, meaning, consumers expect brands to do good. Interest for ethical brands increases rapidly. The same survey says that 62% shoppers said they cared about at least one sustainable aspect when purchasing online through 2020. Additionally, 72% of interviewed people said that having a brand’s values reflect their own beliefs, is a deciding factor in what they buy. The result could be interpreted as having a purpose that goes beyond profit is an opportunity to drive meaningful connection with consumers. In other words, doing good is good for business. The awareness of acting in a sustainable way is growing in a rapid rate. In the words of Tanya Steele, CEO, WWF-U.K. „we are the first generation to know that we are destroying the world, and the last that can do anything about it. This is a wake-up call for the world, and business leaders.
Trend of consumers attitudes and behavior increasingly moving towards sustainable lifestyle accelerated in 2020. Suzanne Tallon, senior manager at Grocery suggests that if brands aren’t authentic, honest and transparent in their sustainability policy and efforts, they could be considered disingenuous or guilty of greenwashing. The term greenwashing, as explained in businessnewsdaily, means that a company purports to be environmentally conscious for marketing purposes but actually isn’t making any notable sustainability efforts. Furthermore, she explains the origin of the word claiming that environmentalist Jay Westerveld coined the term “greenwashing” in 1986, in a critical essay inspired by the irony of the “save the towel” movement in hotels that had little impact beyond saving hotels money in laundry costs. The idea emerged in a period when most consumers received their news primarily from television, radio, and print media, so they couldn’t fact-check the way they could today.
Companies that have engaged in greenwashing on a wide scale have made headlines over the years. In the mid-’80s, for example, oil company Chevron commissioned a series of expensive television and print ads to broadcast its environmental dedication. But while the now-infamous “People Do” campaign ran, Chevron was actively violating the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, as well as spilling oil into wildlife refuges. As Carlyan Edwards suggests, greenwashing has changed over the last 20 years, but it’s certainly still around. As the world increasingly embraces the pursuit of greener practices, corporations face an influx of litigation for misleading environmental claims. She gives an example: The Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) – a Singapore-based nonprofit backed by big oil and chemical companies such as Shell, ExxonMobil, and Dow – claims to be spending $1.5 billion to clean up plastic waste in developing countries. Despite this supposed goal, AEPW not only failed to honor its promise to clean up the Ganges River in India, but its member organizations went forward with plans to produce even more plastic.
To act in a proper sustainable way, Edwards suggests communication tactics companies should apply. Among others, she mentions avoiding fluffy language, meaning not to throw around words or terms with no clear meaning (e.g., “eco-friendly” or “natural”)., to watch out for hypocrisies, such as efficient light bulbs made in a factory that pollutes rivers, to avoid evocative images such as not using branding images that give an unjustified green impression (e.g., flowers blooming from exhaust pipes), designations that are just not credible (Look out for obvious attempts to “green” a dangerous product to make it seem safe), don’t use a label that looks like a third-party endorsement but is actually made up as well as be sure to outright lies (Never use totally fabricated claims). The same author emphasizes the difference between green marketing and greenwashing. Unlike greenwashing, green marketing is when companies sell products or services based on legitimate environmental positives. Green marketing is generally practical, honest, and transparent, and it means that a product or service meets the main sustainable criteria. However, Edwards adds, it’s easy for green marketing to translate to greenwashing in practice when an organization doesn’t live up to the standards of sustainable business practices. “Eco-friendly,” “organic,” “natural” and “green” are just some of the widely used labels that can be confusing and misleading to consumers, and concludes and recommend companies and brands „to tell their company’s sustainability story and avoid greenwashing. It’s a dirty practice, and we all know how costly a trip to the cleaners can be.“