Shades of Green: Analyzing Greenwashing

Whether or not it is noticed, consumerism, and broadly, consumption, are ingrained into the

American psyche; meaning, we have allowed goods to act as a means of expressing the identity, status, and values of the consumer and have done so for over a century.

Even among critics of mass consumption, there seems to be no semblance of truly viable alternatives for American society. Theory and hypotheticals seem to offer idyllic possibilities; however, without well-considered, definitive propositions that address most complexities of society, there cannot be a call for action.

So, it is on us to be mindful consumers and stewards of our planet. This does not mean that consumption needs to be boycotted in full; it just means that being able to remain skeptical of claims and resilient against pressures to buy “bigger and better” is a valuable tool for maintaining sustainable consumption.

What is Greenwashing?

Unfortunately, many brands are realizing the increasing environmental concerns among consumers and are leaning towards “greener” advertising while still producing products that harm the environment - this is called greenwashing.

Exploring this shift in consumption patterns will lead to many conclusions with varying reasons for the change in environmental concern; though, the broad observation from the study, Who’s Reading the Label? Millennials’ Use of Environmental Product Labels, may be the most digestible, simply: “The demographic composition of green consumers has changed over the last decade. This is possibly due in part to the greater attention media has given environmental issues and because environmental deterioration has reached the point where consumers from [more] socioeconomic levels are becoming involved.”

To better depict the issues with brands’ falsely “going green”, here are some examples of greenwashing among products that are well-known to most, if not all, American consumers.

1. Ziploc

On the company’s website, an enticing “Sustainability & Safety” page is easily found and highlighted by a promising visual of wind turbines among green fields and bright, blue skies. However, that image is also where the environmental promise seems to stop. The actual text does nothing to communicate any company's efforts towards sustainable manufacturing, materials, or products. In fact, Ziploc clearly communicates that the environmentally-conscious role is that of the consumer, who may choose to recycle the bag, while the manufacturing end has no sustainable efforts in place.

In regards to Ziploc containers, they are made to be reused, though not indefinitely, and are even noted as only recycled in a limited number of communities. In this case, the bare minimum of creating a product that can be universally spared from landfills is not even reached. Instead of championing themselves by saying, “Ziploc® brand bags are recyclable” and “recycling protects the environment for children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.”, perhaps a little more work should be put into the product before publishing a “Sustainability” page.

2. BIC

While doing more than Ziploc, BIC’s sustainability page still shows some reason for concern that is important to address. It is great that BIC provides consumers with statistics that illustrate some of the company’s work towards reducing its environmental footprint. However, these products should be taken with a grain of salt by consumers wanting to truly make a difference. Meaning, the products themselves, plastic pens, razors, and lighters, are inherently harmful. As of the current sustainability facts and figures, no effort to move away from plastic products are mentioned. So, the green consumer should consider a few questions such as: “Could this product be replaced by a longer-lasting, if not reusable, alternative?” and “Do I need to consume a plastic product to fulfill this function?” Getting into the habit of asking yourself these questions before making purchases helps you weigh the impact of each product.

3. Tide

Another way brands get away with greenwashing is by hiding behind asterisks and making consumers read between the lines, literally, such as in the case of Tide’s Purclean™ Liquid Detergent.

The packaging itself features a close-up photo of a bright green leaf, boasting, in capital lettering, that the formula is “Plant-Based”. However, what is not as readily advertised on the label is the fact that the formula is 75%, rather than 100%, plant-based. Additionally, the product details section says the Purclean formula is “made with 100% renewable wind power electricity”, then followed by an asterisk that, if you scroll to the bottom of the description, clarifies: “The same facility also uses steam power, electricity represents approximately 50% of the total energy used.” In both cases, Tide uses selective-wording and misleading phrasing to paint itself in a better, “greener” light. Products such as this are prime examples of why it is important to be an observant, if not skeptical, consumer.

The above examples of greenwashing do not create an exhaustive list of techniques that are used to mislead consumers. It is important to be wary of claims and demand more from manufacturers and marketers alike. The fact that companies are even attempting to appear more environmentally-friendly shows that they know attitudes are changing and demands for sustainable products are increasing. This trend can be used to create positive and widespread market change that aligns with the values of new, green consumers. Until then, it is important to remain positive; don’t beat yourself up for falling victim to greenwashing. Perfection isn’t as important as persistence in the attempt to create a more sustainable future.