Gibson HomeBuilders

Today’s Topic is Green Washing and Shades of Green. My guest today is Jean Gibson Vice President of Gibson Home Builders, Inc.
What is Green Washing?
Marketing groups and firms to sell their products in order to get on the Green movement that is sweeping the country use Green washing. These products may or may not be green. They are speculating that your knowledge of Green is limited to sell you their product. So I will give you some of their tactics and explain what they are doing to sell you their product. The following list is taken from the “Six Sins of Green Washing.”
The following items are quoted from the TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Group, Inc.
Green·wash (grēn'wŏsh', -wôsh') – verb: the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.
Overview
The recent surge of environmental awareness in North America is unmistakable. It has been documented by many researchers and widely reported in the popular press. The rise in “green” marketing claims has also been well documented. Less studied is the apparent increase in “green washing” – false or misleading green marketing claims.
In an effort to describe, understand, and quantify the growth of green washing, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc. conducted a survey of six category-leading big box stores. Through these surveys, we identified 1,018 consumer products bearing 1,753 environmental claims. Of the 1,018 products examined, all but one made claims that are demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences. Based on the survey results, we identified six patterns in the green washing, which we now recognize as the “Six Sins of Green Washing”. These findings suggest that green washing is Pervasive, the consequences of which are significant:

• Well-intentioned consumers may be misled into purchases that do not deliver on their environmental promise. This means both that the individual consumer has been misled and that the potential environmental benefit of his or her purchase has been squandered.
• Competitive pressure from illegitimate environmental claims takes market share away from products that offer more legitimate benefits, thus slowing the penetration of real environmental innovation in the marketplace.
• Green washing may create cynicism and doubt about all environmental claims.
  Consumers – particularly those who care most about real environmental progress – may give up on marketers and manufacturers, and give up on the hope that their spending might be put to good use. This would eliminate a significant market-based, financial incentive for green product innovation and leave committed environmental advocates with government regulations as the most likely alternative.

Of the 1,018 products reviewed, all but one committed at least one of the Six Sins of
Green Washing.

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off
2. Sin of No Proof
3. Sin of Vagueness
4. Sin of Irrelevance
5. Sin of Fibbing
6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils

The “Six Sins of Green Washing”
Research Methodology

In the spring of 2007, TerraChoice sent research teams into six category-leading big box stores with instructions to record every product-based environmental claim they observed. We instructed the teams that, for each environmental claim, they should identify the product, the nature of the claim, any supporting information, and any references offered for further information. After recording 1,753 environmental claims on
1,018 products (refer to Appendix A), we tested the claims against current best practices in environmental marketing. The sources for these best practices include the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)1, the U.S Federal Trade Commission2, U.S Environmental Protection Agency3, Consumers Union4, and the Canadian Consumer Affairs Branch5.

Finally, we studied the resulting list of false or misleading claims for patterns and lessons. We have come to call these patterns the “Six Sins of Green Washing”. Of the 1,018 products that made environmental claims, all but one committed at least one of the Six Sins.

Defining and Quantifying the Six Sins of Green Washing

Based on our analysis, we categorized the false or misleading environmental claims into the following “Six Sins of Green Washing”:
Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off – The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off is committed by suggesting a product is “green” based on a single environmental attribute (the recycled content of paper, for example) or an unreasonably narrow set of attributes (recycled content and chlorine free bleaching) without attention to other important, or perhaps more important, environmental issues (such as energy, global warming, water, and forestry impacts of paper). Such claims are not usually false, but are used to paint a “greener” picture of the product than a more complete environmental analysis would support.
Here are some examples from the research:
Examples:

• Paper (including household tissue, paper towel, and copy paper) and lumber products (such as framing products and plywood) that promote their recycled content or sustainable harvesting practices without attention to manufacturing impacts such as air emissions, water emissions, and global warming impacts.
• Household insulation products (such as batt insulation products for home renovation products) that claim indoor air quality benefits without attention to other environmental aspects such as recycled content and manufacturing impacts.
• Office technology (printers, copiers, fax machines) that promote energy efficiency without attention to hazardous material content, indoor
  air quality, or compatibility with recycled paper or remanufactured toner cartridges.
• Other product claims that committed this sin include ink cartridges, laundry detergents, dish detergent, air fresheners, bathroom cleaners, markers, flooring laminate, bags, multi-purpose cleaners, wood panels, and pesticides.

The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off was the most frequently committed sin in the study, made by 57% of all environmental claims.
Sin of No Proof – Any environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information, or by a reliable third-party certification, commits the Sin of No Proof. (For this research, we determined there to be ‘no proof’ if supporting evidence was not accessible at either the point of purchase or at the product website.)
Among others, our research found these examples of the Sin of No Proof:

• Household lamps and lights that promote their energy efficiency without any supporting evidence or certification.
• Personal care products (such as shampoos and conditioners) that claim not to have been tested on animals, but offer no evidence or certification of this claim.
• Facial tissues and paper towels that claim post- consumer recycled content without providing evidence.

We found a total of 454 products and approximately 26% of the environmental claims committed the Sin of No Proof; making it the second most frequently committed sin.
Sin of Vagueness- The Sin of Vagueness is committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the intended consumer.
There are some recurring themes within these vague claims. For example:

• “Chemical-free”. In fact, nothing is free of chemicals. Water is a chemical. All plants, animals, and humans are made of chemicals, as are all of our products.
• “Non-toxic”. Everything is toxic in sufficient dosage. Water, oxygen, and salt are all potentially hazardous.
• “All Natural”. Arsenic is natural. So are uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde. All are poisonous.
• “Green”, “Environmentally friendly”, and “Eco- conscious” (to name just a few) which are utterly meaningless without elaboration.

Some product examples from the research:

• Garden insecticides promoted as “chemical- free”.
• “Natural” hair mousse.
• Kitchen (wax) paper that claims “recycled content” but does not quantify it (Would 0.1% qualify?) that the product is made from recycled material. But is it the whole product, or the package? And is it made of 100% recycled material, or less? And is it post- consumer waste, or post-industrial waste? Without a qualifying statement, the symbol is likely to mislead the buyer, committing the Sin of Vagueness.
• General-purpose household cleaners that claim to be “non-toxic” without explanation or third- party substantiation. Such as, “100% natural” bathroom cleaners.

In our research sample, 196 individual products (or 11% of the environmental claims) committed the Sin of Vagueness.
Sin of Irrelevance – The Sin of Irrelevance is committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant and unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. It is irrelevant and therefore distracts the consumer from finding a truly greener option.
The most frequent example of an irrelevant claim relates to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – a principal contributor to ozone depletion. Since CFCs have been legally banned for almost 30 years, there are no products that are manufactured with it.
Nevertheless, we found many individual products that presented CFC-free claims as an apparently unique environmental advantage. They included:

• CFC-free insecticides,
• CFC-free lubricants,
• CFC-free oven cleaners,
• CFC-free shaving gels,
• CFC-free window cleaners,
• CFC-free disinfectants,

CFCs have been legally banned for almost 30 years, yet many products still claim CFC-free as if it is a unique competitive advantage.
The Sin of Irrelevance accounted for 78 products and 4% of the environmental claims.
Sin of Lesser of Two Evils – These are “green” claims that may be true within the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole. Examples include:

• Organic cigarettes,
• “Green” insecticides and herbicides,

Obviously, there are some circumstances and consumers that demand these products. Commercial insecticides and herbicides are essential to some agricultural applications. In those circumstances, choosing the greenest option is essential. However, insecticides and pesticides may be unnecessary for many cosmetic applications (such as lawns).
Organic tobacco may be a more responsible choice for smokers, but shouldn’t most consumers be discouraged from smoking in the first place?
We consider a claim to commit the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils when environmental qualifiers such as “organic” or “green” are placed on products in which the entire product category is of questionable environmental value.
In this study, 17 products and approximately 1% of environmental claims committed the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils.
Sin of Fibbing – The Sin of Fibbing is committed by making environmental claims that are simply false.
In our findings, only a few products were found to commit the Sin of Fibbing. Most of these were misuse or misrepresentation of certification by an independent authority. These cases included, for example:

• Several shampoos that claimed to be “certified organic”, but for which our research could find no such certification.
• A caulking product that claims to be “Energy Star” registered, but the official Energy Star website suggests this is false.
• A dishwasher detergent that purports to be packaged in “100% recycled paper”, and yet the container is plastic.

10 products (less than 1% of environmental claims) committed the Sin of Fibbing, making it one of the two least frequently committed sins.
Multi-Attribute Versus Single-Attribute Claims
When seeking environmentally preferable products, it is important to look at multiple environmental considerations rather than just single environmental issues.
As an analogy, when attempting to identify healthier food choices, it can be useful to look at calorie content. It is more helpful, however, to also examine fat, sugar, and vitamin content. The most respected environmental claims incorporate multiple environmental considerations throughout every phase of a product’s life-cycle, which includes the environmental impacts of the raw materials, manufacturing process, the product itself, and its ultimate disposal. Single-attribute claims look at only a single environmental issue such as recycled-content or energy-efficiency. While important, single attribute claims can hide important additional environmental considerations.
Look For Evidence of Any of the “Six Sins” By Asking the Following Questions:

1. Is the “green” claim restricted to just one, or a narrow set of environmental issue(s)? (The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off.) If so, you might look for other information that gives a more complete picture of the environmental impact of the product. “Okay, this product comes from a sustainable harvested forest, but what are the impacts of its milling and transportation? Is the manufacturer also trying to reduce those impacts?” Emphasizing one environmental issue isn’t a problem (indeed, it often makes for better communications). Hiding a trade-off between environmental issues is a problem.
2. Does the claim help me find more information and evidence? (The Sin of No Proof.) It may not be reasonable to expect a product label or a point-of-purchase brochure to provide detailed scientific explanations of a green claim. It is reasonable to expect a product label or brochure to direct you to where you can find further evidence. Good green marketing helps the consumer find the evidence and learn more. Company websites, third-party certifiers, and toll- free phone numbers are easy and effective means of delivering proof.
3. Is the environmental and scientific meaning of the claim specific and self-evident? If not, is the specific meaning given? (The Sin of Vagueness.) Products with names like “eco-gadget” and “natur-widget” aren’t necessarily making false or misleading claims, but they should cause you to be suspicious. If the marketing claim doesn’t explain itself (“here’s what we mean by ‘eco’ …”), the claim is vague and meaningless. Similarly, watch for other popular vague green terms: “non-toxic”, “all-natural”, “environmentally-friendly”, and “earth-friendly.” Without adequate explanation, such claims are so vague as to be meaningless.
4. Could all of the other products in this category make the same claim? (The Sin of Irrelevance.) The most common example is easy to detect: “CFC-free” is a meaningless claim. It is irrelevant because no products are manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons. Other cases may be harder to detect. Ask yourself if the claim is important and relevant to the product. (If a light bulb claimed water efficiency benefits you should be suspicious.) Comparison-shop (and ask the competitive vendors). If the claim seems illogical and disconnected from the product, it may very well be irrelevant.
5. When I check up on it, is the claim true? (The Sin of Fibbing.) This sin can be difficult to detect. The most frequent examples in this study were false uses of third-party certifications. Thankfully, these are easy to confirm. Legitimate third-party certifiers – Eco-Logo, Chlorine Free Products Association (CFPA), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Green Guard, Green Seal (for example) – all maintain publicly available lists of certified products. Some even maintain fraud advisories for products that are falsely claiming certification.
6. Is the claim trying to make consumers feel “green” about a product category that is of questionable environmental benefit? (The Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils.) Consumers concerned about the adverse effects of tobacco and cigarettes would be better served by quitting smoking than by buying organic cigarettes. Similarly, consumers concerned about the human health and environmental risks of excessive use of lawn chemicals might create a bigger environmental benefit by reducing their use than by looking for greener alternatives.