Happy 4th of July & The Other Six Sins of Greenwashing

July 2, 2010 by Leave a Comment

Happy Independence Day! I’m off to the annual High Sierra Music Festival in Quincy, CA. This is a 4-day, almost non-stop musical event that takes place on the Plumas County Fairgrounds nestled in the beautiful and majestic Sierra mountains of northern California. I love going to this event, not just for the great music it always has but because something happens to me when I’m up in the Sierras surrounded by all those Redwoods. It’s hard to explain, but there’s a feeling of total serenity and contentment that washes over me when I’m up there and it starts during the drive up –when I get to the Feather River Canyon. With its scenic and winding road, it represents the last stretch of the 4+ hour trip and fills me with excitement and anticipation.

I hope you enjoy your holiday this year, whatever you do. Above all, remember to be thankful for all the freedoms you enjoy. That includes the freedom to choose how to spend your hard-earned dollars and use your economic power as a consumer to promote healthy and environmentally sustainable choices.

As a follow up to my last post, I thought I’d leave you with a quick run-down of the original Six Sins of Greenwashing referenced in the market research report by TerraChoice. Here you go:

  1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-off. Committed by suggesting a product is ‘green’ based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues. Paper that comes from a sustainably-harvested forest for example, is not necessarily in and of itself an environmentally-friendly choice. Other important environmental issues in the paper-making process, including energy used, greenhouse gas emissions, and resulting water and air pollution may be equally or more significant.

  2. Sin of No Proof. Committed by an environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible information or by reliable third-party certification. Common examples are facial or toilet tissue products that claim various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing any evidence.

  3. Sin of Vagueness. Committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. ‘All-natural’ is an example. Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring substances, and also poisonous. ‘All natural’ isn’t always necessarily ‘green’.

  4. Sin of Irrelevance. Committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. ‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs are now banned by law.

  5. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils. Committed by 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. Organic cigarettes are an example of this category, as are allegedly fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.

  6. Sin of Fibbing. This is the least frequent Sin and is committed by making environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples were products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered.

To download a copy of the complete report: The Seven Sins of Greenwashing go to http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/

Filed Under: Green Living, Ingredients Tagged With: , , ,

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing: A Candid Review of the State of Things

June 30, 2010 by Leave a Comment

In November 2008 and January 2009, TerraChoice (a Market Research firm) sent its researchers into leading ‘big box’ retailers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia with instructions to record every product making an environmental claim. For each product, the researchers recorded product details, claim(s) details, any supporting information, and any explanatory detail or offers of additional information or support.

In the United States and Canada, a total of 2,219 products making 4,996 green claims were recorded. These claims were tested against best practices, notably against guidelines provided by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Competition Bureau of Canada, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, and the ISO 14021 standard for environmental labeling.

Of the 2,219 North American products surveyed, over 98% committed at least one of six previously identified “Sins of Greenwashing” and a new Seventh Sin emerged. The following are the highlights of the 2009 Seven Sins of Greenwashing research (from the report’s Executive Summary):

  • The emergence of a seventh Sin – the ‘Sin of Worshiping False Labels’. Some marketers are exploiting consumers’ demand for third-party certification by creating fake labels or false suggestions of third-party endorsement.

  • More products are making environmental claims. The total number of ‘green’ products increased by an average of 79% (a range between 40% and 176%) in stores that were visited in both 2007 and 2008.

  • Greenwashing is still rampant, with more than 98% of ‘green’ products committing at least one of the Sins. Compared to the 2007 study, there appears to be a small decline in the frequency of greenwashing, but it is not statistically significant. Of 2,219 products making green claims in the United States and Canada, only 25 products were found to be Sin-free.

  • Eco-labeling is on the rise. Legitimate eco-labeling is nearly twice as common as it was last year, increasing from 13.7% to 23.4% on all ‘green’ products in the report.

  • Kids (toys and baby products), cosmetics, and cleaning products are three categories in which green claims – and greenwashing – are most common. These products, among the most common products in most households, deserve particular scrutiny from consumers.

  • Greenwashing is an international challenge, with very similar patterns in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The most significant differences between these countries are the environmental issues associated with the claims made on products. Water conservation was more common in Australia for example, and recyclability in the United States.
Filed Under: Green Living, Ingredients Tagged With: , ,

Two Common Product Label Claims That Might Indicate Greenwashing

June 25, 2010 by Leave a Comment

Here’s a summary of some of the claims you should look out for when evaluating a product that is packaged in a way that makes it appear to be either “Natural” “Eco-Friendly” or “Green”:

  • Natural Claims

    This is the most common and the most nebulous of claims on personal care products. Since there are no regulatory standards here, you have to educate yourself as much as possible on the difference between natural and not-so-natural ingredients to decipher the claims. The main things to consider are a company or brand’s track record, and hidden trade-offs with respect to the product’s ingredients.

    The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database enables you to see how both companies and their individual products rank in terms of health and safety. Products with higher rankings (i.e. 7-10) generally contain a higher amount of potentially toxic chemicals and questionable ingredients. Companies whose products rank in the middle to high range should be scrutinized more carefully. Their claims of being “natural” likely involve trade-offs –meaning they may contain natural ingredients but they also contain harmful ingredients. Keep in mind that the term “natural” does not speak directly to the environmental benefits of the product or the manufacturer’s environmental practices.

  • Free From Claims

    Beware of “free from” claims –ones that tend to emphasize what’s not in the product at the expense of what is. These can be highly misleading because they either imply that the free from ingredient is in some way undesirable when that may not be the case, or worse, the free from ingredient is one that has no relevance to either the safety of the product or its environmental impact. These types of claims can also be another way of re-directing attention from the hidden trade-offs mentioned earlier. And oftentimes, there’s no way to verify the legitimacy of the claim.

    For example, a company that makes scented products using “fragrance” may put a “free from phthalates” claim on its label. Since the term “fragrance” is not regulated, how can you know that this claim is true? What proof is being offered to validate the claim either on the label or elsewhere? In this example the only way you can judge is if the product is still scented with “fragrance” as opposed to pure essential oils. At the end of the day, you have to know how to read and understand ingredient panels to determine if there are in fact hidden trade-offs that are being masked by the more prominent claims or so-called seals on the product labels.

Filed Under: Green Living, Ingredients Tagged With: , , , ,

Greenwashing: How to Decipher Personal Care Product Claims

June 22, 2010 by Leave a Comment

More than ever before, consumers are clamoring for ‘greener’ products. Their growing and legitimate concerns about the health and safety of their families and the planet are driving this demand for more genuinely “green” and sustainable goods and services.

In its 2009 report “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing,” environmental marketing firm Terrachoice, noted that manufacturers and retailers are stepping up to meet the growing demand for more environmentally safe products. But, as the title of their report suggests, the dark side of this trend, “Greenwashing,” continues to be a concern and possible impediment to wider adoption of greener options due to the mistrust and skepticism it creates.

The term, “Greenwashing” refers to a widely used practice of misleading consumers with deliberately vague or even false claims about the environmental benefits of a product or the environmental practices of the company who produces it. This trend stretches across a variety of industries, but is prominent in the Health and Beauty (HABA) category, where the potential for confusion regarding product claims is probably greatest.

Consider the results of another recent market research study done by The Shelton Group. Their Eco Pulse study on Natural and Organic label claims revealed that a surprising number of Americans (over 50% of those surveyed) erroneously believe that the term “Natural” is regulated by the government and therefore more reliable, while “Organic” is an unregulated, fancy, marketing buzzword slapped on products to justify a higher price point. Of course, this is the opposite of what’s true.

With so many different standards and claims floating around out there, how can you know what to look for in your personal care products to ensure you’re not being “green washed.” Tune in to my next post where I will cover some of the types of claims you might see and how to evaluate them.

Filed Under: Green Living Tagged With: , , , ,

Greenwashing: When it Comes to Labels Confusion Reigns!

June 20, 2010 by 1 Comment

I recently came across some startling and revealing market research on how American consumers view natural and organic claims on personal care products. It seems that many consumers believe that the term “Natural” is more reliable than the term “Organic.” In fact just over half the participants in this study believed that the terms “100% Natural” or “All Natural Ingredients” were better than “100% Organic” or even “Certified Organic Ingredients.”

Clearly the brand influence of many large companies in the beauty industry puts them in the position to make vague, unsubstantiated, and even misleading product claims when it comes to being natural or green. This unfortunate practice is known as “Greenwashing” and while it continues to persist across various product categories in spite of the phenomenal growth of companies and products that are truly natural and green, it remains disturbingly prevalent in the personal care and cosmetics arena.

At the same time, the lack of regulation around the use of specific marketing claims and reliable standards for natural and organic certification, creates even more confusion which ultimately leads to suspicion and skepticism in the marketplace. This not only slows the rate of adoption (and ultimately the production) of healthier, greener products, it overshadows the importance of organic ingredients in personal care products both from the perspective of consumer health and safety and creating a truly sustainable environment.

Over the next couple of posts, we’ll take a look at some of the common claims that are used and how you can read between the lines so to speak, so you can tell if you’re being “greenwashed.”

Filed Under: Green Living Tagged With: , , , , ,