Greenwash, and why it matters

Regular readers may recall that we've talked before about the perils of greenwash.

Here's some more evidence that it's a real barrier to sustainable consumer behaviour. My colleague Eric Whan, our Director of Environmental research, writes:

"We all have ideas about why sustainable consumption has not become mainstream despite all of the effort put toward that goal. Materialism, greed, product (in)efficacy, poor communications--all of these are at least partially valid explanations.

Published this month, the National Geographic / GlobeScan "Greendex" survey of consumers across 17 countries has found that while consumption habits of the average individual have become somewhat more sustainable in more countries than not, gains have been modest. As we at GlobeScan have long said, a broad gap exists between the values that people hold as individuals (green), and their behavior as consumers (not so green).

How to narrow the gap? To get some answers, we asked 17,000 consumers this very question directly. Many will consider this method a rather blunt measurement tool, but the survey question generated the most compelling results of the 2010 Greendex study.

As this chart shows, when asked to what extent ten different factors discourage them doing more for the environment than they do now, the top rated factor was the perception that companies make false claims about the environmental profile of their products. The second greatest obstacle was a belief that individual action is futile if governments and companies do not take action themselves. Less important barriers included conventional explanations such as cost, inconvenience, confusion, and a lack of green product alternatives.

So, if we are to conclude anything from the data, it is that corporate credibility and a lack of leadership in general are the priorities that must be first adressed by those who wish to further sustainable consumption. Thus the question arises: How? I'll leave that to you."

BP: in very Deepwater, but not drowning yet

If you were looking for a suitable image to convey what a crisis in reputation looks and smells like, you could scarcely do better than this. Hundreds of thousands of barrels of sticky crude oil leeching daily into the Gulf of Mexico, and washing up week after week on the shores of the country that is still the world’s biggest power, ruining people’s livelihoods along with the coastal environment and sending American politicians into apoplexy. The clever tagline that BP devised a few years ago to position itself as part of the new, sustainable future now looks like a bad joke. Far from being ‘beyond petroleum’, the company may now be about to drown in it.
Or so the conventional wisdom goes. What chance does BP have of emerging from the current crisis?
There’s a case for saying that, once the flow of oil has been staunched and the immediate crisis has passed – easier said than done, apparently - the company has a reasonable chance of returning to some semblance of business as usual. BP is a colossal company – the world’s fourth biggest – and its many other operations across the world continue to earn it healthy profits, particularly in an era of high oil prices. Unlike a company producing consumer goods, whose market appeal might be fatally damaged by an incident of this scale, consumers have limited scope to boycott BP’s products, even if they wanted to. Most of BP’s revenue is from its upstream rather than downstream business, in contrast to some of its competitors, and it’s hard to see how the drive to ensure BP covers the full cost of cleanup and compensation would be served by turning off its funding tap.
And there is some reason to believe the effect on its reputation may not be as seismic as has been suggested. BP has faced other problems – the Texas City oil refinery explosion killed 15 back in 2005, and corrosion problems in an Alaskan pipeline caused a spill of an estimated million barrels of oil there in 2006. But when GlobeScan tested awareness of these incidernts among UK and US consumers at the time, we found that most had not heard of them; those that had tended to feel BP were doing a reasonable job in trying to resolve them and – critically – the great majority did not feel that their respect for BP had been damaged as a result.
Of course, the scale of the current disaster dwarfs those two accidents, and together with the BP leadership’s hapless media performances this may mean that all bets are off. But it’s worth considering this: for many years, our data has shown that the oil companies across the board are not popular corporate citizens, and accidents like this are a major reason why. Deepwater Horizon may be a stark reminder of the price we pay for our collective addiction to oil, but for now, there’s no obvious alternative to hand. That, for now, may be enough to save BP’s skin.

Danish Blues

With the Copenhagen summit now underway, global attention is focused on the climate change issue, arguably as never before.

Our latest BBC World Service poll shows that – even in the midst of a recession – public concern over the climate has reached its highest level in the 11 years we’ve been tracking it. In total, 64% of those across the 24 countries we polled said they considered climate change a ‘very serious’ problem. In 13 of the countries we’ve been asking this question on a regular basis since 1998, and we’ve seen a sharp increase in concern on this measure from 44% to 63% overall.

Undoubtedly, until the buildup to COP15 started, the economic crisis had been keeping climate change out of the headlines, and the proportion of people in our polling naming the environment as the biggest issue facing their country dropped sharply. But while the economy was imploding, the steady accrual of alarming news about the climate has propelled concern about climate change – a problem which is, let’s not forget, complex, multi-faceted and (at least for now) somewhat abstract – to new heights. As our poll shows, there is substantial support for governments taking a strong line and supporting ambitious targets to fight climate change.

The UEA emails row may have provided a straw to clutch at for the sceptically-minded and the conspiracy theorists. But the likelihood is that any dampening effect that this has on concern will be temporary – particularly if we see a repeat of the scorching summers, hurricanes and snow-free winters that have become an increasing feature of the last decade.

What our poll also shows, however, is that leadership at Copenhagen will probably have to come from somewhere else besides the world’s two leading CO2 emitters, China and the USA. In both of those countries, concern has dropped back since 2007, and both are ambivalent about their governments pushing for a strong global climate agreement in Denmark.

Where Electronic Waste Goes to Die

As we’ve noted, the issue of electronic waste is again rising up the environmental agenda, and perhaps it is time to ask whether the IT industry really deserves the high reputation for responsibility that we’ve observed it has among consumers around the world. Canadian broadcaster CBC has featured in their program “The National” (E-waste Dumping Ground) the dubious trade in highly toxic materials extracted from recycled electronic equipment, much of which originates from North America.

According to the CBC, lax laws governing the trade in hazardous e-waste in Canada and the US are partly to blame. Despite a UN agreement banning the practice of shipping it from rich to poor countries, some campaign groups claim that as much as 80 percent of used electronic equipment in North America collected for recycling is shipped to the developing world – often to China – with some of the rest processed in US prisons, where oversight and regulations are often lacking.

In the absence of legislation, it appears that few recycling firms find it economical to invest in the advanced technology or labour required to process e-waste responsibly in the West, while in developing countries, enforcement of worker protection or environmental regulations is often poor or non-existent. The impact on developing countries of this failure to act responsibly in terms of worker exposure to toxins when disposing of electronic chips, or water pollution resulting from the stripping of parts in acid, is sobering.

Arguably, the manufacturers are not the chief culprits here. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how they can entirely wash their hands of responsibility for what happens to the components in their hardware when the industry’s business models depend on consumers being persuaded to upgrade or replace hardware every eighteen months or less. Nokia wins plaudits from Greenpeace’s ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ “for leading competitors on toxic phase out” and for its voluntary take-back program. It will be good to see others follow their example.

The Perils of Greenwash

Received wisdom has it that one of the major casualties of the economic crisis has been consumers’ enthusiasm for the ethical and green product lines that have made such strides over recent years.

Our latest global tracking data is telling us otherwise, and in fact suggests that ‘ethical consumers’, who look to reward responsible companies and punish irresponsible ones, are more numerous than ever. But what’s also clear is that there is growing disappointment in a number of key markets – Germans are particularly downbeat – about companies’ performance in being responsible, particularly when it comes to environmentally-friendly products. Many consumers are sensing that the increasingly bold claims that are being made for products’ environmental credentials aren’t always justified. In 2008, for instance, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority upheld a record number of complaints about environmental claims. Greenwash is alive and well, it would seem.

An interesting new report by Consumer Focus adds weight to this argument and makes clear what’s at stake – if consumers don’t trust the claims that companies make, they become reluctant to exercise their green purchasing power as they don’t know who to believe. Which doesn’t bode well for the prospects of building a low-carbon and sustainable economy.

Consumer Focus’ recommendations for advertisers (and those who regulate them!) in generating confidence and trust in green claims are that they should be clear and easy to understand; that they should be credible (realistic, accessible and verifiable – they have to mesh not only with what consumers already believe about the brand and the wider market but also with their existing beliefs) and comparable (providing simple, meaningful and like-for-like comparisons).