It's Not Easy Being Green: beware of "greenwashing"

Kermit the Frog is not the only one now who must struggle with being green. As more and more people become (hopefully) more environmentally aware and focus on "green" products that have less impact on the environment, companies are beginning to respond. But are their claims accurate or outright misleading?

"Greenwashing" is the term used to describe misleading environmental benefits and its something that consumers will need to be aware of more and more. Many nations are beginning to respond with demands for more exacting definitions as to what is truly "green" just as was done in the past for benefits like "low calorie" or "nonfat" (Ex: Norway has banned the terms green, environmentally friendly, and clean from car ads.). The United States has been slow to respond but the FTC is preparing to update its consumer Green Guide.

In the meantime, check out EnviroMedia's Greenwashing Index, a site where consumers can rate ads as to their "green" truthfulness. Also, take a look at the TerraChoice web site which lists its Six Sins of Greenwashing. Here are a couple:

• Hidden trade-off: Like Ethanol - possibly a cleaner-burning fuel but more environmental harm is done to produce it thereby outweighing any benefits.
• Irrelevance: Promoting an environmental benefit that is already dictated by law.

I have always said that companies can find "gold in going green". But they need to be doing it for the right reasons and with honesty and integrity.

Consumers' Concern: Economy over the Environment

In addition to being a media producer/filmmaker, I also have a background in marketing: Here's an interesting article from the American Marketing Association regarding the results of the 2008 ImagePower Green Brands Survey (click here to view video podcast) published by the Landor agency. The survey covered a range of U.S/U.K. attitudes and perceptions regarding the environment and "green" brands or companies.
The results would indicate, perhaps not surprisingly, that the environment is taking a back seat to economic concerns. More people are thinking about the short-term consequences of energy (ie: gas). In line with their concerns on issues of immediate self-interest, the "green" brands most highly rated were those that represent products that went in or on the body, like food and personal care products. However, environmental issues were not completely off the radar. Respondents still expressed concern but responsibility was perceived differently in the two countries:

• Environmental pessimism. Sixty-seven percent of American consumers and 69% of Britons think we are in worse environmental shape now than we were five years ago.

• Responsibility and accountability. In the U.S., industry is perceived the most responsible for environmental problems with 36% of American consumers look to government to provide the policies and standards to advance environmental change. Conversely, U.K. consumers are more likely to accept their part of the blame.

So, we need to keep the flame alive, even if the consumer's interest may seem temporarily placed elsewhere. Particularly since many of our economic woes are in some degree or another tied in with environmental issues that are impacting us now or will impact us in the near future. Energy is a perfect example: our solutions to our energy crisis will be the result of our needs combined with what environmental impact they will impose (alternative energy, carbon emissions/footprint, global warming). Though we may be focused on one right now, the two - energy and the environment - are forever linked.