bemoreeco

In part two of our green wash feature, (part 1) we put the energy and oil companies under the microscope and ask if they are really doing their bit for the environment or pulling green wool over our eyes. Not every company that claims to be green is lying with many businesses spending millions reworking practices to become more environmentally friendly.

This can be demonstrated by Inc.com’s Green 50 which charts what businesses are doing to become more environmentally friendly. However with all these efforts there are many more big companies getting their big green paintbrush out.

Take energy giant Shell for instance. They bought out their big guns to shout about their commitment to a low carbon future but started selling off their Solar business as it wasn’t making ‘much profit’ and putting more money into oil sands. Oxfam criticised Shell in 2008 for massaging its emissions figures of oil sands as a “dangerous green wash” that hides its contribution to further climate change and puts poor people around the world at greater risk

In early 2009, Energy regulator Ofgem sparked controversy by making the decision that power companies wishing to offer green tariffs would be required to make additional efforts to reduce carbon emissions. This means that that currently suppliers offering green tariffs need to demonstrate that they are making additional investment in renewable energy or carbon offsets, on top of their legal obligations. The top six energy companies signed up to this. However this decision was slated by Dale Vince, MD of Ecotricity who accused the six of greenwash and said that this action would divert investment from increasing renewable energy capacity.

So what do consumers think? We know we are getting wiser about greenwashing and the web is helping us spread our distain for it. Consumers are quick to use the web to condemn green washing and voice their skepticism about corporations, researchers from Nielsen Online found during a recent survey.  “When it comes to the environment, consumers are insisting on both transparency and consistency from the corporations they patronise,” said Jessica Hogue, research director for Nielsen Online.

1. Fluffy language - Words or terms with no clear meaning, eg “eco-friendly”.
2. Green products v dirty company - Such as efficient light bulbs made in a polluting factory.
3. Suggestive pictures - Images that indicate a (unjustified) green impact, eg flowers blooming from an exhaust pipe.
4. Irrelevant claims - Emphasising one tiny green attribute when everything else is ungreen.
5. Best in class? - Declaring you are slightly greener than the rest, even if the rest are pretty terrible.
6. Just not credible - “Eco-friendly” cigarettes, anyone? “Greening” a potentially dangerous item doesn’t make it safe.
7. Gobbledygook - Jargon and information that only a scientist could check or understand.
8. Imaginary friends - A “label” that looks like third-party endorsement… except it’s made up.
9. No proof - It could be right, but where’s the evidence?
10. Outright lying- Totally fabricated claims or data.

Recently Barbie has been accused of it, Shell and BP deny claims that they do it but it seems like all and sundry are jumping on the green bandwagon to sell their products.

“Green washing,” is the combination of the words green and whitewashing. This term was created by environmentalist Jay Westerveld who coined the phrase when examining the ‘so called’ environmental towel policy at hotels around the world. Today, it is becoming ingrained into modern language as global warming remains top of the planet’s agenda. The term describes efforts, mostly in business, to create the impression that a company is implementing practices meant to improve the environment when it is not really doing so.

Bemoreeco.com is constantly being sent products to review from green companies so we always do a green wash check to see if a product can live up to it’s so called environmental credentials:

• How many air miles has it done?
• Where, how and what has it been made of?
• Is it packaged in an environmentally friendly way?  (I can’t name all the times when we have been sent items in bubble wrap or copious amounts of unnecessary packaging!)

 
Back in December 2007, environmental marketing firm TerraChoice released a study called “The Six Sins of Green washing” which found that more than 99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed were guilty of green washing. Out of a total of 1,753 environmental claims made, with some products having more than one, only one was found not guilty of making a false or misleading green marketing claim.

A good example of a company doing it right is Ribena, with all their bottles made from recycled plastic and the juice itself being produced under ethical conditions in the UK. Marketing Manager for Ribena, Rachel Harris states, “We are committed to making the supply chain for Ribena as environmentally friendly as possible, from the way we grow our blackcurrants to the packaging in which the products are wrapped.” Ribena’s cap- and label are not recyclable but they are honest about this and state this is something they are looking at.

Here at Bemoreeco.com we feel that packaging for products should contain recycling information so people can make informed choices when it comes to purchasing. Check out this great example of clear and concise recycling information on this OWL wireless electricity monitor. 

In part two of this article, we question whether some energy services are as green as they state they are!