|
Reader question:
What does “Avoid greenwashing in shopping” mean?
My comments:
It means when shopping, you should beware of green (environmentally friendly) claims on the label – they may not be true.
Greenwashing, as in whitewashing (^-^).
Yes, greenwashing is whitewashing with a different color – greenwash is a portmanteau coinage combining the relatively new concept of green (environmental friendly) with the old whitewash.
You know what the old whitewash is, don’t you? Whitewash is the paint over walls covering up cracks and hiding smears. Hence whitewashing, referring to propaganda by governments or companies aimed at hiding facts in serious accidents or wrongdoing. When governments go on and on about how great and timely their rescue work has been, for example, when they answer questions over accusations that loose laws and negligent bosses may have led to a fatal mining accident, they’re whitewashing.
When milk factories claim their diary is milked from cows that are fed nothing but 15-inch green grasses or similar such, they’re greenwashing. Don’t believe it. It’s just a marketing scheme, a PR gimmick. In other words, nonsense.
These days, businesses and governments are all greenwashing because it’s the IN thing to do. And mind you, those who greenwash the most are usually ones that have done the most damage to the environment in the first place. Take global warming, for example. North America and the EU are undoubtedly champions of anti-carbon emission campaigns, talking good and often throwing out accusations against developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. They talk so well and with such an overwhelming voice that it sometimes obscures the fact that they themselves have been the biggest culprit to hurting the Earth ever since the industrial revolution – and are therefore duty bound to give something back. They, rather than China and India, still are Mother Nature’s worst enemies today in terms of wastefulness and exploiting the Earth’s scant, and dwindling, resources.
Anyways, going green is in and it’s a good thing that governments and businesses east and west are all doing it – better late than never.
However, precisely because green is the color to pursue today, many businesses claim to be green just for the sake of it. They claim to be recycling their waste, yet without providing evidence and without allowing environmental protection agencies access to an investigation. Or they simply adopt green-color packaging without doing anything about the content. Or they may use one natural ingredient and claim all their ingredients to be green. Or in short, they lie.
That’s why we as consumers need to be wary. If the public is more suspecting and less gullible, governments and businesses are less likely to lie through their teeth and throw their lies in our face.
Anyways, here are media examples of greenwash:
1. Are Coke’s environmental claims the real thing? After making a big contribution to the coffers of the World Wildlife Fund, Coca Cola has been pledging to the world that it is going “water neutral”, most recently at a business conference in San Francisco this week.
It is an intriguing phrase. But can a company whose products have water as their principal ingredient really go water neutral? And is WWF wise to proclaim Coke as a “partner” – even in return for Coke’s contribution of $23m (￡15m) to the fund's protection of the world's rivers? Is this greenwash?
Don’t get me wrong. Any company that uses a lot of water in its business – and Coke uses 300bn litres a year – should be encouraged to consume less. And we should not necessarily decry their efforts, even if they are less than perfect.
What concerns me is that phrase “water neutral”. The company has been using it widely in the 18 months since its hook-up with WWF – notably during the Olympic Games in Beijing, the water-stressed city where Coca Cola was a major event sponsor.
What does the phrase mean? Speaking at WWF's annual meeting last year, Coke's chairman Neville Isdell said it meant the company “pledged to replace every drop of water we use in our beverages and their production: to achieve balance in communities and in nature.” The goal, he admitted, is “aspirational”. But it is also extremely hard to pin down.
- Greenwash: Are Coke’s green claims the real thing? Guardian.co.uk, December 4, 2008.
2. Even the best-intentioned ecotravelers may not be getting what they pay for. As ecotourism grows in popularity, hoteliers are eager to cash in and slap a green label on everything, deserved or not, to draw visitors. The practice, which extends beyond the travel industry, is called “greenwashing,” and it is extremely pervasive—a recent study by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing found that 99 percent of all products labeled as “green” do not live up to their claims.
The problem lies in the definition of ecotourism and in the different interpretations of what it means to be green. Self-appointed “ecoresorts” run the gamut from accommodations that leave absolutely no carbon footprint to those that merely use energy-efficient light bulbs.
“Providers talk about being carbon neutral. That means that you’ve offset all remaining emissions through some sort of credible carbon initiative,” said Brian Mullis, president of Sustainable Travel International. “What does ‘a(chǎn)ll’ mean? Does that mean your office operations? Electricity? Employees’ commutes to work? Does it mean all of their guests’ flights?” “Providers are looking for low-hanging fruit,” Mullis says. “They want a quick fix that doesn't require a change in behavior.”
- Don’t get taken in by ‘ecoresorts’ that are wolves in sheep’s clothing, USNews.com, May 23, 2008.
我要看更多專欄文章
|
