ECO MARKETING:A new code in Britain will prevent companies from claiming their products are more eco friendly than they are – a much needed measure to combat greenwashing
AS THE BP owned oil rig off the US coast continues to spew thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Louisiana the executives who signed off on the company’s Beyond Petroleum rebranding campaign a decade ago must be raging.
Critics have consistently and voluminously damned the campaign, which stressed BP’s role as Mother Earth’s best friend – the company even changed its manly shield logo to a cute little flower – as one of the most outrageous examples of greenwashing, the practice which sees a company overstate its green principles in order to cash in on consumers’ environmental concerns.
While BP may now have to move beyond its Beyond Petroleum pledge, at least until the world forgets what has happened in recent weeks, greenwashing is unlikely to go away, not least because businesses recognise that consumers actually do care what happens to the planet and are willing to spend a little more on environmentally-friendly products.
But how can you be sure the claims made by manufacturers are not a fiction invented to curry favour with concerned consumers? With difficulty.
Last month British consumer magazine Which?tested the claims of a range of eco-friendly products commonly found on Irish supermarket shelves and many were found wanting. Brands including Tesco, Ecover, Persil and Ariel were accused of confusing shoppers or not being able to substantiate the claims made on their green labels.
A couple of Which?scientists and an environmental communications expert examined 14 everyday items and reported that nearly 50 per cent of the "eco" laundry tablets, nappies and toilet cleaners were making claims unsupported by sufficient evidence.
“When companies make clear green claims it helps consumers make eco-choices with confidence. But our experts concluded that many of the companies did not provide enough evidence to back up their claims and thought that some were exaggerated. This makes it hard for people to choose,” the magazine said.
Its study found that each of the eco toilet cleaners it scrutinised from Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Ecover and Green Force made at least one green claim that was not backed up by evidence from the manufacturer. Which? expressed “reservations” about Ecover’s claims that its products biodegrade rapidly and have less of an impact than conventional cleaning products on aquatic life once they have been through a water treatment plant. For its part, Ecover insisted its products were “fully degradable in anaerobic and aerobic conditions, going further than legislation and differentiating Ecover from market leaders”.
Tesco’s “Naturally” branded toilet cleaner was criticised for claiming it was unique in containing no phosphates, despite the fact that a large numbers of toilet cleaners are similarly phosphate-free.
Which?also questioned logos on washing powders from Ariel and Persil. The former has a "future friendly" stamp on its products while the latter goes for "cleaner planet plan" logo. Both could cause confusion and don't make it clear if it is the shopper's or the manufacturers' action which is future friendly and part of a cleaner planet plan.
The big environmental idea from both companies appears to be to encourage people to wash their clothes at 30 degrees as opposed to 40 – a good idea but one which is ultimately up to the consumer and not part of a great corporate plan to make the world better. Both companies say that their products have been specially developed to work at lower temperatures.
The magazine also found that a Bosch Eco-Iron used the same amount of energy as a normal, Bosch iron; an Ainsley Harriet eco-express kettle was no faster nor more energy efficient than a normal kettle, while the Ford Focus Econetic was pretty average when it came to fuel efficiency.
A study published last year by the British government’s watchdog Consumer Focus said that two thirds of consumers found it difficult to know which products were better for the environment and more than half thought that a lot of companies pretended to be green just to charge higher prices.
Whether or not that is true, one thing is beyond any doubt: huge multinational companies have been hoovering up smaller businesses with solid green credentials because they know it is what consumers want. Last year Coca Cola bought a substantial share of Innocent Smoothies; Unilever has swallowed the archetypal hippy ice-cream Ben and Jerry’s; L’Oréal has taken over the Body Shop — because it’s worth it; Cadbury Schweppes is pulling the strings at Green Black’s organic chocolate while Clorox, a bleach manufacturer, has acquired Burt’s Bees, a considerably easier on the eyes manufacturer of lip balm, soaps and shampoos. While it may not matter who owns the world’s eco-friendliest companies, it certainly does matter that they tell the truth and this is an area in which many have been found wanting.
In 2008, energy giant Shell ran a newspaper ad campaign featuring an oil refinery with flowers emerging sprouting from its chimneys under the tag line: “we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers”. Friends of the Earth – and hundreds of others – complained to Britian’s Advertising Standards Authority on the grounds that it implied most or all of Shell’s emissions were used – the actual figure was 0.325 per cent of its CO2 output. The ad had to be pulled. Toyota also got into trouble for false claims. In recent years it has earned itself environmental kudos for the Prius, a hybrid car which uses petrol and electricity. A TV ad screened in Britain said “what if all cars were like the Prius; with its hybrid technology it emits up to one tonne less CO2 per year”. The only problem was the car comparisons Toyota made were “not suitable” and its data was deeply flawed.
Of course Prius accounts for a very small percentage of Toyota’s sales and the hundreds of thousands of gas guzzling SUVs it makes probably offset many of the carbon savings made by its hybrids.
Greenwashing is one of the fastest-growing areas of complaint in Britain and it has prompted the ASA to introduce a new code of conduct from next September. Under the new rules the basis of any green claim must be made clear and comparative, claims such as “greener” will only be allowed if they can be justified; all environmental claims will have to be based on the full life cycle of the product and if a product has never had a negative effect on the environment, ads will not be allowed to imply the formulation has changed to improve the product. Marketing must not mislead consumers about the environmental benefit a product offers and companies will be forbidden from drawing consumers’ attention to the absence of an environmentally damaging ingredient if it is not usually found in similar products.
There are no similar guidelines here. While the Consumer Protection Act 2007 prohibits misleading advertisements and the making of false claims about goods or services to consumers, there are no explicit references to greenwashing although actions have been taken.
Last year Airtricity was hauled over the coals by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland over a campaign which claimed that switching to it would help save “trees”, “bunny rabbits”, “our future” and “a lot of money”. It also described the electricity it generated as “green electricity”. Bord Gáis Energy went to the advertising regulator over the use of the words “green electricity” and the claim that Airtricity’s offering was five times “more environmentally friendly” than its own electricity.
The ASAI upheld the complaint as not all of Airtricity’s electricity was derived from renewable sources so its claim that the electricity was “green electricity” was inappropriate. It also found the claim that the Airtricity electricity was five times more environmentally friendly was not sustainable. It was, perhaps, a foolishly needless campaign from a company with a genuine eco-message to sell.
