In recent years, the topic of climate change has made it into the mainstream. Global climatic events have made consumers more aware and conscious in their purchasing decisions. And of course, companies have not slept through this awareness trend either. A lot has been rethought and revised and a lot of good things have been initiated with regard to climate change. However, the positive contribution to climate protection is not always as great as it is communicated and publicized to the outside world. For consumers in particular, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between serious initiatives and so-called greenwashing. Greenwashing is defined by Alka Celic in CSR Magazine as "a company's efforts to portray sustainability activities through PR and advertising where there are none or very few." (1)

Climate communication and greenwashing  

It is clear that climate communication has gained in importance in recent years. According to recent studies, 63% of all people worldwide see climate change as a "very serious problem. (2) This is also reflected in attitudes toward sustainable consumption. A study in the U.S. found that nearly two-thirds (64%) are willing to spend more money on sustainable products. Among Millennials (born after 1990), the figure is as high as 75%. (3) This makes it clear that every company must include sustainability in its considerations not only from a moral but also from a purely economic perspective.

This brings us to the other side of the coin, where consumers need to have a trained eye to distinguish between "greenwashing" and genuine initiatives to combat climate change. The term "greenwashing" was first mentioned in the media in the 1980s - at that time in connection with a large-scale marketing campaign by the oil company Chevron, which focused on idyllic-looking images of nature. The widespread availability of information on the Internet has made it much more difficult for companies to succeed with such marketing measures, but at the same time the campaigns have become much more sophisticated. Even for informed consumers, it is still difficult to find out which product is actually "good for the climate. This is also shown by the results of the American study from last year mentioned above. In this study, around 74% of respondents stated that they did not know how to identify sustainable products. (4) 

‍

Why is greenwashing so dangerous?

Greenwashing can be seen as an enemy of climate change, because it leads to confusion among consumers who are striving for sustainable consumption. In the long term, this leads to a breach of trust and relativizes the work of companies that actually want to make a contribution to climate protection. On the other hand, economist and board spokesman of the social-ecological GLS Bank, Thomas Jorberg makes the argument that pseudo-sustainability leads to a sensitization in society. (5) Whether enemy or friend, it is primarily up to politicians to define a legal framework. Only recently, a proposal for a directive was published by the European Commission. With it, the EU wants to send a clear signal against greenwashing and for more consumer rights. The directive is intended to make it easier for consumers to make more sustainable purchases by regulating environmental and climate claims more closely and requiring companies to provide clear and comprehensible evidence of their environmental protection efforts. The proposal, which is expected to increase transparency in environmental advertising, must now be approved by the EU Parliament and member states before it can be transposed into national law. (6)

‍

How can I prevent greenwashing in my company?

Common marketing practices but also the definition of greenwashing are constantly changing. Thus, there is no rulebook that can simply be applied to prevent greenwashing activities. As a company, you should always ask yourself critical questions. The rule is: Do good and talk about it, but also question yourself again and again. Nobody demands absolute perfection from the start, but an open exchange with your audience is highly appreciated and strengthens relationships. As a consumer:in, there are a few things you can look for to identify products that only appear to be sustainable. In a study conducted by TerraChoice, the 6 sins of greenwashing were identified. (7)

‍

6 Sins of Greenwashing  

‍Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off/Sin of the Hidden Trade-Offs means that a product is classified as green on the basis of a single attribute. Examples of this would be emphasizing the recycled content of a material and concealing less green product properties. These statements are not wrong per se, but still mislead because they only highlight one point. Pay attention to whether the product is evaluated in its entirety or whether the green claim is limited to one characteristic.

At Sin of No Proof/Sin of No Proof are assertions that cannot be proven or certified by independent third parties. Further evidence cannot be found even after research and is therefore meaningless.

The Sin of Vagueness/Sin of Vagueness is about unclear, undefined or very broad statements. The ecological aspect should always be specified. Examples are statements like "All Natural". Many substances found in nature are toxic, take mercury or uranium for example. Claims such as "green" or "environmentally friendly" are also meaningless without more precise specification.

The Sin of Irrelevance/Sin der Irrelevance is committed when irrelevant and unhelpful information or claims are made. For example, statements are made that are already prohibited by law. Since they are irrelevant, they only distract and want to mislead consumers.

‍Sin of fibbing/Sin of fibbing applies when entire statements are not true. This sin reaches deep into consumer rights because false statements are actually made. An example would be to claim that a product is made of 100% recycled plastic, but in fact it is only 30%.

Companies commit the sin of lesser of two evils when environmental labels such as "organic" or "green" are applied to products where the entire product category is of questionable environmental value. These claims are not false per se, but they are misleading.

Unfortunately, there are always negative examples in the field of climate communication and it is everyone's responsibility not to simply accept statements made by companies but to critically question them. Accredited labels and standards can contribute to this and make it easier for consumers to get an impression of a product's climate performance without having to invest a lot of time in checking facts. Klim has set itself the goal of helping both parties. On the one hand, we want to give companies the opportunity to make their compensation measures measurable and to communicate them clearly, and on the other hand, we want to enable consumers to identify the CO₂ footprint of a product at a glance. More information about the Klim Label can be found here.

Sources:(1), (2), (3),(4), (5), (6), (7)

‍