GREENWASHING VS. ETHICS

Greenwashing is defined as when a company spends more time or money marketing itself as environmentally friendly rather than being environmentally friendly. Therefore, a false or exaggerated impression of sustainability is created. While this definition may seem pretty straightforward when it comes to whether greenwashing is ethical, there are many gray areas that are built into greenwashing. For example, greenwashing usually is not an outright lie—such as stating a product is 100% recycled when it is not. Rather, greenwashing consists of vague, selectively-framed language. As usual, we will be delving into both sides of the argument in this blog. 

First, we will take a look at the case FOR greenwashing being ethically defensible. The first argument is the puffery argument; many argue that claims that a product is eco-conscious are just regular puffery–or boasting claims. For example, if a coffee company states they have the world’s best coffee, they are not chastised for doing so. There’s also the argument of imperfect progress. When a company highlights one sustainability win despite having other lacks in sustainability throughout their company,ap they are not lying if they state they are now ec-conscious. For example, when Starbucks started promoting its paper straws, they started promoting themselves as eco-conscious; although their larger overall carbon footprint was not eco-conscious, their step towards environmental care demonstrates how they have progressed and thus are not ‘lying’. With this Starbucks example comes the fact that terms such as ‘natural’, ‘green’, and ‘eco-friendly’ are not legally defined. Thus, a company is not necessarily lying when they claim they are one of these factors, as there is no established threshold someone has to cross in order to make these claims. In theory, any company who believes they have even the slightest environmentally sound policy can claim they are green without actually lying to the audience. 

Now, let’s move to the argument AGAINST greenwashing being ethically defensible. First, and most obviously, there’s the argument that companies are deceiving the consumers. One example of this was Volkswagen’s Dieselgate scandal in 2015, during which VW engineered software to cheat emission tests while marking their car as low emission; in reality, their vehicles far exceeded the limit for emissions per vehicle. This is an example of clear deception and manipulation of consumers. However, when thinking back to the argument for greenwashing, we do know that greenwashing is not always lying, so keep that in mind as you evaluate this argument. Another argument is the opportunity cost argument, which argues that money spent on green marketing is money not spent on green R&D, which can slow environmental progress by satisfying consumer demand for sustainability without necessitating the company to truly deliver the consumer’s sustainability requirements. 

While you ponder on both sides of the argument for and against greenwashing, I leave you this question to ruminate on. Should the responsibility to prevent, reduce, or limit greenwashing fall on the companies itself or just the regulators? And, where should the line be drawn between optimism, progress, and deception?