The commodification of sustainable products has become a rising issue as environmental concerns spread. With recent wide-scale climate change coverage, sustainable products are now viewed as a trend to capitalize on. The Business of Sustainability Index reported that 75% of American consumers worry about the environmental impact of the products they buy, and Gen Z is likely to spend more money on seemingly “ethical” companies.
Companies have integrated “greenwashing” techniques into their advertising methods to appeal to this growing target audience. Greenwashing is “the process of conveying misleading information about how a company’s products are environmentally sound.” The greenwashing agenda is exploitative of consumers’ well-intended efforts to live more sustainably for the sole purpose of capital gain, which leads to a misinterpretation of environmentalism as a whole.
In 1986, environmentalist Jay Westerveld pointed out the irony of the “save-the-towel movement” that hotels commonly propagate. He argued that it has no real impact other than saving the hotel money in laundry costs. This argument has since been disproven, however, given recent data from the American Hotel and Lodging Association that hotel efforts have actually reduced their water usage by 17%. Despite this, his term “greenwashing” equipped consumers with the insight necessary to recognize misleading environmental rhetoric in marketing strategies.
Environmental buzzwords such as “natural,” “eco-friendly” and “compostable” are frequently employed in greenwashing slogans. Other phrases like “carbon neutrality” are overused with little-to-no supporting evidence. Companies should be held responsible for being transparent about their environmental impact, and it is counterproductive if they are not providing reliable information to consumers.
In 2021, Earth Island Institute filed a lawsuit against trademark American beverage company Coca-Cola for making inadequately supported “green” claims in their “World Without Waste” campaign. Coca-Cola had been referring to themselves as eco-friendly despite being named the largest plastic polluter for the past three years by Break Free From Plastic in 2020. Even worse, Coca-Cola made no significant effort to transition to a “circular economy” — a model of production that encourages reusing old products — while they reinforce their reputation of failing to meet sustainability goals.
In 2022 alone, the infamous fast-fashion company H&M was sued on the basis of greenwashing in their Conscious Choice collection. This collection boasted eco-friendly clothing due to sustainable materials and less water used in manufacturing. H&M provided a “Sustainability Profile” for each product in the collection — all of which scored on the ethical side.
However, this lawsuit revealed that H&M manipulated their ratings provided by the Higg Index, which is a reputable “standard measurement of value chain sustainability.” For example, an item rated for -20% water consumption consumes 20% more water than average, but H&M reported the opposite. In addition, the Conscious Choice collection contained up to 100% polyester, which releases many harmful chemicals upon being discarded.
These lawsuits bring to light the lack of supervision of company vows when prioritizing environmental sustainability. Its deceitful narrative impairs the true pursuit for climate activism and dampens the public’s perceived severity of these critical issues.
72% of Americans use labels on product packaging to identify environmentally-friendly companies — this further proves the need for a reliable third party to verify “green” claims. The search for truly sustainable, ethically curated items can be daunting, but there are resources and rising company efforts that help.
Many companies are true to their word, and “Good On You” — an ethical fashion brand rating system — is a way to substantiate these claims. Their mobile app and website reveal brand sustainability ratings based on three criteria — planet, people and animals — ranging on a five-point reaction scale. The “planet” category analyzes brands’ environmental policies and is specifically designed to see through greenwashing; the “people” section examines how well brands address their impact on workers across the supply chain; and “animals” reveals their animal welfare policies.
In addition, companies have made efforts to be more transparent with their manufacturing methods. Skincare company Cocokind and activewear Girlfriend Collective provide breakdowns of their products’ carbon emissions, the recyclability of each component, as well as an in-depth review of their materials along with reputable sources.
Transparency is key to holding companies accountable. Extensive implementation of this from major corporations would ease the threat of greenwashing by providing consumers with accurate data on what their purchases are contributing to. Mislabeling products as “sustainable” results in harmful behavior toward the environment and consumers’ distrust in the legitimacy of environmental concerns, both of which damage climate change efforts everywhere.
Trista Lara is an Opinion Intern for the spring 2023 quarter. She can be reached at tlara@uci.edu.