Greenwashing
Greenwashing
The term Greenwashing, which is an English neologism equivalent to facade ecologism or facade environmentalism, refers to those communication strategies, implemented by some companies, organizations or political institutions, with the aim of conveying a deceptive image, under the environmental profile, to disorient public attention on the real ecological impact of its products, activities or policies.
Greenwashing is in fact the communication or marketing technique that attempts to capitalize on the growing demand for products and behaviors with low environmental impact, turning the spotlight on actions that in reality are not authentic, but promoted for the sole purpose of appearing more “sustainable”. .
The term is a play on words that derives from “whitewashing” (which literally means “to give a coat of white”… or, in this case, green), a concept imported from the cinematographic world which indicated the habit of employing Caucasian actors for any role, even of characters of other ethnic groups.
The term Greenwashing therefore indicates the use of misleading information to mislead the listeners or users of that product, activity or policy, about the real intentions, anything but eco-sustainable.
The term Greenwashing was used for the first time by the American environmentalist Jay Westerveld, who in 1986 thus stigmatized the practice of hotel chains which leveraged the environmental impact of washing laundry to invite users to reduce the consumption of towels, an economic reason.
Greenwashing is not easy to unmask, especially for that part of the population that does not have particular expertise or familiarity in that particular sector.
However, Greenwashing communication usually has the following characteristics:
– there is no specific information or data to support what has been declared;
– the information and data are declared as certified while they are not recognized by authoritative bodies;
– individual characteristics of what is communicated are emphasized;
– the information is generic to the point of creating confusion for consumers;
– false or counterfeit labels may be used;
– untrue environmental claims are reported.
The risk of greenwashing is that of buying products, services or following actions and policies that are instead harmful to the environment and therefore also to the population; it also involves the risk of financing projects and businesses that do not bring any benefit to the environment and people.
To overcome these risks and dangers, a series of measures are being implemented at the level of various countries.
For example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the USA was the first body to draw up, since 2010, guidelines for the use of so-called environmental marketing claims. The goal was to impose clarity and transparency on companies, not only in defining the extent and scope of their commitment but also, for example, in stylistic choices and promotional language, precisely to avoid false claims.
At European level, work is being done, with increasing attention, to create a series of stringent rules to establish what can be defined as green. The EU Taxonomy, approved by the European Parliament in 2020, helped to define the canons for establishing what really is “an environmentally sustainable economic activity”.
Furthermore, the EU NFDR (Non Finance Reporting Directive) reaffirms the need for a growing number of companies to give their own account of sustainable activities and the real results achieved through the non-financial declaration of companies, while the SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation) establishes that mutual funds specify the degree of alignment of their assets with the Taxonomy, as established by the SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation).
However, the path to clarity is not easy and cannot be reached in a simplistic way.
It is essential that clear standardization systems are established and made mandatory as much as possible. Furthermore, it is important that consumers, users, recipients or investors inform themselves carefully before choosing and adopting any product, service, activity or policy.
In this sense, the only possible way is to trust only objective and recognized certifications, wary of generic terms such as “natural” or “zero emissions” (an objective that is practically impossible to achieve for any type of product or service) or sustainability labels, without any certification and explanation of merit.