How eco-friendly is that product? Four ways to spot 'greenwashing'
Tackle The Practice Forward The Measures Intends 'greenwashing' To Put Of Eu To
In anticipation of combating misleading climate claims on packaging and in advertisements, the European Union has identified a handful of common words and phrases used by companies to pitch their products as environmentally friendly — even when they aren’t.
Anyone who has tried to buy the least-worst version of a consumer product will recognise the struggle to identify it amid a flurry of vague and unverifiable claims — a marketing disconnect known as 'greenwashing'.
In its research, the EU found that more than half of the green claims it studied were vague, misleading, or unfounded. It also found that consumers had a low level of confidence that businesses would tell them the truth.
Although greenwashing has no legal definition — and some industry fund groups hope to keep it that way — the EU intends to put forward measures to tackle the practice.
It may require member countries to ensure that environmental assertions made by companies about their products are backed by scientific evidence, according to draft European Commission proposals seen by . Under the plans, firms that want to tout the positive climate aspects of their offerings will also have to highlight the detrimental effects.
So what kinds of words are under the microscope?
Here are four greenwashing pitfalls to watch out for, according to the leaked draft proposals, and what the companies using them might be hiding.
These phrases all sound promising — who doesn’t want their carbon impact neutralised? But words like these can also indicate that a company isn’t reducing emissions by improving its own practices, but rather by relying on offsets.
Carbon offsets let individuals or companies continue emitting, as long as they pay to remove an equivalent amount of carbon elsewhere — by supporting a tree-planting project in the Amazon, for example.
But the concept only works if the carbon being removed truly would not have been otherwise, a concept known as additionality.
Many projects don’t meet that threshold. Renewable-energy developments in particular rarely need the additional funding, especially now that solar is the cheapest source of new energy in most of the world.
For the time being, offsets lack transparency and accountability, and the actual positive impact from these payments can be hard to measure and easy to misrepresent.
That’s why claims like these are often used by companies as a free pass to continue down a damaging environmental road. As the EU says, “these factors result in offset credits of low environmental integrity and credibility that mislead consumers when claims are based on such offsets".
It’s not uncommon for the packaging on a cleaning product or electronic gadget to promise that said product is now better for the environment than it used to be, or better than a competing option. But in what way? By how much? According to whom?
The problem with claims like these is that it’s often not clear what exactly is being compared, particularly when there are a variety of different ways to measure a product’s environmental impact.
Does it use less water? Produce less carbon?
Leave less pollution when it’s disposed of?
How much does its environmental impact rely on a consumer behavior — like recycling or reuse — versus a change in how the product was made?
Offering superlatives instead of specifics also lets companies leave out crucial information, such as the impact of a product’s supply chain or indirect emissions impacts from a company’s activities.
“In case two traders make a claim on climate change where one considered only direct impacts, whilst the other considered both their direct and indirect impacts, the results are not comparable,” the EU notes.
There’s also a risk that companies are claiming credit for improvements that are only marginal or were achieved over a long period of time.
Many products are less environmentally damaging and more energy-efficient than they were 20 or 30 years ago, for example, simply because regulations have been tightened on things like chemicals and packaging.
Companies shouldn’t claim environmental improvements over something that’s no longer available to buy, the EU warns, unless the improvement is “significant and achieved in the last five years".
If climate promises are any indication, 2030 is sure to be a magical year: Dozens of companies and countries have vowed to make substantial emissions reductions by the end of this decade, and many are shouting it from the rooftop.
But there’s a major question lurking behind any 'by 2030' promise: Since when?
Companies are often touting plans to cut their footprint by a certain date without spelling out whether those reductions are relative to right now, pre-industrial times or somewhere in between.
As the EU notes, such claims “can seem spectacular without a reference year.” After all, a 50% drop since 2018 is different from a 50% drop since 1995.
To address this, new EU legislation may require companies making such claims to specify what period they are talking about, as well as expected milestones so customers can determine whether they’re really on track.
The other risk is that a push to meet an impressive-sounding deadline in a specific area could lead to collateral damage. Say a dishwasher manufacturer claims its products will use 50% less water by 2030. That’s great — unless, for example, it means they will need more power to run at a higher temperature.
Some of the most misleading claims by companies are those designed to tempt consumers into thinking a specific type of plastic doesn’t contribute to the world’s massive plastic problem. 'Biodegradable' and 'compostable', in particular, are confusing claims that are often used interchangeably and incorrectly, the EU found.
Put simply, 'biodegradable' plastics are designed to break down at the end of life into oxygen, water, biomass, and mineral salts.
'Compostable' plastics are a subset of biodegradable plastics that break down under specific conditions, such as special industrial compost facilities (not necessarily a garden compost heap).
But in landfills, where there is not much oxygen, neither type of plastic breaks down particularly well. And even following the label isn’t a sure thing: One UK study published last year found that 60% of plastics labeled as home-compostable do not fully decompose in domestic compost heaps.
Then there are 'bioplastics' — plastics made from wood, cereals, oils, or other organic materials. Not all biodegradable plastic is bio-based, and not all bio-based plastic is inherently biodegradable. (Nor is all bioplastic made entirely without fossil fuels; some products are only partly made from bioplastics.)
While there are benefits to not using petroleum oil in plastic — the oil industry produces emissions even before its product is burned for fuel — using organic materials instead can claim land and resources that might otherwise be used for food.
On this front, the EU is looking for more specificity. Only materials that have been confirmed as industrially compostable should be labeled 'compostable', it says, and companies should make clear that this means industrial composting.
Similar recommendations were made for biodegradable plastic in a separate EU report published last year: Labels should state the environment in which the plastic is designed to break down and how long this is supposed to take.
For bioplastics, the EU says claims “should only refer to the exact and measurable share of bio-based plastic content in the product.”
— Bloomberg