|
|
|
Analysts felt that the trend of consumers
favoring green products was still in its infancy but any future
growth in this market could be stifled with a spurt in the
instances of companies engaging in greenwashing.
They believed that companies should not be allowed to get away
with making false green claims. Experts felt that false claims
would lead to consumers becoming cynical regarding any green
claim, and this would hamper the green movement. |
Already, some consumer research studies conducted in
the US and Canada indicated that the people in these countries were
becoming increasingly skeptical about the green claims made by companies
and were rejecting them as mere marketing gimmicks.
Experts urged the consumers and industry to be ever vigilant in
preventing greenwashing. They believed that one of the major factors
that led to greenwashing was the absence of a central agency to certify
the green credentials of a firm.
This allowed companies, even those with questionable green credentials,
to step forward and call themselves green. Moreover, there were very few
good watchdogs like the National Advertising Division of Council of
Better Business Bureaus16 (NAD)
though environmental organizations such as coopamerica.org,
corpwatch.org, greenbiz.com, treehugger.com played their part in
highlighting questionable green claims made by the companies.
The media too remained on constant vigil to expose greenwashers. The
result was that since the dawn of the new millennium, various companies
including BP, Ford, Starbucks Corp., etc., had been accused of
greenwashing at some time or the other.
Experts felt that public scrutiny could be one of the ways to control
greenwashing. With the launch of the Greenwashing Index and FTC's
proposed updating of the Green Guides, analysts expected a further
backlash against companies engaging in greenwashing.
Green marketing was by no means an easy task. Experts in advertising
were of the view that the message must be authentic enough for it to
work.
"If done poorly or derisively -- if it's seen as a car going through a
field -- people will scoff at it; they'll say it's just greenwashing or
window dressing,"17 said T3's18
Senior Vice President, Creative Services and Account Planning, Jay Suhr.
The increasing instances of a backlash against greenwashing made the job
of marketers even more difficult. Some experts felt that green marketing
had become a dangerous prospect even for companies that were sincere.
"Do you really dare put your head above the parapet by touting your
greenness and attract very knowledgeable consumers who are going to
crawl all over your business... and Greenpeace and every other
environmental group you can think of?... If consumers think they can
catch you telling a half-truth, they will,"19
said Mike Longhurst, Senior Vice President of leading ad agency
McCann-Erickson.
|
16] NAD is a panel of six lawyers who issue
decisions on complaints from competitors about false claims in ads. Ninety-five
percent of companies that used NAD reportedly complied with the agency's
decisions.
17] Asher Price, "'Green' Product Claims are About
to Receive Some Federal Scrutiny," www.oregeonlive.com, January 6, 2008.
18] T3 is a US-based integrated marketing firm.
19] "Green Marketing Not for the Faint of Heart,"
www.environmentalleader.com, April 30, 2007. |
