1

Astrid Haynie

CRTW 201-004

Professor Covington

19 April 2023

An Argument Against the Practice of Greenwashing

According to the World Wildlife Fund, humanity is damaging the environment with such

severity that “the world has seen an average 68% drop in mammal, bird, fish, reptile, and

amphibian populations since 1970.” This alarming lack of biodiversity is largely due to

pollution, deforestation, land changes, and climate change… all issues that human beings have

either caused or directly contributed to (European Commission). Human beings have not only

negatively impacted biodiversity, but have also created numerous other critical environmental

issues that have no definite solution or end point. Over the past several years, such

environmental issues have become a greater point of concern to the public. Many consumers

now look for organizations and companies that engage in sustainable business practices, or at

least claim that they do. This growing demand for sustainable products and business practices

has created the perfect environment for the recently coined term: “greenwashing.” The practice

of greenwashing harms the public, negatively contributes to pre-existing environmental issues,

causes problems for communication professionals that try to create honest and informed

messages about environmental issues, and calls for higher quality regulation, accountability

procedures, and stronger critical thinking skills to stop its usage.

Public discourse and concern for the environment and environmental issues has increased

drastically over the past 25 years (Khare, Markham, and Beckman, 2). The increasing awareness

of the dramatic impact that human beings have on the environment has led to a much larger
 2

market for sustainable products and organizations. According to members of the faculty of

business at Athabasca University, Khare, Markham, and Beckman,“between 2009 and 2010, the

number of ‘green’ products available in the market has grown by 73%” and serves as a

“testament to the public’s desire to take action through their consumer habits to address

environmental decline” (2). As a result, many organizations knowingly misconstrue the

environmental benefits of their products, exaggerate the sustainability component of their

business practices, and overall, try to appear “greener” than what they really are. The

organizations that engage in these behaviors see public concern for the environment as an

opportunity to exploit the market, rather than to honestly shift their practices to meet demand

(Khare, Markham, and Beckman, 2). These deceptive techniques are labeled as “greenwashing.”

Greenwashing is found in a wide variety of companies, media vehicles, and

communication tactics. According to the Boston freelance writer, Richard Dahl, there are some

telltale signs of greenwashing, which include the use of narrow attributes to claim

environmental-friendliness, a lack of viable information accessible to consumers, overall

vagueness, irrelevance, making false claims, and the use of false labels (249). A specific example

of greenwashing that Dahl references is a scandal involving the Malaysia Palm Oil company. In

2008 Malaysia Palm Oil released a TV commercial in which the company claimed that the tree

that produces Malaysia Palm Oil was a “gift from nature” that “give[s] life… help[s] our planet

breathe” and provides homes for “hundreds of species of flora and fauna” (248). However,

according to research done by Friends of the Earth and other critics, palm oil plantations actually

contribute to habitat loss, lessened biodiversity in the surrounding rainforests, destruction of

buffer zones used for flooding, and pollution caused by land clearing processes (Dahl, 248).

Given this information, the commercial that Malaysia Palm Oil released was a deliberate
 3

attempt to lie to a mass audience and cover up the negative effects that their product has on the

environment. This is just one of many examples of greenwashing that can be easily found and

identified in the market today.

Another crucial piece to understanding greenwashing is analyzing the core factors that

contribute to it. These factors will be analyzed using a few of Nosich’s elements of critical

thinking. First, it is necessary to analyze the information and context we have about

greenwashing. As previously mentioned, greenwashing is primarily profit and demand driven.

Most companies possess an economic point of view that prioritizes profit and recognizes the key

role that the support of the public plays in obtaining profit. Thus, the question at issue most

companies ask is as follows: “How can we generate profit and meet the needs of our consumers

simultaneously?” Companies recognize the growing public involvement in environmentalism but

are unwilling to sacrifice cost-efficiency for sustainable practices. Therefore, the identifiable

purpose of greenwashing is to make profit without having to change their established practices.

One can conclude that the factors that influence this mistake are as follows: the demand of the

public, an organization’s want to meet the demand, an organization’s need to earn profit, and the

limited financial resources an organization has to utilize. Looking at it from a broad lens,

greenwashing is a product of capitalism and the system that values economic profit over

environmental health. Another major factor is a general lack of regulation and accountability

procedures, which will be discussed in greater detail further in this essay.

Even though there are identifiable factors that cause this mistake, and reasons why

organizations choose to greenwash, it does not make it a correct or ethical course of action. One

of the many consequences of greenwashing is the negative effect it has on the public.

Greenwashing generates public cynicism, which is defined as a general sense of mistrust in

communication professionals and messages related to environmental-friendliness (Dahl, 250). If

enough major organization’s “green” claims are discovered to be lies, one can assume that the

public would develop a sense of wariness about such claims of environmental-friendliness.

Essentially, people use the information that they already know about greenwashing and how

common it is, and make assumptions based on this information about other organizations. Dahl

explains that “growing consumer cynicism," if left unchecked, causes environmentally-friendly

campaigns to become “risky ventures for the companies who engage in them” (250). This creates

public mistrust in and apprehension toward both organizations who greenwash and organizations

who are authentically sustainable.

Greenwashing also has negative effects on public health. Dahl cites Scott Case, Vice

President of TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, in his statement that the public is not “well-

equipped to navigate the eco-babble [environmental communication tactics], and thus purchase

“products that don’t have the environmental or human-health performances that they expect”

(247). Case then provides specific examples of products that are often the victims of

greenwashing, including cleaners, cosmetics, and children’s products (247). Making false claims

about any of these three types of products could end in serious implications for the consumer.

Given that many of the listed products are used so commonly in many people’s everyday lives,

honesty and truthful communication tactics are necessary when promoting these products.

Greenwashing also negatively impacts the environment. As previously mentioned, there

is a great need for environmentally sustainable actions that preserve the health of the planet.

Organizations that are involved in activities that support the environment, like conservation,

renewable energy, recycling, local food production, protecting natural resources, etc., need to be

able to communicate those efforts with the public to draw support. However, when other
 5

organizations greenwash, they take space away from the ones that actually are environmentally

responsible, thus negating efforts toward sustainability.

Greenwashing also makes the job of communication professionals much more difficult.

Communication professionals that work for organizations that are honest in their practices and

engage in environmentally responsible behaviors are tasked with informing the public about their

organization in a way that draws attention and support. Because many people experience the

cognitive dissonance element of forming a picture of the world on the basis of news, TV,

advertising, and media, and are inherently cynical of any “green” claims made, it is extremely

difficult for communication professionals to relay effective messages. According to semiotics

and visual semiotics professor, Paolo Pevirini, “communicating sustainability becomes a

dilemma” due to the “competitiveness of companies and their reliability”; In addition,

“ecological organizations… [are constantly] undermining their credibility” by promoting

“doubt” (75).

The issue of greenwashing lies not only with the external effects it enacts on the

environment but also with the internal issues that develop in organization’s attempts to answer

the previously established question at issue of: “How can we generate profit and meet the needs

of our consumers simultaneously?" Lying and deception should never even be on the table, and

because they are, it is clear that many organizations need to take a closer look at alternatives to

answering this question that do not invoke methods of deception. For example, they could figure

out what changes they could make in their budget to become more sustainable if possible, and if

they can not, they should base their marketing and advertising around something other than

environmental-friendliness. Every alternative should be considered before deception.

Even though there are so many negative consequences of greenwashing, there are valid

arguments that support its usage. According to an article on International Young Naturefriends,

“Constant spamming of [“green”] advertisements made people aware of environmental issues,

and resulted in polarizing opinions” (Maushart and Snaije). In other words, greenwashing serves

as a method to promote public awareness of and discourse surrounding environmental issues in a

broad sense. Even if this is accurate, there are problems with this position. The biggest problem

is that it is still just as unethical and just as much as a deceptive communication technique. There

is a general lack of depth and breadth in this thinking. The argument that they make is also a

short-term effect. While it may raise public awareness, in the long-run, it causes more threats to

public and environmental health. When consumers support organizations or buy products that

they believe to be environmentally friendly from organizations that partake in greenwashing, the

consumers are inadvertently contributing to the exact issues that they are trying to solve.

Essentially, even though greenwashing may raise public awareness, it still causes all of the same

negative effects and fails to make anything better in the long run.

Another argument in support of greenwashing is that organizations have no other choice

in many circumstances than to greenwash due to public demand. According to a quote by Jane

Hoffman, a writer for Scientific American, in the article on International Young Naturefriends,

“the practice of Greenwashing, and the problems it entails, only exists because there is a demand

from us as consumers” (Maushart and Snaije). Hoffman furthers her point by stating that

consumers “don’t have the energy or inclination to investigate whether a product [they] are

buying is actually eco-friendly” and desire the “immediate gratification of knowing [they] are

contributing positively to the issue” (Maushart and Snaije). While the public’s demand for

“green” products is a major contributing factor, organizations play just as big of a role in the
 7

problem. Both producers and consumers are contributing to a system that prioritizes making

money quickly and efficiently. This is what makes greenwashing so tricky to confront and

resolve, which will be discussed in the following section. However, it does not mean that it is the

public's fault entirely, and it also does not mean that it is the best course of action available.

The final piece to discussing this issue is to analyze future implications and potential

solutions. From one side of the problem, a possible solution to greenwashing is to implement

stricter regulations and the usage of more reliable labeling required for organizations (Dahl,

252). With a strict regulation and labeling system put in place, organizations that attempt to

greenwash could be stopped before their messages are even released. Another possible solution

is to push organizations to include more upfront information about their practices and products.

This could be accomplished by more government influence, or even with the previous point, by

implementing stronger regulations and a more effective accountability system. Organizations

should also try to analyze viable alternatives more closely before they make the decision to

implement greenwashing. From the perspective of the public, consumers should be more careful

in their purchasing decisions instead of making quick assumptions about the products that they

are buying. Instead of grabbing the first thing that draws their attention, consumers should take

more time to analyze information available about the products and organizations that they are

supporting, and the credibility components these products and organizations offer. However, the

problem lies primarily within the system as a whole. Organizations have to make profit, and they

do that by meeting the demands of their consumers. There is no way to work around that unless

the system changes; thus, greenwashing will most likely always be an issue. Hopefully, if these

regulations and procedures are implemented, and consumers begin to make more informed
 8

purchasing decisions, the negative consequences of greenwashing on public and environmental

health will be reduced or eliminated.

To conclude, while there are so many prevalent environmental issues in our world today,

it is necessary to take action to try to resolve these issues. Deceptive communication techniques

like greenwashing only contribute to these environmental issues, while also affecting the public

and public health, and the jobs of communication professionals. While there are credible factors

that cause it, greenwashing is not justified by the demands of the capitalist system in which it

resides. It is not an ethical approach to communication or sustainability. Until there are any

changes made within the system in place, it is necessary that more strict regulations and

accountability procedures be established, and that consumers make more informed purchasing

decisions overall.
 9

References

“A warning sign: where biodiversity loss is happening around the world.” World Wildlife

Magazine, 2021, https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2021/articles/a-

warning-sign-where-biodiversity-loss-is-happening-around-the-world. Accessed 13 Apr.

2023.

“Causes of climate change.” European Commission, https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-

change/causes-climate-change_en. Accessed 13 Apr. 2023.

Dahl, Richard. “GREENWASHING: DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE BUYING?”

Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 118, no. 6, 2010, pp. A246–52. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40661580. Accessed 8 Apr. 2023.

Nosich, Gerald M. Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking across the

Curriculum. 4th ed., Pearson Education, 2012.

Markham, David, et al. “GREENWASHING: A PROPOSAL TO RESTRICT ITS SPREAD.”

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, vol. 16, no. 4, 2014, pp.

1–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/enviassepolimana.16.4.02. Accessed 8 Apr.

2023.

Maushart, Milan, and Mischa Snaije. “Greenwashing: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.”

International Young Naturefriends, 18 Dec. 2017,

https://www.iynf.org/2017/12/greenwashing-good-bad-ugly/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2023.

Peverini, Paolo. “Eco-Images and Environmental Activism: A Sociosemiotic Analysis.” RCC

Perspectives, no. 1, 2013, pp. 73–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26240483.

Accessed 8 Apr. 2023.