So greenwashing is when a company uses their marketing resources to make a consumer believe its more environmentally friendly or lower carbon-emission than it really is.
Everyone’s heard the expression “whitewashing” — it’s defined as “a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts, especially in a political context.”
“Greenwashing” is the same premise, but in an environmental context.
It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be “green” through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact. It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush.
So greenwashing is when a company uses their marketing resources to make a consumer believe its more environmentally friendly or lower carbon-emission than it really is. Maybe one element on the surface of the product is fairly green – like the use of recyclable materials in the packaging – but below the surface manufacturer results in huge levels of water waste, energy consumption and other waste materials.
I created a short survey which I dispersed among my friends and on social media to see if people are aware of this idea.
Q4; Are you more likely to buy something if it has a recognised eco-friendly or sustainably sourced label or icon attached? (Source: Survey Monkey, Environment in Crisis survey, Lauren Day, 22/1/18, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WK6KSKT)
Merging the top two answers, 86.67% said that they would go for eco-labelled goods. (In an earlier questions the results showed that this was generally food produce over anything else). Only one person gave an out right no and really interestingly only one said that they didn’t trust this labelling system. Custom responses were more about access to goods or the size of said labels on packaging.
I then asked this question directly:
Do you trust when a product says its ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘sustainable’? (Source: Survey Monkey, Environment in Crisis survey, Lauren Day, 22/1/18, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WK6KSKT)
So 23.33% believe its fully regulated (potentially 46.66% if you add answer 3) and one third believe that they can trust recognisable brands. Less than 20% have any distrust in the labelling system at all. Here’s the bombshell comparison:
A Terra Choice Group study in 2010 showed results that 95% of the companies that were advertising their consumer products as ‘green’ were greenwashing.
Thats a huge amount. And even more worrying that we are so unaware of it.
This survey only has 30 participants so is certainly not an absolute sample of the population but as it has an audience from 18 – 65 years, we’ll take it as a good starting point for investigation.
Question: If greenwashing is so widespread and unregulated, how to we educate people to ask the question whether something is really lower impact than the next product? If we advertise too much that greenwashing is everywhere, are we just going to discourage consumers from caring at all as they begin to believe its unavoidable?
A first look at the brief and initial idea generation
The Brief.
The environment is at crisis point, specially our seas, which are polluted with plastics and the ecological effect of over fishing are likely to be devastating. The Great Barrier reef, the world’s largest organism is said to be dying. You are tasked with coming up with a solution that will assist in education of the issue and look at how design thinking can change or impact on how we tackle this for the future. The outcome for this project and the target market is up to you based on research and findings.
Initial thoughts / starting points.
waste / recycling / packaging
durability / obsolescence
energy / renewables / air pollution / fossil fuel
tradition versus sustainability: just because something has been done a certain way for years does not mean its still viable – i.e. Turf cutting?
Farming / agriculture (Paris Agreement targets)
Global versus local / individual versus societal
Urban versus Rural: going “off the grid”
This project needs to be about an easy, engaging way for an audience to interact positively with the environment. It can’t be preachy or presumptuous. Is it about increasing awareness or is it about designing a way to help someone make a more conscious decision in regard to their consumer and lifestyle choices?
Durability.
Upon first inspection, there does not seem to exist a ‘durability’ signifier for personal consumer goods or clothing. Immediately recognisable icons are those for Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, or the expiry date logo on items of make up for example. What I am curious about is if there is (or if there feasibly could be) an icon that signified that this item has been sourced ethically and with environmental consequences in mind?
Question: What are the common signifiers that represent sustainable, environmentally friendly or ethically sourced goods? Is there any common icon/signifier to represent that ‘lifespan’ of a non-food or non-cosmetic based product?
Left to Right: Recycling logo, Fairtrade logo, Rainforest Alliance logo, Forest Stewardship Council logo, Product expiry identifier used frequently for make up / beauty goods.
I was recently reminded of a quote from sixties musician Donovan who said that the difference between his generation and mine is that when he gets a hole in his sock he repairs it rather then throws it away. Now I think this comment is a bit reductive, but brings up a valid point nonetheless. Perhaps due to the reduction of price and surplus of choice in basic goods and services, we have developed more of a “throw away” culture. This trend features in anything from food consumption, fashion, household goods and electronics.
Obsolescence.
Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service, or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order. Obsolescence frequently occurs because a replacement has become available that has, in sum, more advantages compared to the disadvantages incurred by maintaining or repairing the original. Obsolete refers to something that is already disused or discarded, or antiquated. Typically, obsolescence is preceded by a gradual decline in popularity. (Wikipedia)
There is now a theory that technology companies integrate a form of planned obsolescence in to their devices, meaning that at the very beginning of their design that certain elements will intentionally deteriorate within a certain about of time, causing the consumer to purchase a new version. This deterioration might not necessary cause the device to break completely, but degrade the users experience just enough that they become frustrated with it. I wonder how a company manages the balance between this frustration and the potential lose of a customer who feels they have been cheated by an inferior product.
Question: Have we been conditioned to expect that certain products will naturally degrade through intelligent and longterm marketing strategies? Who regulates this?
Responsibility and Energy Use.
Please excuse me for being momentarily anecdotal but I’m sparked by a real-life conversation I had with the HR manager at my place of work. They use paper cups with plastic lids in the office because they believe its ‘dangerous’ or ‘unsafe’ to bring an open mug of coffee up the stairs from the canteen to the office. I expressed my dismay at this, showing the HR manager my ‘made of recycled materials’ reusable coffee cup. To this she replied that she might ask the CEO could we buy everyone in the office to which I replied that it was ridiculous and that they should take responsibility and each buy their own reusable mugs!
Question: How do we instil self-responsibility and ownership of the part we play as an individual in the maintenance and care of the environment?
Nudge Theory – I read this article on the use of human psychology to manipulate behaviour in a positive way in order reduce energy consumption and therefore indirectly carbon emissions. OPower, an American energy company, started running an experiment a few years ago where they include data on a household’s energy consumption on their physical utility bill. Not only did they include details of the household’s own consumption but also of their neighbours, clearly stating whether they were using more or less energy. The results, and consistent ones at that, were an overall reduction of consumption as each house tried to better the house next door. Nudge theory suggests that making it easier or more direct for a person to perform an action is better and more efficient than trying to punish them for making wrong decisions. Its the difference between an automatic opt-in process (for example an auto enroll organ donation scheme) and a after the fact tax (i.e. cigarette tax). Tax will generally only effect those who cannot afford it, the worse off in our society and the people who likely have the littlest influence to the issue. Whereas a nudge theory like the opt-out organ donation scheme ( introduced in France, Spain and other E.U. countries) means there is a much higher rate of organ donations are people are much less likely to bother opting out of it then they would have been likely to opt in to.
So the question is how can we use something like the Nudge Theory to make it easier for people to make environmentally friendly decisions? How do we provide them with these decisions and what are they? Not everyone is going to go vegan, ethical, sustainable mud hut dwellers, but is there a chance we can introduce a less ‘fast’ generation who will appreciate the value of more durable, better quality products that come from ethical sources and can be reused and recycled? How can we do that with design?
Lauren Day | Major Project 