Photo by Akil Mazumder: https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-holding-a-green-plant-1072824/
As an environmentally conscious person who has done a variety of home renovations, I pride myself on trying to find the least harmful products to use in building supplies. I researched flooring manufacturers and eventually settled on one that appeared to be environmentally friendly, containing low volatile organic compounds, that sort of thing. I also used sealants that were water-based as opposed to solvent-based that often have unpleasant off-gassing odours. I mostly used mortar instead of mastic, which off-gasses for a long time with a terrible smell.
This conscientiousness made me trust that, since I had done my research, I was making wiser choices for myself, and that I might be more knowledgeable on this topic than the average person.
Yet recently, I purchased a wood product bearing a Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) sticker, which in my mind said that the wood was somehow harvested sustainably, though what that exactly meant, I wasn’t entirely sure. I trusted that the sticker meant what it portrayed: that the wood was sustainably sourced. What I hadn’t considered at the time of my purchase was that I might be hoodwinked, and that I was in fact duped by corporate greenwashing. (More on the SFI to follow.)
What is greenwashing, you might ask? Well, it is a marketing ploy used by corporations to fool the consumer into thinking their practices are eco-friendly.[1] You’ve seen the ads for big oil: A photo of a family, smiling, wading in a stream, and with a heart-tugging tagline to match.[2] After a while, your animosity toward big oil might begin to soften. They seem to be investing in solar power. That’s good, right?
There are a variety of methods of greenwashing out there, and you and I are constantly being bombarded daily with them, passively believing them to be true, because why would we doubt these organizations? Their environmental responsibility is clearly emblazoned on the sides of their delivery trucks, with slogans like “renewable natural gas.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, that’s the point. It is meant to deceive. Fossil gas, or natural gas, is comprised of hydrocarbon, in the form of methane, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gases.[3]
With banana peels and cow dung on their ads,[4] you’d think that biomass (in this case biomethane) created from organic matter would make up a majority of their source of gas. In fact, Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) constitutes a paltry 0.36% of the natural gas distributed in Canada.[5] That is a third of one percent! Yet much of the advertising dollars went toward campaigns that helped purport these illusions of environmental sustainability[6], helping to keep us, the consumer, duped. This kind of greenwashing is called Paltering.[7]
What these ads failed to communicate is that the cleaning up dirty fossil fuels (like renewable natural gas) costs anywhere from double to 10 times the cost of fracked gas.[8] Neither did they convey that “methane in fossil gas is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide.”[9]
RNG is by no means an alternative to virgin fossil fuels. The energy companies know this, but they also know that consumers are concerned for the environment, so they feed them an illusion of taking steps for its betterment. In so doing, it can give them an edge over their competitors and often does.
The problem is that advertising works. We only need to see something a few times for it to be reinforced in our minds. So, when we see an ad for an oil sands company (Pathways Alliance) that boasts a net-zero carbon target,[10] you start to believe them, and you end up choosing them over their competitors, sometimes without thinking, because the optics are good. You know they behave well. You don’t know how you know you just know. The clincher is that it doesn’t even have to be true, it just needs to be repeated. And that is what is called the illusory truth effect.[11]
Another greenwashing tactic is double-dipping: when companies take credit for changes they make that were imposed upon them through forced legislation. Let’s take an example from history to showcase this deceptive marketing scheme.
In the 1980s, Chevron began an advertising campaign called “People Do,”[12] to win back socially minded customers by promoting their protection of grizzly bears in Montana and kit foxes in California.[13] To the consumer, it looked like Chevron had taken the initiative, but they hadn’t. They were required to do so by law. Chevron spent more on advertising than the actual campaign, but their investment was worth it. Two years later, a survey conducted by the company revealed that consumers believed Chevron was the oil company that cared most for the environment.[14] This advertising campaign was so successful that sales increased in the general population by 10% and by 22% with the targeted disgruntled environmentally conscious.[15] All the while Chevron was responsible for numerous environmental protection infractions with devastating effect.[16] But the public had already been won over. Chevron’s “People Do” campaign is considered the gold standard of greenwashing.[17]
Remember at the beginning where I talked about the Sustainable Forestry Initiative? Well, let’s look at them in greater detail. SFI is the largest forest certification standard in North America, supported by the forestry industry.[18] It purports that any company bearing the certification conducts logging in a sustainable way, without having rules that define what sustainability is, nor criteria by which to confirm sustainability has taken place.[19]
Likewise, SFI’s own website gives little indication what its sustainable practices are. Instead, it provides statistics around the properties of forests themselves, such as the amount of carbon that is stored/sequestered by them[20], not by any actions on the part of the organization itself. It does mention that replanting is mandatory, which suggests an initial clearcut, which is not sustainable, because the carbon that could be trapped is far greater in older forests than in replants.
It takes a very long time for a new forest to have the same environmental benefit of carbon sequestering or carbon removal[21] as well as any biodiversity benefits. The monoculture of replenished forests (typically one preferred species) makes the new plantation especially vulnerable to disease and natural disasters[22] in contrast to a biodiverse environment with multiple species.
Forest fires are a naturally occurring necessity for Canadian boreal forests to prosper.[23] Yet organizations such as the SFI say that fires are bad and would have us believe that the area they clearcut and then replant replaces the need for beneficial fires.[24]
Without getting too bogged down with additional information, the problem with organizations such as the SFI is that they use vague language and buzz words such as “sustainability” without defining for us what that means exactly. Essentially, they have created an internal means of doling out certifications to companies who pay for what I assume to be the use of the branding and logos, with business going on as usual. It’s like handing out diplomas to flunkies for a price. Its purpose is to confuse the consumer at the point of buying a product. We see the sticker; we assume the responsible behaviour.
But how can we hold greenwashing organizations accountable? Well, on social media we can report posts that we believe to contain false, incomplete, or misleading information. And we can post about it. This can send a strong message, even if only in public sphere.
There is also legislation in place called The Competition Act that makes it illegal to make false claims about a product or service. Greenpeace, in its article, Environmental Groups Fight Greenwashing in Forestry “Sustainability” Certification Scheme, suggests that SFI could be held accountable by the Competition Bureau, if found to have misled the public.[25] It may be required to remove claims of sustainability, even from its organizational name.[26]
Apparently, a similar complaint had been filed against the Canadian Standards Association’s Sustainable Forest Management Standard.[27] I saw no evidence of such a claim on the Competition Bureau’s website. Not to mention, the Competition Bureau is developed, in partnership with, and enforced by the Canadian Standards Association.[28] How, then can they be held accountable? To me, that looks like a conflict of interest.
Likewise, the Competition Bureau is a division of the Government of Canada department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada[29], which again puts Canada in conflict of interest, since its own Natural Resources website boasts the following about the forestry industry in Canada:
“Forests are a major source of wealth for Canadians, providing a wide range of economic, social and environmental benefits. In 2013, production in the forest sector contributed $19.8 billion—or 1.25%—to Canada’s real gross domestic product (GDP). In a global context, Canada has the world’s largest forest product trade balance—C$19.3 billion (2013)—a position it has held for as long as trustworthy trade statistics have been compiled. While other countries may produce more of one product or another, no nation derives more net benefit from trade in forest products than Canada, and the gap between Canada and the second largest net trader (Sweden) has been expanding continuously since 2009.”[30]
For us to have real transparency and have real effect in holding companies responsible for their misleading claims, we need an independent, non-partisan body willing to look at facts and science and make their findings public. I wonder if we will ever get there.
In the meantime, do your research, and don’t be swayed by the claims made by corporations. If you see a petroleum ad with an idyllic forest backdrop, run!
********************
For the entire Greenpeace article on greenwashing, please visit: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-canada-stateless/2023/12/14cf92b2-greenwashing-toolkit-doc-1-1.pdf
For more information here are additional links, including opposing viewpoints:
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. 2006 in https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/26366.pdf
https://forests.org/wp-content/uploads/SFIs-Conservation-Impact-A-Decade-of-Success.pdf
[1] Greenpeace. Greenwashing Big Oil and Gas: The Fossil Fuel Deception Playbook, Page 2. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-canada-stateless/2023/12/14cf92b2-greenwashing-toolkit-doc-1-1.pdf This entire article is great. I suggest reading it in its entirety.
[2] Ibid. An image for an ad created by Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) was reused in a fossil fuel ad.
[3] Ibid; p.8
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid. p.8. That is at least the case for Énergir, if not the others, mentioned in the article.
[7] Ibid. pp. 8-10
[8] Ibid. p. 17
[9] Ibid. p. 19
[10] Ibid. p. 14. Interestingly, when I first encountered the Pathways Alliance website in my research, it looked very ‘green’ to me. But there were enough red flags to make me think that they were not presenting themselves entirely accurately. This article confirms some of the hunches I had about them.
[11] https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/say-it-enough-they%E2%80%99ll-believe-it. The term was first coined in 1977 by three researchers. See article for more information.
[12] Ibid. p. 21
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid. p. 21
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Wei, Brandon. Environmental Groups Fight Greenwashing in Forestry “Sustainability” Certification Scheme. Dec. 2, 2022 in https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/press-release/55547/environmental-groups-fight-greenwashing-in-forestry-sustainability-certification-scheme/
[19] Ibid.
[20] SFI. SFI’s Conservation Impact: A Decade of Success in https://forests.org/wp-content/uploads/SFIs-Conservation-Impact-A-Decade-of-Success.pdf, p. 2
[21] Natural Resources Defense Council. Missing the Forest: How Carbon Loopholes For Logging Hinder Canada’s Climate Leadership. Oct. 11, 2021. pp. 10-11
[22] Denchak, Melissa. Want to Fight Climate Change? Stop Clearcutting Our Carbon Sinks. Dec. 13, 2017, in https://www.nrdc.org/stories/stop-clearcutting-carbon-sinks
[23] Natural Resources Defense Council. p. 8
[24] SFI. SFI’s Conservation Impact: A Decade of Success in https://forests.org/wp-content/uploads/SFIs-Conservation-Impact-A-Decade-of-Success.pdf, p. 2
[25] [25] Wei, Brandon. Environmental Groups Fight Greenwashing in Forestry “Sustainability” Certification Scheme. Dec. 2, 2022 in https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/press-release/55547/environmental-groups-fight-greenwashing-in-forestry-sustainability-certification-scheme/
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ecojustice. Sustainable Forestry Claims Are False and Misleading: Citizen Complaint. July 21,2021. in https://ecojustice.ca/news/sustainable_forestry_claims_false/
[28] https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/deceptive-marketing-practices/cases-and-outcomes
[29] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_Bureau
[30] Government of Canada. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/forests/industry-and-trade/overview-canadas-forest-industry/13311
Well-written, Liv. I appreciate your sense of hope and purpose. Sometimes, from my seat, it looks like a giant knot that will never be fully untangled. Greenwashing is something that has been on my radar for a while, and I’m finding that it is so pervasive and companies are becoming so effective at making claims that it’s nearly impossible with my given resources to tell what is genuine.
Thanks, Jason, for your comment and interaction with the post. You’re right. It is hard to differentiate between the true and bogus claims. I am hoping to get people talking, thinking, and researching in order to make as good a choice as they can. It’s clear we can no longer merely take things at face value, because where there is money there is a way to conceal or misrepresent. Thanks again for your reply.