Ethical Practices of "Greenwashing"- Academic Essay

By Sarah Dills

Published May 9, 2022

As the environmentalism movement grows and people become increasingly more concerned about climate change, greenwashing has become a common issue. Greenwashing is a term that was coined in 1986 by environmentalist Jay Westerveld to explain the claims companies make to advertise their sustainability practices. Though over 98% of companies that claim to be environmentally friendly commit one of the sins of greenwashing (“Greenwashing”), the actual definition of greenwashing is hard to grasp. The most basic understanding of greenwashing is a company manipulating consumers to buy its product because it is more sustainable than the competition’s.

In the 1960s during the anti-nuclear movement, which raised concerns about the hazards of nuclear energy. Nuclear companies stated that their practices created “odorless, neat, clean, safe” energy (Watson). This is said to be one of the first known cases of greenwashing. Nuclear energy still produces pollution and safety hazards, so the words used to describe the practices are arguable. However, compared to the alternatives, nuclear energy is more odorless, neat, clean, and safe. Thus, the problem with the term “greenwashing” is that it is used inaccurately to describe cases like this.

The actual occurrence of greenwashing, when a company lies about its sustainability and creates a false narrative, is wrongdoing. It is societally agreed upon that a company lying to the public for a profit is wrong. But is it unethical for a company to exaggerate its sustainability efforts, as the nuclear energy company did? Or to use “green” language and imagery to market their products? Those acts are often referred to as greenwashing, but without a deliberative lie from a company, they don’t fit into the definition. And as these acts aren’t wrongdoings, this becomes an ethical dilemma when deciding if these tactics are ethical or not.

First, it is important to distinguish what is truly greenwashing and defining the acts that are often incorrectly grouped in with greenwashing. As previously mentioned, greenwashing is when a company knowingly markets itself or its products in a false light. This could be stating a product is being made sustainably when it isn’t or that the manufacturing process was improved to pollute less when it hasn’t. Any sort of manipulation created by a company to increase their profits and target consumers who prefer greener products can be correctly classified as greenwashing.

Something that is often seen as greenwashing but that isn’t is what I will refer to as “green marketing.” Green marketing is when a company utilizes the growing interest consumers have in eco-friendly products and uses tactics to market their product as such. Whether this is done by packaging a product in shades of green, using images of nature in advertisements, or including words like “clean, natural, earth,” etc. An example of this would be a laundry detergent in a green bottle with a label featuring grass and flowers, named “Mother Nature’s Detergent.” Nothing in this packaging claims that the product is any more sustainable than an alternative brand, but the packaging and language triggers the eco-conscious consumer to purchase this product. This isn’t greenwashing, because no lies are being told, so it isn’t wrongdoing. This, however, is an ethical dilemma, as one could argue it is unethical to use these tactics to influence purchases.

Another thing that is often seen as greenwashing is a company exaggerating how sustainable a product is. For example, a company that is advertising a product to be made out of recycled materials but doesn’t disclose that the product is made out of only 2% recycled materials. The company isn’t greenwashing, because they aren’t lying when they say that there are recycled materials in the product. Yet this is still upsetting to many consumers when they find out the product they thought was clean, eco-friendly, biodegradable, etc. is only a fraction better than the alternative. In situations like this, the question of ethics arises when deciding how much exaggeration is too much. For companies who are technically telling the truth but not disclosing specifics, I will refer to this as different levels of “green legitimacy.”

With these differentiations made, we can begin to attempt to navigate the ethics behind each case. Greenwashing, as stated, is largely accepted as wrongdoing, but there is a very fine line that is easy to be crossed between greenwashing and green marketing or green legitimacy. As soon as a company makes a claim that its product is something that it isn’t, the line is crossed and the false claims result in greenwashing. To figure where this line is, we need to look into what constitutes as a claim being made.

In every industry, marketing tactics target the consumers’ subconscious and use psychology to make the product seem appealing. Selling sugary cereal in colorful and magical-looking boxes to attract children is one example of this. Another is marking down a price to make it seem like the product is being sold at a discount, even when the “marked down” price was the original price. Every piece of advertising and packaging is built on psychology and is made to trigger the target consumers’ minds to feel inclined to make a purchase. If these tactics are accepted and for the most part seen as ethical, shouldn’t green marketing be as well? If a company isn’t making any false claims and simply using marketing tactics to encourage purchases, this isn’t much different from any other kind of marketing.

The language used in green marketing is what can sometimes make it seems like claims are being made about the product. Imagery, such as flowers and grass, aren’t claiming anything about the product while still making it look more natural. The words used, however, can lead to consumers arguing that a company is greenwashing when it seems to say something about how sustainable product is. A company could be named “Biodegradable Things” while not actually selling anything biodegradable. Even if all of the products have a disclaimer stating that the products are not biodegradable, this could still be seen as intentionally misleading the consumer to believe they are purchasing biodegradable products. With this, another question comes into play: is it the company’s responsibility to be transparent about the how sustainable it is or the consumers’ to research the products they purchase? Is it unethical for a company to use words like “biodegradable,” “clean,” and “natural,” even if they aren’t claiming these words to be anything but the marketing of a product?

The other term in question, green legitimacy, requires a lot of transparency in order to prevent it from being claimed as greenwashing. Using detergent as an example again: if a company markets their detergent as being sold in bottles made out of recycled plastic, but the bottle is made out of 0.5% recycled plastic, is this unethical? The company isn’t flat-out lying, but the wording makes it seem that the majority of the product is made out of recycled material. This type of exaggeration is what might be seen as intentionally misleading consumers.

In order to be ethical, companies must be very transparent with the claims it is and is not making. Shades of green and images of nature aren’t claiming anything about the product, so visuals and imagery are tools that a company can use ethically. When using language, the company should include disclaimers in order to be ethical and not misleading. “Biodegradable Things” should include a statement on its products that says “this is not biodegradable.” Without this statement, the word “biodegradable” in this name can be seen as a tactic of manipulation. Companies should make it a priority to be as transparent as possible, not only to prevent claims of greenwashing, but to build loyalty and trust with consumers.

Though a company should include these disclaimers, it is also the consumers’ responsibility to be looking into the products they purchase. If being eco-friendly is important to a consumer, it is their responsibility to be aware of what companies they are supporting. If a consumer wants to make sure that the products they are purchasing are truly eco-friendly, they need to look for the disclaimers the company provides. Sometimes it is necessary to read the fine print, especially if it prevents a consumer from being mislead (either internationally by a company or not) and from making accusations of greenwashing. Both companies and consumers need to be honest and aware when selling or purchasing the products that are out on the market.

The stakeholders of this dilemma are companies, consumers, and the Earth. Companies have one main goal: to make a profit. In terms of environmentalism, a company either wants to be more sustainable to 1.) decrease the impact it has on the Earth, or 2.) make changes to attract environmentally conscious consumers. In some cases, and increasingly so, it is both. Consumers (in this discussion, environmentally conscious consumers) have the goal of purchasing products that fill the role they require in a product and that harm the Earth less than the alternative. And the Earth’s goal is to stay healthy and thriving.

If companies and consumers truly want to protect and support the Earth and its environment, sacrifices need to be made to do so. For companies, this might be reducing profits to spend more on sustainable materials, production practices, transportation, etc. For consumers, this means paying more for products that are more sustainable. The majority of the time, the products that are best for the environment are the most expensive and eco-conscious companies and consumers alike should be prepared to spend more on these products.

When companies are ready to accept that in order to be environmentally friendly, they will need to give up some of their profits, then the discussion can begin regarding how to ethically be a green company. Through the consequentialist framework, green legitimacy can be both ethical and unethical. Consequentialism states that “a lie that arguably results in more good than harm would be justifiable,” (Plaisance 35). The exaggeration that often comes along with green legitimacy would be considered a lie. However, a consequentialist would see this type of exaggeration as ethical if it resulted in good for the earth. Even if a product is a percentage more sustainable than the competition, a purchase of this product would be a percentage better for the Earth. A consequentialist would argue that green legitimacy is not ethical if the harm outweighs the good. If a product is made out of 100% recycled materials but the production process results in double the carbon footprint as using non-recycled materials, the legitimacy behind the claim is unethical.

There are multiple factors that determine whether green marketing and green legitimacy are ethical. First, the companies must be very transparent about what their product is by including disclaimers. The consumer must be able to find these disclaimers and clearly understand the contents of the product. Second, the claims that are being made need to be true. In order to not be greenwashing, all claims of sustainability, regardless of how big or small, need to be backed up by evidence that shows the legitimacy of the practices. Third, the good needs to outweigh the harm. A product needs to be what it claims to be (recycled, organic, etc.) and the purchase of this product cannot do something that cancels out the good (extreme pollution, large carbon footprint, unethical production practices, etc.). If all of these terms are met, green marketing and green legitimacy are ethical.

Green marketing and green legitimacy are practices that are beneficial for the environment. Green marketing reminds consumers of the importance of sustainability and encourages them to search for more sustainable products, even if it is being done subconsciously. Green legitimacy is helping to disencourage harmful products and encourage companies to make positive changes to their products. Even if a small percentage of a product benefits the Earth, the purchase of that product makes a small percentage of positive change to the environment. And as the term “greenwashing” is differentiated from green marketing and green legitimacy, the eco-friendly market will become a more ethical place that both companies and consumers want to be a part of.

Works Cited

Edwards, Carlyann. “What Is Greenwashing, and How Do You Spot It?” Business News Daily,

2022, www.businessnewsdaily.com/10946-greenwashing.html.

“Ethics - Introduction to Ethics.” BBC, BBC, 2014, www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml.

“Ethics - Introduction to Ethics: Consequentialism.” BBC, BBC, 2014, www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml.

Fernando, Jason. “What Is Green Marketing?” Investopedia, Investopedia, 19 Apr. 2022, www.investopedia.com/terms/g/green-marketing.asp.

“Green Brands and Sustainability Branding: Definition, Concepts, Theory: TPBO.” TPBO | The Place Brand Observer, 26 June 2018, placebrandobserver.com/theory/green-brands-sustainability-branding/.

“Greenwashing.” Corporate Finance Institute, 28 May 2020, corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/greenwashing/.

Holmes, Audrey. “Can Greenwashing Ever Be Good?” Earth911, 9 Aug. 2017, earth911.com/business-policy/greenwashing-good/.

Iqbal, Urooj. The Ethics of Greenwashing. 2021, www.ibe.org.uk/uploads/assets/30808c01-124c-41d4-8b73c369ab38c0f5/2021-Undergra duate-winning-essay.pdf.

Peel-Yates, Victoria. “Greenwashing Examples for 2021 & 2022: Worst Products & Brands.” The Sustainable Agency, 23 July 2021, thesustainableagency.com/blog/greenwashing-examples/.

Plaisance, Patrick Lee. Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice, 3rd edition, 2021.

Rahman, M. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Green Marketing.” Howandwhat, 21 Jan. 2022, howandwhat.net/advantages-disadvantages-green-marketing/.

Seele, Peter, and Lucia Gatti. Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation.

24 Nov. 2015, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bse.1912.

Stroud, Scott R. “Green Is the New Color of Money.” Center for Media Engagement, 12 Apr.

2021, mediaengagement.org/research/green-is-the-new-color-of-money/.

Ward, Susan. “What Is Green Marketing?” The Balance Small Business, The Balance Small Business, 20 July 2020, https://www.thebalancemoney.com/green-marketing-2948347#:~:text=Green%20marketing%20is%20%20the%20process,in%20an%20environmentally%20friendly%20way.

Watson, Bruce. “The Troubling Evolution of Corporate Greenwashing.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 Aug. 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business#:~:text=The%20term%20greenwashing%20was%20coined,produced%20%20commercials%20and%20print%20ads.