A Note on Greenwashing

Written by Hank Green

Wednesday, 16 August 2006

Greenwash: To improve the public image of a corporation by funding environmental initiatives and public relations.

Here and now, EcoGeek asks an uncomfortable question: Is greenwashing a bad thing? When BP changed their name to Beyond Petroleum and began to spend twice as much money than any other energy company on renewables should we call them greenwashers and disparage their progress, or should we thank them. There is no doubt that public relations spurred BP in its rebranding. And, yes, the company still does awful dirty things (especially in Alaska) but we at EcoGeek are strong believers in the principle of multiple causes.

To say BP overhauled their brand, their mission and restructured their entire corporation solely for public relations is far too simple-minded. Greenwashing has multiple causes. Among them are public relations, long-term and short-term economics and concern for the environment. That's right, I said it, Concern for the environment. As much as the corporate world seems cash-crazed and heartless, there are still people running these things. And, occasionally, people care.

Wal-Mart just went through a green-up with pep-talks from Al Gore and audits from the Rocky Mountain Institute. This is the kind of thing that will make some folks hop up and down and scream "Greenwashers!" But, the truth is, when Wal-Mart puts compact fluorescent lightbulbs on sale, the world notices. They're doing it because it's making them money, it's saving them money, it's increasing brand loyalty and, maybe, because the Waltons come from a long line of traditional (hook and bullet) conservationists.

When call Wal-Mart and BP greenwashers, we punish them for doing the right things. When they're guilty, which they often are, we need to rub their faces in it. But when they change the way their companies operate and, thus, change the world, we have to say thanks. We have to shake their hands and print their press releases because, otherwise, they'll have one less reason to green-up. And we want them to have as many reasons as possible.

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Wal-Mart Conservationists?!
written by a guest , August 16, 2006

Wal-Mart makes a point of building more stores than they need in a given area in the hopes of crushing any and all competition. They will even lose money on products (they're big enough to take the hit) to run other stores out of town. And when the competition has been wiped from the face of the earth, leaving empty storefronts all along the way (and don't try to flame me on this, I've seen this firsthand) they close up a few of their own stores to create a "captive audience" of shoppers, all while ruining forest and farmland for the sake of their bottom line. If this is conservation in your eyes, you need a vision check.

I have staunchly refused to purchase anything from Wal-Mart for years, even if they are the only store in town with the item I need. The only green they care about are the bills in your wallet.

BP and big oil
written by a guest , August 16, 2006

BP might have gone from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum but it can’t go Beyond Profit. Despite all the positive noises big oil still spends less than 1% of its budget on renewable energy. BP spent £20 million buying the Solarex Corporation to boost its solar power credentials - at the same time it plans to spend £3billion over the next five years on oil exploration in Alaska.

As long as there is truth in advertising
written by a guest , August 17, 2006

I don't think "greenwashing" is all bad. If a company is doing something good for the environment that could also make them money, sure they should toot their own horn. Does that mean it's OK for them to lie about their practices or distort/inflate their actions? No.

Wal-mart talking about going green is making headlines and fueling dialogue of all kinds.. positive, negative, and somewhere in between. It is raising awareness- not only about Wal-Marts new "green" business plan, but about how things are done now, how they treat their employees etc. I feel this is a good thing. I think having a negative attitude about Wal-Mart's greening is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We should applaud them for their new efforts while continuing to constructively critique the other, less responsible or ethical areas of their business. If we offer no reward, no positive support, then there will be little reason for other companies to follow suit.

Good for you
written by a guest , August 18, 2006

This is a tough subject and I give you credit for raising it. It certainly brings out the passions in people. I have some thoughts on my blog,http://3rliving.blogspot.com/ .

different definition?
written by a guest , August 27, 2006

I've always used a different definition for 'greenwashing', and it's related to 'whitewashing' -- which implies a clouding of issues.

To me, greenwashing is about lip service, or for example, the creation of bogus environmental groups -- particularly those with names which would appear to be grassroots organizations. I think it goes along with misleading public relations in general.

There is a big difference between greenwashing and legitimate environmental projects. And it is absolutely critical that we know the difference:

Reward those with genuine contributions; expose those without.

Write comment

Hank Green
		About the author:
		Hank Green is the founder and chief geek at EcoGeek.org. Aside from being obsessed with saving the planet with technology, he loves to write and make videos. If you want to find out more about him, visit hankgreen.com

Articles by this Author:

View all articles by this author

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Are You an EcoGeek?

Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.

And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.