Call for New Greenwashing Terms

Disclaimer: All views expressed are my own. It is not intended to constitute or be relied upon as legal advice. You should consult a qualified lawyer if you require legal advice.

Dear reader, at Ape On Earth, I always begin a post by asking, does Climate Change matter to you? If you’re unsure, consider reading Blog Post #1 (5min) to find out about your inclinations before you return. And please know I appreciate it so much if you do, it literally means the world 🙂

What is greenwashing?

According to wikipedia, 

“Greenwashing (a compound word modelled on “whitewash”), also called “green sheen”, is a form of marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization’s products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly.”

Unfortunately, the above definition often casts too wide a net, resulting in entities, having taken genuine effort on their part to fight climate change, getting condemned alongside peers which have done way less, or sometimes even nothing at all, i.e. “Business As Usual”.

To help one understand current greenwashing better, I introduce two approaches – casual and legal, which will be explained later on in this article.

Environmental friendliness is a fuzzy subject.

Currently, to be environmentally friendly is more about one’s commitment to an honourable explorative journey, and less about a destination. 

Don’t get me wrong, we all need to eventually reach a destination. It’s definitely not a cruise to nowhere. 

But as of now, few environmentally friendly destinations are known, and most of them are transitory (not the complete package).

Photo by Jakob Braun on Unsplash

If you consider yourself adventurous or enterprising, then hop on board the “Marco Polo”, casually named after the world’s most famous explorer from the 13th Century. 

After all, a map is not going to explore itself.

Why are most environmentally friendly destinations transitory?

Because sustainability requires tight control of the full supply chain. One company’s efforts might be derailed by another further up or down the chain. The end result would turn out less than ideal. That is why we need to learn how to discern between champions vs. alleged climate criminals.

We need to remind ourselves that we are in this for the long run. Change will take time.

New greenwashing terms are a need, not a want

Greenwashing needs immediate support from the legal community for a legalese expansion exercise. Focus should be on enforcing against Climate Crime so we can reconcile the Global Carbon budget.

Existing rule of law already has many confusing legalese terms most of us don’t use on a daily basis, for eg. tort, caveat emptor, or chattel. Yet, these terms exist for a good reason. Clarity and precision is key in establishing the rule of law.

Perhaps it can be argued that the root term “greenwashing”, first coined in the 1980s, fuzzy as it is, desperately needs more children (new terms). If not for the sake of clarity and precision, and greater enforceability. What say you?

That said, we are running out of colours to use as most have been taken up. Thus, I have no doubt that a high level of creativity is to be expected from us moving forward. And I certainly hope we haven’t run out of latin words for this legalese expansion exercise.

A casual approach to greenwashing

I kindly abstain from personally elaborating too much on the casual approach to greenwashing. To me, it’s a never ending story with a severe lack of limits to its scope. But one may like to refer to a relevant article by EcoWatch, “A Guide to Greenwashing and How to Spot It”, for inspiration and education on the topic. I give it merit for its valiant attempt to wrap around the fuzzy subject.

A legal approach to greenwashing

I prefer a legal approach. Climate Change is in the state that it is, perhaps because the world took too long to work on enforceable Climate Justice.

Likewise, I feel that greenwashing can only be dealt with if there is sufficient and relevant enforceable law on the subject. Otherwise, we will only be left with the option to trust companies to care about the environment on our behalf.

Now refer back to the definition for greenwashing. Take note of the two keywords, “deceptively”, and “persuade”. 

Let’s face it. We are used to being persuaded to buy products or services by companies. It’s called marketing. One will simply struggle to achieve decent sales without fair marketing. Nothing wrong with that.

But what if a company intended for deception as a key component of their unfair marketing strategy from the start, and you could prove it? I call this the seed of climate crime.

And what if that proven deception was through a material statement that you relied upon in making the purchase? It doesn’t matter whether the sales employee who sold it to you knew the truth or not. The company might still be liable under vicarious liability, unless fraud can be proven on the part of the employee’s own actions and intentions.

And what if there are losses and damages sustained by you, or the Earth, that can be quantified, and directly linked to the company’s product/service? Because don’t forget now we are legally bound by the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. We also have to reconcile the science-based Global Carbon Budget, which specifies that the world can only afford to emit a further 300-500 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 from the start of 2020 (based on >50% likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5 deg C). This is an absolute budget, not an annual budget. There will be no other carbon budget. And there is no other Earth. (#noplanetb)

You may perhaps notice that I’m being very specific on my basis for deducing loss and damage. But that is because (to me at least), the elephant in the room is Climate Change, caused by our excessive carbon emissions into our atmosphere. 

There is no doubt there will be other greenwashing scenarios where the damages may not directly relate to the failing of the Paris Agreement or the Global Carbon Budget. But then, those will require a separate framework for assessment of greenwashing, and might require other environmental laws, and/or impact analysis, in order to derive the extent of loss and damage.

But in general, if proven guilty on all above conditions, the company may likely be, for lack of a better word, #greenwashing.

Should you call them out?

What if I told you that one would have to pretty much call out every Singapore company if you subscribe towards the casual approach to greenwashing? What’s the point of calling them out then? The world is starved of environmentally friendly destinations at the moment.

It’s your choice to try to be part of the solution, or just part of the problem.

So, what are you waiting for? “Marco Polo” sails off tomorrow. Explore? Or sit back?

All said and done, if you would like to call out a company for #greenwashing, try to check off the following list:

1. Stop supporting them financially (don’t add fuel to the fire)
2. Proof of intent for deception (seed of climate crime)
3. The material statement you relied upon when you considered purchase
4. Damages that you, or the Earth, will sustain from that product/service
5. Point out a ready solution to the specific instance of greenwashing for the company to consider

Blatant greenwashing

That’s all I have regarding the “old greenwashing”.

You might recall that this article was about calling for new greenwashing terms.

What if we voted to add a new term to call out companies which are blatantly greenwashing? 

And by blatant I mean they satisfy the following:

1. There is proof of #greenwashing based on the legal approach (compulsory pre-condition), and they have been publicly called out for it and have not publicly taken corrective actions within a reasonable timeframe.
2. Their overall strategy does not keep up with the latest climate science, national regulation and policy, best practices, technology and/or innovations in their space. i.e. They choose to remain grossly ignorant.
3. They claim sustainability in their DNA, but public information about their activities lack transparency and propagates misinformation. i.e. They abuse their credibility, misinform the public, and add fuel to the fire.
4. They do not have a policy for and are not transparent about their processes for recollection, materials recovery, refurbishment, or remanufacture of their products which have a designed end-of-life. i.e. Perhaps they are afraid of the prospect of having to be responsible for their own waste. Funny how companies create products they themselves don’t treasure.
5. They know that their “Business As Usual” means we will fail the Paris Agreement temperature target (keeping global surface temperatures from rising above 1.5 deg C) and fail to reconcile the Global Carbon Budget, but their management has not presented a high quality pivot plan, a carbon mitigation/adaptation plan and/or a just transition plan for their affected workforce. (We are humans and are bound to make mistakes, but one ought to know when enough is enough. There’s no shame in that.)
6. A ready solution to their #greenwashing has been voted up in the public comments section on social media or other constructive forums and could be discovered easily by anyone who cares. (It’s not all noise you know, it pays to listen to your customers)

Poll for new greenwashing terms!

Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash

Do you feel you have an intimate understanding of what greenwashing is now? 

Then feel free to cast your vote below in a poll for new Greenwashing Terms! My vote is on “scit opti”, inspired by “scit optimum”, latin for “knows best”.

Note: This post will be continuously updated to present the best way to expand on #greenwashing so watch this space.

And for all readers who have made it this far…

Thank you. It literally means the world 🙂