Greenwashing — a different perspective

A wave of green advertisements has swept across the market in recent years — with glossy new reports being published by the hour and promises of a green planet being made by myriad of companies. It has become extremely commonplace to have fancy ads showing children planting trees or pictures of lush tropical forests on front pages to ‘greenwash’ their company’s operations. Every possible product offering now comes with a ‘green’ variation — whether it is green tariff energy plans, or ecofriendly food containers or recycled lipstick cases or even a green bond — the opportunities exploited this way are endless. While ‘green’ advertisement and reporting help companies improve consumer perceptions, companies may actually be doing very little to show for it. This is ‘greenwashing’ and why it is a problem. While I have had a strong view against greenwashing in the recent years, recent conversations with friends and colleagues are increasingly challenging this view for me.

This alternate view suggests — greenwashing may actually be good and can help further the net zero transition! Sounds strange, right? I’ll try and explain why.

First, companies that engage in greenwashing, engage in it because they acknowledge climate change is an issue and something needs to be done about it. Companies like BP, Shell, Chevron etc. that have been heavily involved in greenwashing, are investing a huge amount of time, money and effort in green advertisement and green reporting (or commitments) because they acknowledge climate change as a significant issue and recognize that something needs to be done. It’s getting visibility and traction on senior leadership / Board agendas. Most change theories emphasize ‘acknowledgment’ as the first step to creating change, and greenwashing does just that.

Second, most of these companies claim to be doing more than they actually are. However, some believe, at some point these companies will be pressured into doing what say they are doing — whether through NGO/media pressure, investor pressure or regulatory pressure. Essentially, companies will need to play catch up with the narrative they are setting for themselves. Again, going back to behavioral change theories, it’s probably playing between ‘action’ and ‘relapse’ phases before getting to the stable ‘maintenance’ phase.

I’m still struggling to understand where I stand with these perspectives but recognize this is an interesting perspective on the issue of greenwashing. Your thoughts are welcome 😊