Greenwashing should be, on the face of it, pretty black and white.
If claims or other information shared to demonstrate the environmental virtues of a company, brand or product are vague or false, then it’s greenwashing. Put that word into a popular search engine and the generative AI-powered playback will go further, pointing to deliberate attempts to mask negative environmental impact.
Yet, as laws have been applied and tightened in recent years, and major fines have been levied at transgressors, so a debate about how best to apply rules and where to draw the line on relevant claims has continued to rumble on. And of course, most of those are local, so there is much variation between countries.
Fast and loose
Despite the introduction of new laws though, the way that many products are described still seems to play fast and loose. A recent study of the global meat and dairy industry found that only 29% of the pro-environmental claims made in product marketing had any evidence behind them at all.
Meanwhile, in Australia this week, researchers who tested 27,000 food products found that nearly 40% claimed to be “sustainable”, but used that word and “natural” with little substantiation. Many of those goods actually created higher carbon emissions than those not labelled as "good" for the planet.
Regulators and law-makers in Europe have started a clean-up. With the European Union’s far-reaching Green Claims Directive,(intended to be the centrepiece of measures to tackle greenwashing), now effectively stalled, another piece of legislation is soon to enter the fray.
The green transition directive
The EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, (more of a mouthful than a spoonful of organic muesli), comes into force in September. It is targeted at brands marketing sustainability claims that lack sufficient evidence, allowing shoppers to make clear and quick choices without having to try to decode often opaque language. The UK isn’t far behind with its equivalent legislation.
The EU laws are expected to lead to greater caution from brand owners worried about infringement, who then simply remove claims altogether despite the commercial imperatives for making them. A post by the World Economic Forum outlined how “more than half (53%) of consumers worldwide see a lack of sustainability communication as a sign of inaction or concealment. Companies that hold back also tend to lag financially, while as much as 31% of leading companies’ reputational edge is driven by how they are perceived on environmental issues.”
It points to a need for greater trust between consumers and the brands they buy from. But that trust is unlikely to be nurtured by individual words in product packaging. All companies are going to need an integrated approach across brand marketing, communications and sustainability programmes, plus a relatively intricate one for global brands that are subject to varying national laws and local nuances in consumer expectations.
As we explained in a previous column, food brands are now more in the firing line, with their communications teams likely to be dragged into that more often.
Food firms already have enough on their plates with rising costs, supply chain fragilities and consumers cutting back. Getting their marketing and communications functions aligned to help comply with a complex global legislative environment only increases those pressures.