Greenwashing versus green hushing: Is there a better way?

In recent years, the use of terms such as 'eco', 'green', 'sustainable', and 'low emissions' in advertising and marketing campaigns have become something of a red flag for regulators and watchdogs. Rigorous new rules and guidance designed to tackle so-called 'greenwash' and ensure environmental claims are properly substantiated have triggered a crackdown on corporate communications that overstate green credentials or make use of vague terms that can be easily misunderstood. In response, some businesses have sought to be more careful in their green claims, but others have instead opted for 'green hushing', as they have stopped trying to promote their sustainability efforts.

This was the backdrop for BusinessGreen's latest Spotlight webinar, titled How to minimise the risk of greenwash and maximise the impact of green messaging, which brought together leading advertising and marketing experts to explore how companies minimise the risk of 'greenwashing' without foregoing green marketing all together. Industry leaders from B2B agency The Marketing Pod, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and trade body the Advertising Association also discussed the best practices that can help ensure accurate green messages and campaigns can cut through with their target audiences.

What is greenwashing?

In late 2022, 'greenwash' was among 370 new words added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, confirming a term first used in the late 1980s had finally entered in the mainstream.

The dictionary confirmed the term could be both a verb, defining it as "to make (something, such as a product, policy, or practice) appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is" or "to mislead (someone) by means of greenwashing", and a noun, meaning "something (such as a claim or action) that is intended to make a product, policy, activity, etc. appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is".

"When we think about greenwashing, it's really where a company is talking about their sustainability credentials - whether that's as a company or for a product - but without having strong evidence around those claims and with the potential to mislead," explained Ellie Smith, marketing strategy consultant at The Marketing Pod.   

Though first coined decades ago as a niche concern, Miles Lockwood, director of complaints and investigations at the ASA, detailed how the watchdog has felt compelled to go "further and faster" in tackling the problem in recent years, having launched a targeted drive to address climate and environment-related claims in 2021.

The resulting crackdown has delivered tangible results, with brands such as Nike, Superdry, and Lacoste, coffee maker Lavazza, cruise operators Seascanner and Cruise Circle, and green companies such as Aira, Good Energy, and Octopus Energy having seen adverts banned by ASA over misleading green claims in the last year alone.

The rulings against companies that are widely considered to be leaders in corporate climate action underscores how the vast majority of greenwashing is accidental, rather than malicious. "I think most people may make mistakes inadvertently," said Stephen Woodford, chief executive of the Advertising Association. "There is a myth that greenwash in advertising is widespread and highly prevalent. It may be in other parts of communication, but it's not in advertising. It'd be very foolhardy strategy to set out to mislead the public in your advertising through making claims that you can't substantiate."

Lockwood added that while some "rotten apples" inevitably exist, the overwhelming majority of companies found to be guilty of greenwashing simply get it wrong while trying to do the right thing. "They make a genuine mistake," he says. "And time and time again over the last few years what we see are similar issues to fix."

The good news is the crackdown appears to be working. The consensus among the panellists was that companies have become more careful in the claims they make and better at backing up green promotions with detailed information to justify their claims. Consequently, many of the ASA's more recent rulings have tended to centre on quite technical interpretations of whether claims have been placed within context or adequately substantiated. Egregiously exaggerated claims or nefarious attempts to deliberately mislead have become extremely rare.    

Are stringent rules leading to 'greenhushing'?

Recent research found more than 99 per cent of travel agent adverts monitored by the ASA contained no environmental content, prompting speculation that given the number, profile, and range of companies that have fallen foul of green claims rules, firms were becoming less willing to promote their environmental credentials.

For Smith, "greenhushing" has the potential to stifle vital knowledge sharing and debate. But she argued that rather than shutting up shop entirely, most firms have responded to more stringent rules and guidelines by communicating with more caution, which should work in favour of those businesses with the most impressive environmental performance. "Clearly, regulations are not there to quieten businesses," she says. "They're there to put a level of rigour and confidence around the way in which we communicate."

Lockwood said criticism from some quarters that the ASA has gone too far in its policing of green claims is "a bit frustrating", arguing companies ca avoid greenwashing without switching to greenhushing. "I think reducing everything to greenwashing on the one hand, or saying nothing on the other, disasterises the challenge at hand," he said. "We've got to make sure companies who are innovating and are making green claims which are good for consumers have space to do so. There are pathways forward. Even if you are in a high carbon sector, there are always going to be ways to share a responsible message."

ESG backlash

Given the loud and boisterous backlash against ESG claims over the past year, and delays to high profile regulations such as to the EU's Green Claims Code and broader due diligence and sustainability reporting requirements, it would be understandable if some businesses sought to throttle back on their environmental claims.

Yet Smith stressed that while there has been a shift in tone from some companies' communication efforts, it often reflects maturing markets and audience expectations, rather than a loss of faith or a retreat from sustainability goals. "It's less about being seen to do good, and it's more about understanding how sustained sustainable practices support improved commerciality," she argued. "That's the change in message - [framing it] in terms of business resilience, in terms of having a long-term sustainable business, in terms of the financial benefits of reducing wastage, etc, all of which are sustainability focused initiatives. There was probably a time where it's seen as a 'do-gooder' message. I think that still stands, but I think it's moving towards recognition that operating more sustainably brings with it better commercial outcomes."

What can businesses do?

What steps, then, can businesses take to minimise the risk of greenwash and maximise the positive impact of their green messaging? The panel provided a useful overview of the best practices companies and their marketing departments should embrace.      

Be less absolute: For Lockwood, most businesses which fall foul of the ASA are "a little bit too absolute" in their green claims. Companies should avoid "being too bombastic [and] making claims which require such a high level of evidence that it's very hard to back them up", he advised.

The solution, he said, is to instead be "more conditional". For example, he explained how terms such as 'eco-friendly', 'sustainable', and 'green' attract very high levels of evidential requirement, because they are absolute. "They are suggesting that something continue indefinitely without harm to the environment," he explained.

Substantiate everything: Describing the ASA as a "fearsome regulator", Woodford, stressed that ultimately all advertising - including copy on company websites - must be "legal, decent, honest and truthful".

For Smith, that means substantiating everything is a crucial step towards achieving such high standards. "It's almost no different from any other corporate communication - you've got to have defensible, accurate messaging that can be backed up, whether that's for a technical product feature or for sustainability credentials," she said.

Embrace nuance and admit failings: Smith added that regularly and honestly sharing progress towards sustainable goals - admitting when things have gone wrong or milestones have been missed - can provide valuable lessons for others. "Businesses and individuals working in the space are becoming more comfortable with nuance and admitting failings, or when they have set a target, they're not making as much progress as they intended, and being more open and taking people on the journey," she said.

Find points of reference: Though companies are being bombarded with more ESG reporting requirements and data points than ever, Smith argued these can serve as crucial points of reference for brand messaging. Though she stressed storytelling is ultimately where engagement happens, opportunities to include third-party validation are "really helpful".

As such, Smith advised firms to "put a number against" green claims. "If we can say we've reduced, for instance, Scope Two by X per cent, we can be really specific, or talk about an exact percentage that's come from renewable energy, that enables the consumer to understand what it is that they're purchasing and make a confident decision," she said.

Keep it simple: Lockwood warned green claims can be among the hardest to understand, meaning its vital communicators put themselves in the shoes of a consumer who has not spent days, weeks, or months agonising over product details and specifications. "Put your claims into layperson's terms," he said. "I think that really helps you along the pathway to compliance."

Link comms and sustainability teams: For Smith, the companies which are best at communicating their green credentials are those where sustainability is central to the business ethos. "It makes the comms teams feel much more comfortable in terms of what they can say, and what they can't say," she explained. "I think having a really strong link between comms teams and sustainability teams is crucial, because the sustainability teams will spot pretty quickly if there's something that doesn't ring true or that they don't feel comfortable with."

Woodford flagged how a core component of his industry body's Ad Net Zero initiative is to bring sustainability and marketing teams closer together to ensure every decision has a sustainability consideration - and thereby "normalising" them. "Whether you're making a media choice, a platform choice or a production choice, you're automatically thinking about sustainability," he said. 

Green claims can deliver

Greenhushing can be tempting, but it is almost always an overreaction to greenwash risks that can be avoided with a bit of forethought and clarity. And meanwhile, polling continues to show that consumers are interested in green products and supportive of climate action. Products that boast credible sustainability credentials can often outcompete comparable products without green credentials, which is why many of the world's biggest businesses are continuing to invest in sustainability. It therefore makes sense for those same companies to continue to promote their environmental efforts, even if they have to be careful about the words they use when doing so.     

BusinessGreen's webinar - Spotlight on Marketing: How to minimise the risk of greenwash and maximise the impact of green messaging - was hosted in association with The Marketing Pod, and can be watched back in full here.