BOSTON – So last month I spouted off about labels on food and the enforcement behind them.  The topic is a confusing once since there is very little regulation, which leads to consumer confusion.  There are however, guidelines with the FTC that prevent green washing in marketing under the banner of Truth in Advertising. Unfortunately most businesses have very little knowledge of these guidelines, due to their lack of enforcement, and therefore even the most sustainably-minded companies are often guilty of green washing.  But the Obama administration has stated that enforcement of these guidelines is a priority going forward, so consumers are about to get some clarity!

To check out the green guides for yourself you can read them at the FTC website.  Or you can keep reading for a snarky summary.

The Green guides apply to all environmental claims that are included in any kind of marketing, whether directly or by implication.  So a company needs to take the guidelines into account for every aspect of their marketing including labeling, advertising, promotional materials and any marketing through words, symbols, emblems, logos, depictions, product brand names, digital advertising, attributes of the products themselves, as well as the packaging, or services (if you are a services company).  The rules are actually pretty expansive.  If you even so much as place a leaf in your logo (see mine) , you better know the implications.

These guidelines are not definitive rules on how to do things.  Other approaches are permissible, but the guides are meant to be a safe-harbor for businesses/marketers.  If you followed them and your marketing was still green washing, then no harm no foul, just change your marketing to correct the error.

So the basic requirements are these:

1. You have to be clear.
2. Draw a distinction between the benefits of the product, package or service
3. No exaggerations about environmental benefits.
4. Explain comparisons, don’t leave us hanging (20% more than what?)

If you are making qualifications or disclaimers, they need to be understandable.  The customer needs to know what you are qualifying or disclaiming.  What is more relevant however, is knowing when you need a qualifier or disclaimer.  You need to be clear about what the claim is referring too.  Is it the product, the product’s packaging, a service, or just a portion or component of the product or service?  If you market something as recyclable, is every part of it including the packaging recyclable?

The Guides give more specific examples of how these principles are implemented, especially when it comes to the use of certain words. General claims whether intentional or not can be deceptive and misleading, including the company name.  If your name is “Green Fuel” and you own some oil platforms……… (doesn’t matter that your last name is Green).  I wonder if French’s mustard is misleading.  It certainly isn’t French.  Perhaps the apostrophe solves that problem.

• Degradability, biodegradability, or photodegradability should be qualified (explained) in two ways: 1. the product or packages ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed and 2. the rate and extent of degradation.
• Compostable.  Two things to consider: 1. can the package or product be safely composted in a home compost pile or device; 2. does the claim mislead consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed of in a landfill.  If it is only compostable at the local municipality composter, then say that.  You also have to include a disclaimer that municipal facilities may not exist.  Also, how safe is the resulting compost? If it decomposes but leaves behind toxic chemicals, you have violated the rules because composting (in the mind of the consumer) is usually an environmental benefit and can be used for other purposes.
• Recyclable.  Pretty much the same as above.  It has to be recyclable, and accepted by recycling programs.  If because of size, shape, or any other reason, centers won’t take it, then you have misled the consumer, despite the fact that you did not technically lie. You also need a disclaimer about the limited access to recycling facilities. You have to tell people that they may not have recycling available in their area.  When was the last time you saw that on packaging? Hmmm……
• Recycled content.  Is it pre or post consumer (you don’t have to disclose that) but if it is pre, the marketer has to have solid evidence that the content would have otherwise entered the solid waste stream. The material has to have been recovered; it cannot be recycled raw materials.
• Source reduction claims should be qualified.  If weight, volume, or toxicity have been reduced, by how much and compared to what?
• Refillable.  Need to have a collection or refill program set up.  If it is up to the consumer to be creative, get rid of the claim.
• Ozone Safe and Ozone Friendly.  Good Luck!

Obviously some big ticket items are missing, like carbon neutral, carbon recapture, carbon credits, etc.  The Ozone layer was the big concern/buzz words when these guides were initially drafted.  We now use a very different language to describe eco-benefits.   The FTC is currently reviewing these standards and will be issuing further guidance.  So stay tuned on the language we are actually using.

Main thing to remember:

When making any express or implied assertion or claim about the environmental attribute of a product or service, at the time the assertion was made, the marketer must have possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis (competent and reliable evidence) substantiating that assertion.

The “reasonable basis” is generally held to mean that there is reliable scientific evidence in the form of tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence based on the expertise of objective professionals in the relevant area.

The Green Guides are not actually enforceable regulations.  Compliance is completely voluntary.  These guides are an administrative interpretation of the laws administered by the FTC.  The real teeth are with Section 5 of the FTC Act.  Section 5 prohibits deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce.  So the only way the guides are enforced is that non-compliance may mean that you are failing to satisfy the rules in Section 5 of the FTC Act and the FTC can take corrective action there.

“Deceptive” is determined by three factors:

• There must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer
• Likelihood of misleading based on Reasonable person standard/Reasonable Group Standard.
• The misleading representation, omission or practice was material

The reasonable person standard/group standard looks at who the marketing is intended for, whether that is an individual, a sub-culture, or a definable group and determines how they would reasonably interpret the representation.  Materiality is present if the misleading claim is likely to affect the consumer’s conduct or decision regarding the product or service.  Omissions are included.  If you neglect to say something material, it is deceptive.

So having read all that (sure you did), what do you think?  Green Marketing or Green Washing?

*

* Picture taken from the “Greenwash Guide” by Futerra Sustainability Communications.

Tune in for my next blog post.  I will go over the current cases brought by the FTC and how companies have gotten into trouble.  I will also let you know how international transactions are being effected (Europe way harsher than the US thank god) and I’ll give you a heads up on what is heading our way.

Here’s another great post from one of our industry insiders Jessica Manganello.

For those of you who actually needed a reason to drink beer, it has arrived.

Given the rise in consumer awareness when it comes to organic foods and the environment generally, there has been a surge in innovation from food and beverage producers to meet that demand. Beer crafters have actually been somewhat ahead of the curve. Microbreweries have been particularly active espousing both the “buy organic” and “buy local” movements.

By now, most people know about Peak Organic, a great organic brewery born here in Massachusetts in 1998 (now in Portland Maine). The founder, Jon Codoux had a passion for beer brewing and a sustainability ethic, realizing that if you combine both, you can make some kick ass beer and support your local economy. There are a range of organic and fair trade beers to suit just about everyone’s taste, featured on a fun website that shows just how local and funky this brewery gets. The Espresso Amber Ale for instance, is made with organic fair trade coffee beans from an indie coffee shop located down the street from Peak. The Maple Oat Ale is made through a collaboration of organic farmers located in Maine and Vermont. The Pomegranate Wheat Ale with a touch of organic coriander….well I am just bringing that one up because it sounds really good.

Wolaver’s Certified Organic Ales since 1997 is located in Vermont. Wolaver’s was one of the first USDA certified organic breweries and they don’t stop at just organic ingredients. They bring a four prong philosophy to their entire brewing and distribution process. 1. They have four different organic certifications for their brews; 2. They employ energy reduction techniques to their brewing process including, a biodiesel boiler, heat recovery, an energy efficient lighting system, and using local ingredients to minimize green house gases in transportation; 3. Depleted ingredients like hops, grains, and petals are sold to local farmers as cattle feed, they have an in-house waste water treatment system, and they use all recycled and bleach free materials for their packaging; 4. Finally they try to source everything the brewery needs locally to support their community. With Ales, Stouts, and a nice collection of Seasonals, Wolaver’s beer is definitely something you can feel good about drinking.

Kona Brewing Company in Hawaii has also been sustainably focused since its founding in 1994. Besides, organic beer, selling depleted ingredients to local farmers (and pizza/bread dough makers, hmm), recycling programs, and heat reclamation use, they are going solar. Kona received quite a bit of press recently when they announced their plans to install a 229kW solar energy generating system at their brewery and pub location. The PV system is estimated to produce an average of 900 KWh of electricity each day, allowing Kona to offset nearly 60 percent of its current electricity usage and save around $100,000 per year. When guests visit the brewery they will get to view a real-time monitor showing how much energy is being generated while they sip on their beer. So everyone, next time you are in Hawaii…..
Of course, Kona is not the first, nor the only brewery to go down the solar path. Other locally and sustainably focused crafters are moving in the same direction, including: Anderson Valley Brewing Company and Sierra Nevada in California, Lucky Labrador Brewing Company in Portland; and New Belgium Brewing in Colorado.

So there you have it! Reasons or more reasons to drink beer and support small producing craft breweries as well as your local economy.

As always kids, DRINK RESPONSIBLY!

Side note: If you are not familiar with Microbreweries in your area, I suggest you start looking into them or you will be missing out on some great brews. Matt Webster from Drink A Better Brew, here in Massachusetts, has an informative blog packed with the latest beer news you should know.

Peak Organic Beer: http://www.peakbrewing.com/
Wolaver’s Organic Ales: http://www.ottercreekbrewing.com/wolavers.html
Kona Brewing Company: http://www.konabrewingco.com/
Dogfish Head in Delaware (not organic as far as I know, but they are my favorite and therefore must be included): http://www.dogfish.com/

This post was authored by Jessica R. Manganello, Esq. of New Leaf Legal, LLC. Check out more at http://www.newleaflegal.com and @Mangojess.

A couple years ago global warming was the hot term to describe how our earth atmosphere was getting filled up with too much CO2.

Then, the liberals/progressive or whatever they want to be called thought that  global warming might be the incorrect term, because although the temperature of the earth on average is increasing, in some places the average temperature might decrease. And to describe an ecosystem where some places have increasing temperature and other decreasing have decreasing temperature, ‘change’ is a more accurate term.

I can see why they did they did this. They wanted to be more correct and also show that this issue affects all people and in different ways.

The problem is that the word ‘change’ does not evoke strong emotions. Here, lets do a test. When you hear the world ‘change’ what imagery comes to your mind? I think of change, as in coins, people growing older, and other inert things. In my mind, it’s not really a positive or a negative thing, its just something neutral, not to be afraid of. I would argue when most people hear the word ‘change’ after ‘climate’ they don’t think the world is ending. Do you?

The reason this is important is we all know that people actions in reaction to fear can by strong and quick.

No, I’m not part of any political party. However, republicans have traditionally been good at the branding and framing of issues and democrats have not. This is yet another example of this. Instead of climate change it should be called climate disruption. In my mind, disruption makes me scared. I think of someone breaking into my house, or getting robbed, or a perfectly working engine that breaks down. To me, it brings up imagery of a system that used to work well that broken and needs to be fixed ASAP.

I’ve laid out my arguments and why I now use the word ‘climate disruption’ when talking about ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’.

What do you think will be more effective to change peoples actions: climate change or climate disruption?

Last month, I was skimming over some of my favorite blogs on Renewable Energy World and came across a post by one of my favorite tweeples @solarfred titled Should Solar Sales People and Crew be Smoking Cigarettes? Probably Not. The connection between environmental, social, and health concerns is clear and the topic peeked my interest. However, from doing work installing solar panels with Nexamp, its clear that the manual labor is performed by blue collar workers who tend to smoke more than average. Regardless, its a great question. Its like, would you trust a grossly overweight nutritionist? I know that I wouldn’t.

Can we ask a similar question about green investors? Over my years of attending random clean tech networking and conferences around the Boston area I’ve noticed that I always get a strange taste in my mouth when I met a VC or angel investor that’s interested in the sector but has no clue what its really about. They talk about the money to be made, the huge growth in the industry, but they show no understanding of the true values of the movement.

Just like I wouldn’t trust a solar salesperson who smoked, it’s hard for me to trust green investors who are only in it for the money.

Do you think green investors should care about more than money? If no, why not?

A couple weeks ago, I was sent this article by a friend: Metcalfe brings VC perspective to Alternative Energy. Metcalfe is an interesting guy that has a great perspective. I skimmed through it and this part really popped out at me: “Networking isn’t the only goal Metcalfe’s been using to try to change people’s thinking on energy technology. “Green” has been politicized, he says, and its anti-business stigma is an impediment. Rather than “green tech,” or “cleantech,” Metcalfe’s been beating a drum for adoption of the term, “enertech.”

I agree with Metcalfe that “Green” has been politicized and tends to divide people even though everyone agrees with the principles (i.e. no one likes to get cancer and thus dislikes the things that cause it). I’ve tended to use the term “clean Tech” in the past because I feel it frames the issue nicely (something Republicans have long been good at, and no I’m not a Democrat either) in terms of clean versus dirty. If something isn’t clean, it must be dirty and that’s bad. Easy to understand. Metcalfe’s perspective is interesting but I think it misses the point, “green” and “clean” are more than just about energy. It’s about food, building materials, toxins, yadda yadda yadda. It’s also possible that he understands this but simply feels “enerTech” will be a more useful name due to the politicization of the two other words.

But I really think this one is still up for debate and I want to hear what you think. Which terms do you use and why?

I recently wrote a post titled, Why I hate the word ‘green’ and you should too, and one of those reasons was due to green washing. Well, I’ve been thinking and now I love green washing. Not only do I like it, but I think it’s a large opportunity.

Needless to say, this seems to be an unpopular perspective these days. I can’t count the number of bloggers that dislike it.

Take a look for yourself:

Combating the Scourge of Greenwashing

Greenwashing the Globe

One of my favorites, The Good Human has a greenwash of the week section: Greenwash Of The Week: Holy Cow Cleaning Product

No Right Turn: Climate change: The greenwash game is up

The Thing Green Line: Most Outrageous greenwash competition

Chevron follows the money, bats down climate bill

Vinyl and Asphalt are Green at Green Build: Tree Hugger

I agree, green washing seems bad on the surface. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that green washing is good, but I think it needs to be put in a little perspective. I want to convince you why green washing is part of the process, a necessary step if you will, and that you can be happy and angry about it at the same time.

Let me clearly show you why greenwashing is good for the movement, in an easy step by step prof.

1. The goal is to force society, companies, and individuals to reduce their impact on the environment
2. The problem with word ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ is that it doesn’t have a definition
3. Without a clean definition companies can claim to be ‘green’ with no proof
4. This provides a HUGE opportunity to establish what ‘green’ means by establishing what it is NOT
5. In our current system journalists, bloggers, NGOs, competing companies are incentivized to publish stories about companies lying, especially if this means furthering their own cause
6. By a journalist, and other organizations showing why companies are not ‘green’ they will slowly create a definition of ‘green’ by the process of elimination
7. Lastly, the fact that companies are ‘green washing’ means they are seeing an advantage to lying about it which means the size of the people who care about it is growing, a sign that the movement is growing

I’m not saying that I don’t get mad at green washing and that you shouldn’t either, I’m simply saying some perspective needs to be added. Greenwashing is part of the process. We should all realize that its going to happen, that it is our responsibility to seek it out and uncover it, and that this process will establish what ‘green’ is or is not.

Also, there appears to be a large opportunity to uncover greenwashing particularly in very large companies. Here is a great site that seeks to uncover green washing called The Greenwashing Index and another one called The Seven Sins of Greenwashing.

I would challenge anyone that gets really mad about green washing to see how it could be an opportunity for them to combat it.

On a scale of 1 (not angry) to 10(very angry) how angry does green washing make you? Why?

If you haven’t noticed, the word ‘green’ is getting thrown around a lot these days. I go to a lot of conferences, meetings, and talking with a lot my peers about ‘green’ things and I have started to notice that although the word is around me all the time, I hardly ever use it, and if it happens to slip out I get the nasty sensation like I do when I accidentally swear in front of my girlfriend’s parents.

When people around me use it, and they’re not quoting someone else, I notice it makes me gringe a little bit and I become a little suspicious of whatever they say next. Don’t get me wrong, I like to breath clean air, drink clean water, I don’t want to get cancer and we have many other problems that need to be fixed. However, I don’t think the word ‘green’ is helping us get there.

When someone uses the word ‘green’ in reference to a product, service, action, or company I always ask these two questions, if the situation is correct and it doesn’t sound too argumentative.

1) What do you mean by the word green?

I’m always curious to see how they define it. I tend to find that most people don’t have a definition. This is especially important for businesses that are trying to be ‘green’ but never define what they mean by it.

2) Why is [insert whatever they were talking about] green?

This question usually looses people. Without a clear definition it is difficult to describe why something is or is not ‘green’.

That brings me to Reason #1: There is no USEFUL definition for the word ‘green’ in the context of environmentalism.

Anything can be ‘green’ depending on how you spin it. For example, I could make two equally compelling arguments why using glass bottles is ‘green’ and is it not.

The definition of the word ‘green’ is like the definition of the word efficient, it always depends on the parameters and the goals.

Also, ‘green’ applies to everything. Duh! Everything we do relates to the environment is some way but the current definition of the ‘green’ doesn’t address this.

What can do we do about this?

Honestly, I don’t really know but here are a couple thoughts. On a personal level, stop using the word.

On a macro level, it should be treated just like the word efficiency. It’s different for each industry, for different products or services and there are standards that determine what is or is not ‘green’ in each segment.

There are some companies that are trying to do this but they’re all in their infancy: RateItGreen, IzzitGrren, Wal-Mart’s Sustainability Index, The Global Reporting Initiaitve.

With the exception of Wal-Mart none of these companies make a stand and actually take a shot at defining it, they just leave it up to their users.

Reason #2: Green Washing

The lack of a definition leads to green washing by companies.

Just in case you don’t know, green washing is a company or organization that is claiming to use ‘green’ practises (whatever that is) with their products or services in order to sell more products when no real effort is being made.

Green washing is rampant. Here’s a blurb straight from Wikipedia….

In December 2007, environmental marketing firm TerraChoice gained national press coverage for releasing a study called “The Six Sins of Greenwashing” which found that more than 99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing. A total of 1,753 environmental claims made, with some products having more than one, and out of the 1,018 studied only one was found not guilty of making a false or misleading green marketing claim. According to the study, the six sins of greenwashing are:

• Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: e.g. “Energy-efficient” electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of all environmental claims committed this Sin.

• Sin of No Proof: e.g. Shampoos claiming to be “certified organic,” but with no verifiable certification. 454 products and 26% of environmental claims committed this Sin.

• Sin of Vagueness: e.g. Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde (see appeal to nature). Seen in 196 products or 11% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Irrelevance: e.g. Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago. This Sin was seen in 78 products and 4% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Fibbing: e.g. Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. Found in 10 products or less than 1% of environmental claims.

• Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: e.g. Organic cigarettes or “environmentally friendly” pesticides, This occurred in 17 products or 1% of environmental claims.

In April 2009, TerraChoice published a second report on the subject. This report noted the emergence of a seventh Sin – the ‘Sin of Worshiping False Labels’.^[14]

• The Sin of Worshiping False Labels is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists; fake labels, in other words.

There is so much green washing that there is an index that is trying to stop the issues. It’s called The Green Washing Index.

Many, including myself, will argue that green washing can be a good thing, but it still really pisses me off.

Reason #3: It doesn’t spur useful action

Due to the broad use, the lack of a clean definition, specifics, and lying companies, it makes it difficult for consumers and organizations to take meaningful action. In addition, the continued use of the word ‘green’ without figuring out exactly what it means will make action even harder.

Penn and Teller have a great skit on why some aspects of the ‘green’ movement are ‘bullshit’ as they like to say. This skit really gets to the core of the issue regarding the definition of the word and how the lack of definition spurs actions that are not useful and pretty stupid.

If you have time, watch the whole thing, it’s pretty good. The clip that starts at 13:25 highlights how environmentalists are taking advantage of a lack of definition of ‘green’ with carbon credits.

Reason #4: The word polarizes people, and it shouldn’t.

The last reason I hate the word ‘green’ is that the word divides people politically. No one wants dirty air, water, cancer or a dirty environment. I understand that the debate is more centered around the best way to eliminate these things and not if they are bad themselves.

It needs to be remembered that environmentalism is a moral issue, like child labor, slavery, or having a 40 hour work week. So, when someone asks me if I mind paying a carbon tax I respond ‘hell no’ just like I don’t mind paying taxes for roads, education, and the ‘tax’ that is associated with an economy not based on slavery.

It can be easily argued that any of these issues (child labor, slavery) limits the productivity of an economy. However, we’ve made a moral choice to eliminate child labor and salvery and I would argue the economy is better because of it.

Helping the environment is no different. This is a moral issue, not an economic issue, but it will have beneficial economic consequences. It seems like it will hurt the economy but in the short run it will only lead to innovation and growth.

My question to you

I’m always interested to hear others’ opinion on this word.

Do you think green is a useful word? Why?

Do you use the word green? Why?