Green Lies

Green Lies

Stacy Shang


As the COVID-19 pandemic barrelled onward and the world grappled with an invisible enemy that refused to retreat, a parallel narrative began to unfold—one that emphasized cleanliness as a form of control. Washing hands, sanitizing groceries, and disinfecting every surface in sight became the new rituals of safety. Amidst this heightened awareness, another transformation was quietly taking root. Just as our digital footprints grew deeper, so too did we become aware of the profound carbon footprints we were leaving behind. It seemed logical: a clean home should extend to a clean planet. Eager to do my part, I ventured into the realm of eco-friendly and zero-waste living. However, this journey led me to an unexpected crossroad where idealism met reality—where my quest for environmental stewardship collided head-on with the cunning strategies of greenwashing.


This experience mirrored the broader skepticism and distrust discussed in FD Flam's "Question Authority, But Trust Science." Here, Flam explores the tension between our reverence for scientific authority and the personal or political beliefs that often cloud our judgment. Similar to how Daniel Kahan laments that the science communication environment is being polluted by group affiliations, the eco-friendly market is muddied by greenwashing. Companies exploit consumers’ desire for a cleaner, more sustainable world, packaging their products in layers of environmental promises that, upon closer inspection, reveal a different truth. 


The United Nations describes greenwashing as deceptive tactics that give the false impression of a company's environmental efforts, such as misleading labels like "green" or "eco-friendly," which lack standard definitions and fuel misconceptions (United Nations). Similarly, the Harvard Business Review highlights a troubling trend where companies project a green image without substantive action, often escaping scrutiny. This seemed to unveil a foggy intersection of sustainability and capitalism where environmental claims are often more about marketing than meaningful action. 


As a marketing analytics student, my understanding of sustainability in consumer culture has sharpened, especially pertaining to the cosmetics industry's "clean beauty" trend and the broader market's greenwashing. The allure of "clean" labels, such as the leaf symbol on Sephora’s certified “clean products," initially suggest a shift towards more ethical consumption. But the lack of a clear, unified definition of "clean," allows brands to tailor the term to their marketing needs. This allows companies to upcharge their products and reap the benefits of a positive reputation, all “without supporting a positive environmental impact” (Nehf). This practice of greenwashing not only misleads consumers but also inflates corporate profits under the guise of sustainability.


Beyond cosmetics, the trend toward sustainability extends to household products and the fashion industry. A primary example of this is the usage of bamboo, which is often praised for its sustainable products like utensils and clothing. While bamboo is known for its eco-friendly attributes, the FTC states that “most ‘bamboo’ textile products, if not all, really are rayon, which typically is made using environmentally toxic chemicals in a process that emits hazardous pollutants into the air.” Not only does bamboo fall victim to false advertising, but the push towards purchasing these “sustainable” items can ironically fuel overconsumption. 


Just as companies and influencers promote the aesthetic of sustainability, there's a realization that this often promotes a look of sustainability rather than actual sustainable living. This approach encourages the overconsumption of items veiled as environmentalism—whether it's 100 acrylic containers for pantry organization, aesthetically pleasing Meyer’s dish soap, or Kim Kardashian’s refillable skincare that’s just even more plastic packaging—without considering the sustainability of using what we already own. 


Navigating the complex terrain of green marketing, echoes the question posed by Flam: “Where does that leave citizens who want to make informed choices?” This juxtaposition of seeking a cleaner world brimming with misinformation resonates with Flam's insights into the polluted landscape of science communication, and the conclusion is similar. Our steps forward are those with conscious skepticism, and the need to scrutinize the authenticity of greenwashed products. Yet, the more pressing challenge still stands: how do we move toward genuine environmental responsibility amidst misleading signals designed to exploit our best intentions for profit? This path is fraught with obstacles, but underscores the importance of critical thinking in making truly informed choices.



Works Cited

Bothello, Joel, et al. “Research: How Some Companies Avoid Accusations of Greenwashing.” 

Harvard Business Review, 27 Sept. 2023, 

hbr.org/2023/09/research-how-some-companies-avoid-accusations-of-greenwashing. 

“Greenwashing – the Deceptive Tactics behind Environmental Claims.” United Nations, United 

Nations, www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/greenwashing. Accessed 

26 Jan. 2024. 

Nehf, James P. “Regulating Green Marketing claims in the United States.” Sustainable 

Consumption, 2019, pp. 189–206, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16985-5_12. 

The Office of Technology. “How to Avoid Bamboozling Your Customers.” Federal Trade 

Commission, 3 Apr. 2015, 

www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/how-avoid-bamboozling-your-customers. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Molecules, Models, and Magic: The Exciting World of Computational Chemistry

Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond

Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health?