On her early exit from a carbon offsetting panel at COP26, Greta Thunberg announced her thoughts to those gathered in the Blue Zone: “this is greenwashing.” But what did she actually mean, and who was she talking about?

 

Greenwashing: What’s it all about?

Essentially, “greenwashing” refers to intentionally misleading marketing practices used to portray something as more environmentally friendly than it really is. The term dates back to the mid-1980s, when an environmental activist, Jay Westerveld, realised that, besides requesting that guests to reuse towels for the sake of the environment, his hotel was doing little else to help the cause.

Businesses and governments engage in greenwashing to render a desirable image of their products, systems, processes, or the brand as a whole, to their customers and stakeholders. At COP26 you have likely caught speakers spouting claims to implement “sustainable,” “conscious,” “eco-friendly” and “net-zero” practices, amongst other greenwashing buzzwords.

 

Why is Greenwashing problematic?

Put simply, greenwashing is deceptive behaviour, driven by a selfish incentive for profit. With climate discourse now front and centre of both political debate and everyday conversation, sustainability has become a demand for many consumers. Given the resultant market for environmentally friendly products and services, greenwashing is a valuable tool for businesses.

Greenwashing tactics give the customer the impression that the business is meeting the customer’s demands for eco-consciousness. The problem is that they aren’t. Whether the profit is financial or otherwise, this intention lays in contrast to its target audience’s genuine concerns for the environment. While profit-driven intentions are not in and of themselves harmful to the environment, the potential for profitability leads businesses to reap the benefits of an environmentally driven narrative, without the costs associated, and often without producing the positive environmental effects they claim.

Westerveld’s hotel financially benefitted from its visitors reusing towels: it helped them avoid paying the costs – electricity, time and water – associated with washing the towels more regularly. The problem was that these positives were negated by their other harmful practices.

Hence, greenwashing actors:

• Treat consumers as means to achieve their own goals, rather than ends in themselves. The objective of greenwashed practices is not to provide value to the consumer, but to reap the benefits of greenwashed practices for themselves.
• Inhibit the consumer from making a free, informed decision about the products or services they use. If, rather than using greenwashed language, companies communicated transparently, the consumer may not have purchased their products and services, recognising their potential financial endorsement of harmful practices.
• The high-level promotion of greenwashing actors at COP conferences also diverts attention away from the true reformers and innovative practices. This encourages a global culture of environmental complacency.

For some real ways we can help the planet, check out Dominik’s post on Reversing Pollution.

 

So, who is Greenwashing at COP26?

Sponsors and other corporate entities.

A quick glance at COP26’s sponsors websites shows a littering of “net-zero,” “environmental protection” and images of children in nature. Delving into their policies, the greenwashing deepens.

• Microsoft’s “net zero” goals rely on failed, and problematic offsets; non-existent technology and vague accounting, alongside its contracts with major oil extractors; and Unilever remains the fourth biggest producer of polluting plastics.
• If these seem like isolated instances, my colleague, Murray, has highlighted how fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber the delegates of eight of the countries worst affected by climate change. These include over 100 fossil fuel businesses, including Shell and BP, also claiming to bring their emissions to “net zero.”

Politicians and Governments – especially those of the Global North.

• Governmental delegates actively contributed to harmful practices while preaching sustainability at COP26 – the sheer number of private jets arriving in Scotland on the 1^st November was a particular lowlight for environmental consciousness.
• Further, efforts to promote carbon offsetting markets seem greenwashed efforts to transfer the burden of mitigation to developing countries, to facilitate exploitative processes run by the Global North.

 

Tealwashing?

 

 

With the United Nations the host of the COP26 forum, companies and governments disguising their misleading marketing ploys are provided yet another layer of defence against critics.

“Bluewashing,” referencing the UN’s flag, is used to describe those taking advantage of their affiliation with the United Nations. The UN is considered by many to have an “excellent social reputation,” and is viewed as a proponent of the principles of sustainability and social responsibility. As a global organisation, hosting one of the most highly viewed climate discussions, all the while endorsing greenwashing actors, the UN and its COP26 tealwashing provides a particularly powerful advertisement for some of the world’s biggest polluters. It is apparent that COP26 has provided an unavoidable opportunity for shady practices to continue, “business as usual,” while maintaining a guise of internationally approved, environmentally consciousness.

Until more active measures are being taken, and accessibility is increased for all climate stakeholders, it is likely that COP fora will remain sites for “global north greenwash festivals” rather than commitment and action.

---

This is the final post in our three-part series on COP26. Check out Murray’s analysis of COP26’s goals here, and his summary of its progression here.

For an optimistic insight as to what the world could look like if real efforts are made to reduce climate change, check out Liam’s post, here.