Can we measure greenwashing?

Greenwashing is back and regulators are waking up to the challenges. But what do we mean by ‘greenwashing’ and can regulators and raters really measure it?

Greenwashing has shot up the agenda this week. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has announced a new investigation into Unilever’s environmental claims. The CMA will explore whether brands like Dove, Comfort and Lynx “measure up” when it comes to on-pack claims around recyclability and natural ingredients. Meanwhile at COP, ahead of climate deals being announced, António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, cautioned that “there must be no room for greenwashing”. This came hot on the heels of a new EU agreement for a new framework for sustainability products – designed to help consumers distinguish real action from marketing noise. NGOs have stepped up legal action against airlines over their claims and consultations on greenwashing in UK  financial services have been launched.  

This raises an important question: is greenwashing measurable? To measure, we must first define. So what do we mean by this term? Greenwashing is generally classified as making something seem more environmentally friendly than it is. And we’ve had “pinkwashing”, “rainbow washing” and other variants. The ‘washing’ means it’s superficial. It has elements of intent, deception and half-truths. The corporate report, advert or packing claim is seen as selective. A well-spun marketing line is alleged to be obscuring a wider story of impact.

But that sounds far too woolly to measure. Regulators, the UN, NGOs or anyone else can’t take action unless there is a clear categorisation of what is and isn’t greenwashing. We need to categorise in order to count, score, enforce or campaign. The trouble is, categorising greenwashing is pretty hard to do.

As luck would have it, research just published in the journal Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility has tackled exactly this. It describes greenwashing as “a naïve concept with blurry boundaries, since it is highly subjective and variable in time and space”. The authors found a lack of “hard data” on what greenwashing is, who is doing it and why. Without a firmer grasp on what is and isn’t greenwashing, it is much harder to call it out and correct it. The study authors also found a new group greenwashing: academics. Apparently articles have started appearing that use “greenwashing” in the title, but lack any substantive comment on the issue in the text.

Greenwashing is a slippery concept. We know it when we see it. But like many issues in measurement, it’s hard to be fully scientific and objective about. It’s good news that more attention is being paid to the gap between claims and reality. But until we get firmer on what exactly we mean, the debates over greenwashing will continue.