As I was searching the internet recently, I came across Christopher Hawthorne's LA Times article regarding the new Whole Foods Market in Pasadena. The store utilizes many different types of sustainable building material such as Neapolitan bamboo and Fireclay tile, both of which are incredibly eco-friendly substances. So why is this architecture critic so unhappy? Apparently, Hawthorne sees the mega-mart as ineffective in its purpose to create a "greener" environment. By constructing an obscenely large grocery store with high ceilings and endless underground parking spaces, the executives at Whole Foods Market have succeeded in creating a very non-sustainable structure. This trend of overly hyping up a company's environmental aspects is known as "greenwashing" and can be seen more often with every passing day. But my question is, why exactly is "greenwashing" viewed so negatively? Greenwashing is essentially a marketing technique used by businesses to attract consumers on the basis of their sustainable practices, making it impossible to employ this strategy without first implementing the green practices to begin with. Should we not be applauding the efforts of companies to convert their old ways in order to approach the consumer market on a more environmental level? I was prompted to further delve into this topic to discover the answer for myself.To the average person "greenwashing" may be a wholly unfamiliar term and was something even I was unaware of prior to reading Hawthorne's article. According to Greenwashing Index, the term functions on the same premise as "whitewashing," but in an environmental framework; it is "a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts." In other words, businesses spend more time, effort, funds, and energy in touting their "greenness" rather than actually implementing truly sustainable practices. This is done through visual or textual misrepresentations, obscure claims regarding their environmental impact, exaggeration of a product's sustainability, and a failure to provide a complete picture by leaving out essential information. Greenwashing Index also goes on to discuss what precisely the problem with this deceptive tactic is. It is true that not all instances of this marketing technique amount to the same level of unacceptability. Some companies may be unknowingly doing so in a very mild way while others may be purposefully misleading their customers. In general greenwashing poses potential risks to the environment, to the consumer, and to the business carrying out the act. It can be environmentally damaging if it encourages the public to support companies that actually do more harm than good, which in turn causes buyers of supposedly green products to invest their money into brands that do no such thing. Although businesses may initially profit from an increase in sales, they ultimately suffer when the truth is discovered about their practices, possibly marring the company's reputation and public standing beyond repair.
Looking back at the Whole Foods Market example in Pasadena, it is unlikely that this is one of the more severe cases of greenwashing, but as Hawthorne writes in his article, "Somewhere along the way, for both organic grocers and the corporate patrons of green architecture, the line between planet-saving and aggressive marketing became blurred." Nonetheless, Whole Foods loyalist will continue to shop there for the organic produce and goods, despite the fact that the existence of this giant emporium runs counter to the company's core beliefs, such as reducing resource consumption. In my opinion the decision makers at Whole Foods Market did not want to create a huge energy wasting building but realized that with their company expanding at a rapid pace, it was somewhat of a necessary evil to create this behemoth grocery store. As far as large structures go, it is fair to say that this is one of the greener ones that at least makes some attempt at sustainability. However, it is misleading to the public for the company to boast their use of eco-friendly materials when they have countless television sets turned on all day and all night long. What people need to be wary of in this instance is the negative impact the store could be causing despite their attempts to maintain a green building.
I came across a second instance of greenwashing on the Green Living Tips website where author Michael Bloch recounted his experience at a supermarket. The culprit this time was not the actual store, but rather a particular brand of eggs being sold at the store. Bloch stated, "It had an eco-type brand name in bright packaging and proclaimed how buying those eggs are good for the planet.... I was about to purchase a dozen but there was a big, but subtle, gotcha. In a color very similar to the packaging I saw the words 'Cage.'" This brand extolled its many green customs
such as using recycled material for the egg cartons, using recycled water, and planting trees, but the one very significant detail that the company failed to display prominently on the package was the fact that their eggs came from caged birds. In many cases the conditions that caged hens live in are extremely barbaric and inhumane (see picture to the right); it may not have been the case for this particular company, as the author was unable to find any evidence of the living arrangements of the fowls through the company website, but the reproachful thing that still remains is the manner in which the brand conveyed this message to their consumers. Rather than placing it on their product in a way that was easily seen, as they did for every bit of green information regarding their eggs, they chose to disguise it, making the lettering nearly the same color as the package. This represents a clear example of a business's attempt to mislead through visual and textual means.In the end, it is becoming painfully clear that the public is not as incompetent as marketing companies may believe them to be. Greenbiz.com reports that in a recent survey conducted by Brandchannel.com, readers did not think there was a single company that could be considered truly green or to be going green. "Almost 20 percent of the 2,000 survey respondents said no brand is serious about being green." One reader stated, "Very often, the 'green' aspect of the business is far outweighed by the 'non-green' areas." Sound familiar? Surprisingly enough, the respondents to the Brandchannel.com survey were mostly those who work in marketing. It is perhaps this familiarity within the field that makes them attentive to the greenwashing tactics of businesses. But as our society continues to grow and advance in the realm of sustainability, it is unmistakable that companies who are falling behind or who willingly choose to manipulate their customers into believing they are more green than they truly are, suffer from negative publicity and a downturn in consumer loyalty. Greenwashing may be evidence of a change in the market to meet the higher demand for environmentalism, but it is also indicative of a serious problem with businesses who try to use this platform in a false and deceptive manner. It is most certainly not something that should be applauded as progressive but rather chastised. The best way to counter this misleading tactic is for the public to be aware and alert in its consumer choices. It is something for us to all keep in mind the next time we decide to go out and spend money on a product we believe to be green.
