An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN
INCONVENIENT
TRUTH
ABOUT
THE
PUBLIC
RELATIONS
INDUSTRY

AND
GREENWASHING

by

Kaylee
Weatherly

A
White
Paper
Presented
to
the

FACULTY
OF
THE
USC
GRADUATE
SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY
OF
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA

In
Partial
Fulfillment
of
the

Requirements
for
the
Degree

MASTER
OF
ARTS

(STRATEGIC
PUBLIC
RELATIONS)

May
2014

Copyright
2014

Kaylee
Weatherly

Weatherly

|

2

Dedication

Thank
you
to
my
mother
and
father
for
being
my
number
one
fans
and
supporting

me
on
my
big
dream
of
bettering
the
environment.
You
have
instilled
the
emotional
and

mental
strength
in
me
to
help
me
get
through
graduate
school
and
to
finish
this
milestone.

I’m
truly
thankful
for
everything
you’ve
taught
me
about
perseverance
and
not
allowing
me

to
give
up
when
this
project
got
tough.

Thank
you
to
my
wonderful
friends
who
have
cheered
me
on
to
the
end
of
graduate

school.
Your
support
and
love
mean
the
world.

Weatherly

|

3

Acknowledgments

This
thesis
would
not
have
been
completed
without
the
help
of
my
three

extraordinary
USC
Annenberg
committee
members.
Thank
you
to
Jennifer
Floto
who

supported
my
ideas
and
voice
throughout
this
entire
process;
to
Laura
Min
Jackson
who

brought
reason
and
balance
to
my
paper,
and
to
Dr.
Kjerstin
Thorson
who
strengthened
my

research
for
this
topic.
I
am
so
grateful
for
the
thoughtful
advice
and
recommendations
you

all
provided
that
will
greatly
benefit
me
through
my
career.

Thank
you
to
Anne
Pernick
from
Corporate
Ethics
International
(CEI)
and

the
Business
Ethics
Network
(BEN)
who
took
the
time
to
connect
me
with
the
best
sources

to
interview
for
this
thesis.

Finally,
thank
you
to
Kenny
Bruno,
co-‐author
of
Greenwash:
The
Reality
Behind

Corporate
Environmentalism,
who
provided
me
with
an
insightful
interview
on
corporate

social
responsibility
and
greenwashing.

Weatherly

|

4

List
of
Exhibits

Exhibit
1:
Newsweek’s
10
Greenest
Companies
in
America
in
2012,
Newsweek.com
..........32

Exhibit
2:
Newsweek’s
10
Least
Green
Companies
in
America
in
2012,
Newsweek.com
....32

Exhibit
3:
Accenture’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Accenture.com
.......................................33

Exhibit
4:
Sprint’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Sprint.com
.......................................................33

Exhibit
5:
HP’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
HP.com
.....................................................................34

Exhibit
6:
IBM’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
IBM.com
................................................................34

Exhibit
7:
FirstEnergy’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Firstenergy.com
................................35

Exhibit
8:
Archer-‐Daniels-‐Midland
Environmental
Advertisement,
ADM.com
........................35

Exhibit
9:
Alpha
Natural
Resources
Environmental
Advertisement,
Alphanr.com
................36

Exhibit
10:
Screenshot
from
Alpha
Natural
Resources
Corporate
Video,
Alphanr.com
......36

Exhibit
11:
Screenshot
from
Alpha
Natural
Resources
Corporate
Video,
Alphanr.com
......36

Exhibit
12:
Peabody’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Peabodyenergy.com
............................37

Exhibit
13:
Monsanto’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Monsanto.com
....................................38

Exhibit
14:
Top
Three
Industries
with
the
Most
Articles
with
“Greenwash”
in
the

Newspaper
Headlines,
According
to
Lexis
Nexis
....................................................................................44

Exhibit
15:
Content
Analysis
Cross
Tabulation
of
Year
and
Type
of
Content
with

“Greenwash”
in
the
Headline
...........................................................................................................................46

Exhibit
16:
Word
Cloud
of
the
Most
Frequently
Used
Negative
Terms
to
Describe

Greenwashing
Based
on
Content
Analysis
.................................................................................................47

Exhibit
17:
Industries
Where
the
Most
Greenwashing
Occurred
Based
on
the
Author’s

Content
Analysis
...................................................................................................................................................48

Exhibit
18:
Article/Post
Numerical
Results
of
Industries
Where
Greenwashing
Occurred

the
Most
....................................................................................................................................................................49

Exhibit
19:
Numerical
Results
From
the
Author’s
Content
Analysis
Question:
“From
What

Industry
Does
it
[Article/Post]
Mention
a
Company?”
.........................................................................50

Exhibit
20:
Patagonia’s
“Don’t
Buy
This
Jacket”
Advertisement,
Patagonia.com
....................69

List
of
Appendices

Appendix
A-1:
Content
Analysis
Survey
Questions
&
Results
.........................................................91

Appendix
B-1:
Kenny
Bruno
Interview
Transcription
.....................................................................100

Weatherly

|

5

Table
of
Contents

Dedication
...................................................................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements
.................................................................................................................................................3

List
of
Exhibits............................................................................................................................................................4

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................................6

I.
An
Introduction
to
“An
Inconvenient
Truth…”
.................................................................................7

II.
An
Introduction
to
Corporate
Social
Responsibility....................................................................8

A
Brief
History
.............................................................................................................................................8

III.
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Consumer
Purchasing..............................................11

IV.
Why
Corporations
Commit
to
CSR
.....................................................................................................16

How
External
Pressures
Can
Help
Corporations
Commit
to
Social
Responsibility……...17

How
Internal
Pressures
Can
Help
Corporations
Commit
to
Social
Responsibility……....21

V.
Greenwashing
in
Marketing
&
Public
Relations
.........................................................................22

A
Brief
History
of
Greenwashing
in
Marketing
&
Public
Relations.......................................22

The
Federal
Trade
Commission’s
Green
Guides
...........................................................................23

Watchdog
Agencies
of
Greenwashing..............................................................................................27

How
to
Spot
Greenwashing..................................................................................................................28

VI.
Visual
Illustrations
of
Greenwashing
..............................................................................................31

VII.
Content
Analysis:
Media
Perceptions
of
Greenwashing
.....................................................41

Initial
Primary
Research/Hypotheses.............................................................................................41

Methodology...............................................................................................................................................42

Findings
......................................................................................................................................................44

Discussion
...................................................................................................................................................50

VIII.
An
Inconvenient
Truth
About
the
PR
Industry
&
Greenwashing..................................52

The
Rise
of
Environmental
Public
Relations
.................................................................................52

Agents
of
Greenwashing
in
Public
Relations
...............................................................................54

The
Benefits
and
Dangers
of
Cross-Pollination
...........................................................................57

Dark
Tactics...............................................................................................................................................60

IX.
Case
Study:
Keep
America
Beautiful
................................................................................................62

X.
Case
Study:
Patagonia

...............................................................................................................................66

XI.
Public
Relations
Fights
Back
................................................................................................................71

The
Public
Relations
Society
of
America
........................................................................................71

The
UK’s
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations
........................................................................74

XII.
Best
Practices
..............................................................................................................................................78

It’s
Not
Easy
Being
Green
....................................................................................................................78

What
Makes
a
Good
CSR
Report
........................................................................................................79

XIII.
Current
CSR
and
Greenwashing
......................................................................................................81

XIV.
Consequences
of
Greenwashing
......................................................................................................82

Future
Implications
for
Environmental
PR
..................................................................................82

Reference
List
.......................................................................................................................................................86

Weatherly

|

6

Glossary
of
Terms

1.
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
(pg.7)
–
“The
corporate
belief
that
a
company
needs
to
be

responsible
for
its
actions
–
socially,
ethically,
and
environmentally.”
1

2.
Greenwashing
(pg.7)
–
Disinformation
disseminated
by
an
organization,
etc.,
so
as
to

present
an
environmentally
responsible
public
image;
a
public
image
of
environmental

responsibility
promulgated
by
or
for
an
organization,
etc.,
but
perceived
as
being

unfounded
or
intentionally
misleading.
2

3.
Sustainability
(pg.8)
–
The
idea
that
a
corporation
aims
to
use
resources
efficiently
and

wisely
to
cut
costs
and
minimize
impacts
on
the
natural
environment,
in
turn
bringing
long-‐
term
economic
prosperity
to
the
organization.

4.
Press
Freedom
Index
(pg.52)
–
A
reflection
of
the
attitudes
and
intentions
of
governments

towards
media
freedom.

5.
Union
Carbide
Bhopal
Crisis
(pg.53)
–
The
worst
industrial
accident
in
history
occurred
in

Bhopal,
India
in
1984
when
a
pesticide
plant
leaked
methyl
isocyanate
gas,
killing
at
least

3,800
people.
3

6.
Bluewashing
(pg.79)
–
A
United
Nations
assertion
that
corporations
should
abide
by
the

UN
Global
Compact
initiative
to
be
a
good
corporate
citizen
in
developing
countries.
4

1

"Glossary."
Http://ombo.berkeley.edu/.
University
of
California,
Berkeley,
n.d.
Web.
27
Dec.

2013.

2

"The
Greenwash
Guide."
Futerra.co.uk.
Futerra
Sustainability
Communications,
11

Apr.
2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

3

Broughton,
Edward.
"The
Bhopal
Disaster
and
Its
Aftermath:
A
Review."Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

U.S.
National
Library
of
Medicine,
05
Oct.
2005.
Web.
27
Dec.
2013.

4

"Bluewashing."
Nytimes.com.
The
New
York
Times,
4
Feb.
2010.
Web.
Dec.
2013.

Weatherly

|

7

I.
An
Introduction
to
“An
Inconvenient
Truth
About
the
Public
Relations
Industry
and

Greenwashing”

It’s
no
secret
that
many
corporations
have
a
significant
amount
of
power
and

wealth.
Today,
corporations
have
the
opportunity
to
use
corporate
social
responsibility

(CSR)
initiatives
to
help
mitigate
the
world’s
most
challenging
environmental
problems,

including
climate
change,
waste
reduction
and
the
preservation
of
our
natural
resources.

Communicating
about
corporate
social
responsibility
is
important
for
a
corporation’s
many

stakeholders
and
shareholders
to
understand
what
a
company
is
trying
to
accomplish
by

strategically
aligning
its
business
with
an
environmental
challenge
it
wants
to
help

overcome.
Public
relations
practitioners
have
the
responsibility
to
market
a
corporation’s

sustainability
messages
and
product
claims
in
an
ethical
and
legitimate
manner.

However,
the
author
believes
we’re
at
a
crossroads
when
it
comes
to
environmental

CSR
and
the
public
relations
practice.
There’s
an
imminent
danger
to
the
PR
industry’s

reputation
if
corporations
continue
on
the
path
of
greenwashing;
that
is,
communicating

misleading
or
false
environmental
claims.
But
the
author
trusts
that
corporations,
with
the

help
of
public
relations
practitioners,
can
change
the
corporate
greenwashing
practices
this

paper
identifies.

First,
this
thesis
looks
at
the
history
of
corporate
social
responsibility
and
how

greenwashing
made
its
way
into
CSR.
The
author
tries
to
help
consumers
identify

greenwash
through
the
use
of
different
“greenwashing”
guides,
and
then
compares

environmental
advertisements
from
the
greenest
companies
in
America
to
the
least
green

companies
in
America,
according
to
Newsweek’s
2012
Green
Rankings.
The
author
then

looks
at
media
reports
on
greenwashing
to
draw
conclusions
on
how
the
media
portray
the

Weatherly

|

8

misleading
practice
of
greenwashing.
Next,
the
author
identifies
several
greenwashing

cases
that
have
occurred
in
the
PR
industry
to
help
the
industry
learn
from
its
past.
Then,

the
author
dives
into
two
case
studies
that
compare
what
could
be
considered
a
true

corporate
social
responsibility
campaign
to
a
corporate
and
special
interest
group
initiative

that
could
be
deemed
as
greenwashing.
Finally,
the
author
presents
best
practices
for
PR

practitioners
when
making
environmental
marketing
claims
and
provides
future

implications
for
the
PR
industry
and
corporate
sustainability.

This
thesis
looks
at
where
the
PR
industry
has
been
through
honest
examples
and

the
author’s
fervent
hope
that
corporations
and
the
public
relations
industry
will,
together,

change
their
directions.

II.
Introduction
to
Corporate
Social
Responsibility

A.
A
Brief
History

The
idea
of
corporate
social
responsibility
has
been
around
since
the
1950s.
It

succeeded
a
long
tradition
of
what
was
loosely
viewed
as
corporate
philanthropy.
Even

then,
CSR
was
considered
a
voluntary
practice
and
typically
involved
writing
giant
checks

to
charities;
meanwhile,
more
sophisticated
applications
of
CSR
gained
popularity
in

Western
European
countries
in
the
mid-‐
1990s
and
took
off
from
there.
CSR
has
evolved

since
corporations
first
used
it
as
a
strategy
to
become
better
corporate
citizens;
however,

it
also
has
evolved
as
necessary
practices
for
mid-‐size
and
large
corporations
to
compete
in

today’s
global
market.
Today,
CSR
is
more
than
just
philanthropic
programs
corporations

create
for
their
communities.
It
is
now
embedded
in
many
leading
corporations’
business

models
and
has
changed
every
day
business
practices
to
comply
with
the
vision
of
the

triple
bottom
line
-‐-‐
the
3P’s
of
people,
planet
and
profits.
This
strategy
may
net
a

Weatherly

|

9

competitive
advantage
for
corporations,
enabling
them
to
benefit
society
and
protect
the

environment,
all
while
maximizing
profits.
5

CSR
also
has
been
considered
controversial
due
to
corporations’
reasons
for

choosing
to
participate
in
socially
responsible
activities.
CSR
may
be
enacted
because
of
a

CEO’s
desire
to
make
a
difference
in
society
and
leave
a
legacy
of
social
goodwill.
Or,
it
can

begin
because
of
research
indicating
strong
connections
between
brand
loyalty
and
the

reputation
of
corporations
involved
in
social
responsibility
initiatives.
5

Another
reason
companies
establish
CSR
programs
is
because
of
recent
conveying

consumers’
desire
to
purchase
goods
and
services
from
companies
that
benefit
the
world

through
a
social
and
environmental
platform.
Corporate
officials
may
thus
view
CSR
as

providing
an
opportunity
for
return
on
investment
and
maximizing
profits.
5

From
the
1990s
to
the
early
2000s,
corporations
began
to
feel
the
pressure
of

participating
in
social
responsibility.
By
2002,
51
of
the
world’s
largest
economies
were

said
to
be
companies,
not
countries.
5

The
increased
emphasis
on
corporations’
overall

financial
growth
led
to
pursuit
of
new
options,
such
as
outsourcing
as
a
way
for

corporations
to
find
inexpensive
labor
in
developing
countries
where
government

regulations
on
labor
and
environmental
standards
were
limited
or
non-‐existent.
Activists,

however,
soon
began
disapprovingly
“wagging
their
fingers”
at
corporations
that

contracted
with
manufacturers
who
engaged
in
poor
labor
standards
and
caused
ecological

deterioration.
As
the
activism
grew,
the
companies
participating
in
irresponsible
and

unethical
outsourcing
began
to
see
their
brand
reputation
fall
along
with
profits.

5

Waddock,
Sandra.
"Corporate
Citizenship."
Encyclopedia
of
Business
Ethics
and

Society.
Ed.
Robert
W.
Kolb.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.,
2008.
457-‐
66.
SAGE
knowledge.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

Weatherly

|

10

Meanwhile,
their
CSR-‐savvy
competitors
enjoyed
better
reputations
and
improved
profit

margins.
5

Activists
continued
to
increase
the
pressure
and
demand
that
corporations
abide
by

codes
of
conduct.
Finally,
the
United
Nations
Global
Compact
was
established
in
2000.
The

UN
Global
Compact
is
a
voluntary
initiative
for
businesses
to
commit
to
10
universally

accepted
principles
in
the
areas
of
human
rights,
labor,
environment
and
anti-‐corruption.

Today,
the
Compact
includes
10,000
companies
across
145
countries
that
have
voluntarily

pledged
to:
not
abuse
human
rights;
eliminate
child
labor
and
discrimination
in
its
work

places;
undertake
initiatives
to
promote
environmental
responsibility
and
encourage
the

development
of
sustainable
technologies,
and
finally,
to
work
against
potential
corruption,

including
extortion
and
bribery.
6

With
regard
to
corporate
environmental
responsibility,
the
Global
Compact
states

that
traditional
environmental
management
based
on
legal
compliance
and
narrow
risk

assessments
will
not
be
sufficient
enough
to
meet
the
most
daunting
environmental

challenges.
The
Compact
created
an
Environmental
Stewardship
Strategy
in
conjunction

with
Duke
University,
which
details
ways
corporations
can
increase
their
sustainability

approaches,
based
on
four
pillars
wherein
corporate
leaders:

• Embed
environmental
stewardship
in
all
facets
of
its
organization.

• Balance
short-‐
and
long-‐
term
targets
and
goals.

• Diffuse
best
practices
throughout
the
value
chain
by
collaborating
with
stakeholders.

• Translate
those
best
practices
in
the
diverse
geographies
where
it
operates.

6

"The
Ten
Principles."
The
Ten
Principles.
United
Nations,
n.d.
Web.
05
Jan.
2014.

Weatherly

|

11

The
Environmental
Stewardship
Strategy
also
provides
incentives
to
persuade

corporations
to
promote
greater
environmental
responsibility,
including
greater
cost

effectiveness
by
enacting
sustainable
changes
rather
than
to
continue
operating
with

older
and
inefficient
technologies
and
processes.
Corporations
also
have
the
ability
to

increase
profits
by
practicing
sustainability,
because
environmentally
responsible

companies
may
enjoy
a
bigger
brand
reputation,
and
some
investors
may
be
more
willing

to
invest
in
responsible
corporations.
The
Environmental
Stewardship
Strategy
states

that
environmentally
responsible
companies
must
do
more
than
simply
publish
a

sustainability
report
and
reduce
waste
in
factories;
ultimately,
they
must
change
how

they
manage
their
relationships
with
the
environment.
7

The
Compact
pushed
responsibility
one
step
further
with
the
creation
of
the
Global

Compact
LEAD,
a
platform
for
environmental
sustainability
leadership
in
2011.
This

initiative
invited
50
leading
companies,
which
have
already
participated
in
the
Compact,
to

reach
new
levels
of
performance
and
impact
by
meeting
the
most
demanding
social,

environmental
and
economic
challenges
of
this
century.
It
also
helps
companies
integrate

best
practices
of
corporate
transparency
and
disclosure.
8

III.
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Consumer
Purchasing:
“Green”
Sells

Corporate
social
responsibility
could
create
a
link
to
consumer
purchasing,
because

some
consumers
are
so
eager
to
purchase
environmentally
friendly
products
and
could
be

more
likely
to
be
loyal
to
a
brand
that
produces
sustainable
products
and
services.
In
a

7

"Environment."
Environment.
United
Nations,
9
Dec.
2011.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

8

"Environmental
Stewardship
Strategy."
Unglobalcompact.org.
United
Nations
and

Duke
University,
June
2010.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

12

survey
of
more
than
1,000
Americans
conducted
by
Good.Must.Grow,
a
business
that

markets
itself
as
a
socially
responsible
consulting
practice,
30
percent
of
respondents
said

they
planned
to
purchase
goods
and
services
from
socially
responsible
companies
in
the

coming
year.
Even
25
percent
of
the
consumers
that
were
surveyed
said
they
would

specifically
avoid
purchasing
something
from
a
company
if
it
were
not
socially
responsible.

The
survey
implies
that
one
important
and
necessary
way
for
CSR
to
move
forward
with

full
transparency
is
if
consumer
demand
pushes
it
along.
The
survey
states
that
consumers

rated
“being
green”
at
83
percent
on
the
Conscious
Consumer
Spending
Index,
a
tool
that

calculates
the
importance
consumers
place
on
purchasing
goods
and
services
from
socially

responsible
companies.
According
to
the
survey’s
sponsor,
consumers
believed
they
could

drive
the
most
positive
change
through
an
economic
perspective
by
spending
money
on

socially
responsible
products
and
services.
9

In
the
2013
Cone
Communications
and
Echo
Research
Global
CSR
Study,
more
than

90
percent
of
10,000
surveyed
consumers
said
that
when
a
company
supports
a
social
or

environmental
need,
consumers
will
have
a
more
positive
image
of
the
company;
are
more

likely
to
trust
that
company,
and
will
continue
to
be
loyal
to
that
company
by
purchasing
its

goods
or
services.
Also,
92
percent
of
respondents
said
they
would
purchase
a
product
with

a
social
or
environmental
benefit,
and
91
percent
were
more
likely
to
switch
to
a
different

brand
that
supported
a
good
cause.
This
survey
also
identified
the
reasons
why
consumers

purchased
or
wanted
to
purchase
products
and
services
from
a
socially
responsible

company.
Almost
half
of
the
respondents
said
they
purchased
social
or
environmentally

9

"Purpose-‐Driven
Consumers
Planning
Sharp
Increase
in
Socially
Conscious

Purchases,
New
Good.Must.Grow.
Study
Finds."
Bulldogreporter.com.
Bulldog

Reporter,
10
Apr.
2013.
Web.
June
2013.

Weatherly

|

13

friendly
products
because
they
wanted
to
improve
society
or
reduce
ecological
damage.

The
survey
findings
imply
that
most
consumers
hold
themselves
accountable
for
their

purchases
and
want
companies
to
do
the
same
when
making
their
products.
However,
nine

in
10
global
consumers
said
they
would
boycott
purchasing
a
certain
product
or
service

from
a
company
if
they
learned
about
a
company’s
irresponsible
business
practices,
and

more
than
half
of
respondents
said
they
had
done
so
in
the
past
year.
In
today’s
global

market,
purchases
or
non-‐purchases
are
often
based
on
an
emotional
or
ethical
pull.
As
the

Cone/Echo
Research
Group
study
showed,
it’s
important
for
consumers
to
feel
that
they

are
purchasing
from
a
company
that
shares
their
morals
and
values
about
the

environmental
and
social
well-‐being
of
the
world.
10

While
this
consumer
behavior
might
seem
like
a
positive
driving
force,
some

corporations
may
see
this
demand
as
an
opportunity
to
greenwash.
“Greenwashing”
is
a

somewhat
derogatory
term
intended
to
describe
communication
that
is
misleading
or

falsely
conveys
an
organization’s
commitment
to
environmental
sustainability,
according
to

Futerra’s
Greenwashing
Guide.
11

It
may
be
closely
linked
to
corporate
social
responsibility,

because
of
the
sustainability
aspect
that
is
usually
housed
within
a
company’s
CSR

initiatives.
It’s
the
“planet,”
in
the
people,
planet
and
profit
idiom
of
the
triple
bottom
line.

Typically,
an
organization
wants
to
commit
to
a
business
model
that
encompasses

environmental
protection,
but
sometimes
falls
short
on
that
promise
for
a
variety
of

reasons,
whether
due
to
malicious
intent
to
be
untruthful
about
environmental
protection,

10

"2013
Cone
Communications/Echo
Global
CSR
Study."
Global
CSR
Study.
Cone

Communications
and
Echo
Research,
22
May
2013.
Web.
June
2013.

11

"The
Greenwash
Guide."
Futerra.co.uk.
Futerra
Sustainability
Communications,
11

Apr.
2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

14

or
because
an
organization’s
internal
team
is
ill-‐informed
or
inexperienced
about
green

marketing
regulations
and
how
to
correctly
communicate
those
messages
or
product

claims.
If
consumers
are
willing
to
pay
more
money
for
a
socially
responsible
product
or

service,
based
on
their
desire
to
help
a
social
or
environmental
cause,
corporations
may

consider
adding
a
“biodegradable”
label
on
a
cleaning
product
or
a
“recyclable”
label
on
a

cracker
box.
The
survey
data
previously
mentioned
demonstrate
that
consumers
WANT
to

purchase
from
a
socially
responsible
company,
yet
they
might
have
a
difficult
time

distinguishing
true
sustainability
from
a
label
or
colorful,
green
picture
that
merely

suggests
that
a
product
or
service
is
environmentally
friendly.

Kenny
Bruno,
campaign
director
at
Corporate
Ethics
International,
and
the
co-‐
author
of
Greenwash:
The
Reality
Behind
Corporate
Environmentalism
argues
in
an

interview
conducted
for
this
whitepaper
that
the
act
of
greenwashing
does
not
come
from

corporations
wanting
to
fulfill
a
consumer
desire
to
purchase
socially
responsible
goods

and
services.
Nevertheless,
Bruno
believes
it’s
important
for
the
consumer
to
have
a

“healthy
dose
of
skepticism”
around
products
labeled
“green”
and
“organic.”
The
duty
falls

on
consumers,
he
says,
to
educate
themselves
on
products
and
the
environmental

consequences
that
may
or
may
not
arise
from
the
manufacturing
of
a
product.
12

As
Bruno
states,
consumers
are
becoming
increasingly
aware
of
this
type
of

misleading
communication.
The
Good.Must.Grow
survey
showed
that
consumers
were

skeptical
about
companies
that
marketed
themselves
as
socially
responsible,
with
63

percent
of
respondents
saying
they
only
sometimes
trust
a
company’s
claims,
and
over
half

12

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

15

of
the
consumers
saying
they
evaluated
whether
a
company
was
socially
responsible
by
the

packaging
and
by
what
they
heard
in
the
news.

It
seems
American
consumers
are
increasingly
aware
of
greenwashing,
and
they’re

discussing
it
on
their
favorite
social
media
channels.
Research
conducted
by
the
author

indicates
that,
during
a
24-‐hour
period
in
September
2013,
there
were
an
average
of
12-‐20

posts
daily
with
the
hashtag
“greenwashing”
on
Twitter.
There
also
were
more
tweets
in

languages
other
than
English,
which
prompts
one
to
wonder
whether
consumers
in

different
countries
(especially
in
the
European
Union)
might
be
more
aware
of

greenwashing
than
Americans.
The
author
also
found
numerous
Facebook
pages
about

greenwashing,
such
as
“Greenwashing
Hall
of
Shame,”
which
had
more
than
400
likes,
and

a
contest
page
devoted
to
putting
a
“CAPP
on
Tar
Sands
Greenwashing,”
with
more
than

650
likes.
A
search
on
Facebook’s
hashtag
page
revealed
five
posts
with
“#greenwashing”

and
one
post
with
“#greenwash.”
There
were
even
a
multitude
of
Pinterest
pins
on

greenwashing,
especially
related
to
consumer
products.

The
Cone
Communications
and
Echo
Research
survey
also
found
that
88
percent
of

respondents
believed
companies
withhold
negative
information
about
their
CSR
efforts,

and
70
percent
reported
being
confused
about
CSR
messages.
This
could
mean
clear

language
and
well-‐defined
messages
are
not
being
used
when
corporations
promote
their

environmentally-‐
or
socially
responsible
products
or
services.

The
author
of
this
thesis
believes
two
cases
can
be
made
as
to
why
consumers

express
skepticism
about
corporations’
social
responsibility
efforts.
The
first
is
that
a

corporation
may
actually
be
providing
factually
and
true
sustainability
messages
about
its

programs,
products
or
services,
but
consumers
do
not
trust
the
company
or
its
messages

Weatherly

|

16

because
of
inherent
skepticism.
The
second
reason
is
that
competitive
corporations
may
be

using
similar
sustainability
messaging,
but
at
least
one
corporation
is
not
actually
engaged

in
providing
products
or
services
that
are
truly
beneficial
for
the
environment.
Thus,

consumers
may
become
confused
as
to
which
corporation
is
actually
providing
accurate

information
and
distrust
which
product
they
should
purchase.
Misleading
environmental

communication
is
creating
a
murky
cloud
in
today’s
“green”
consumer
market
and
possibly

not
keeping
ethical
corporations
from
making
headway
in
this
regard.

If,
as
the
Cone/Echo
Research
Group
study
indicated,
70
percent
of
consumers
are

skeptical
about
CSR
messages,
truly
sustainable
corporations
will
have
to
fight
to
convey

their
position
with
greater
transparency
and
honesty.
Products
from
responsible

corporations
are
typically
on
the
same
shelf
as
those
from
corporations
that
may
be

greenwashing,
and
consumers
might
decide
to
not
purchase
any
sustainably
marketed

product
out
of
confusion
or
frustration.
Responsible
corporations
may
not
be
receiving
the

recognition,
consumer
loyalty
(and
profits)
they
deserve,
which
could
then
be
applied

toward
further
improving
an
environmental
or
social
program
for
the
benefit
of
the
world.

IV.
Why
Corporations
Commit
to
CSR

The
link
to
corporate
social
responsibility,
and
potentially
greenwashing,
can
be

directed
back
to
the
start
of
the
environmental
movement.
According
to
Kevin
Wehr
in

Green
Culture:
An
A
to
Z
Guide,
the
“Environmental
Revolution”
movement
is
credited
in

part
to
Rachel
Carson’s
1962
novel,
Silent
Spring,
which
unveiled
the
harms
of
DDT

(dichloro-‐diphenyl-‐trichloroethane)
chemicals
in
U.S.
agriculture.
The
nation
soon
became

aware,
and
more
importantly
concerned,
about
the
dangers
of
chemicals
and
the
harm
it

caused
to
society
and
the
environment.

Weatherly

|

17

A.
How
External
Pressures
Can
Help
Corporations
Commit
to
Social
Responsibility

Wehr
states
that
the
modern
development
of
green
corporate
culture
may
be

pinpointed
to
the
external
pressures
from
alliances
with
environmental
nonprofit

organizations
and
environmental
regulations
from
policymakers,
which
helped
put

sustainability
on
the
corporate
radar
in
the
1980s.
External
pressure
arising
from
a

combination
of
shareholders,
government
and
consumers
is
an
essential
way
for

corporations
to
commit
to
becoming
environmentally
friendly.
Shareholders
can
demand

greater
CSR
commitment
from
corporations,
if
companies
want
to
attract
investor
money.

Customers
may
have
a
strong
impact
on
a
corporation’s
decision
to
become
more

sustainable
by
enacting
boycotts
(choosing
to
not
purchase
a
corporation’s
product)
or

“buycotts”
(buying
and
promoting
a
corporation’s
product).
13

Based
on
consumer
behavior,

a
corporation
may
see
an
increase
or
decrease
in
profits
and
brand
reputation.
Based
on
a

2013
survey
by
Hill
+
Knowlton
Strategies
on
building
public
confidence,
91
percent
of

respondents
said
it
was
important
for
a
company
to
behave
sustainably
and
that

sustainable
behavior
is
critical
to
a
corporation’s
long-‐term
success.
Long-‐term
success
can

come
in
the
form
of
profits
and
economic
sustainability
for
many
large
corporations.
14

Another
type
of
external
pressure
that
comes
from
consumers
is
related
to

perceptions
of
brand
strength.
According
to
CSRHub,
which
calls
itself
“the
world’s
largest

aggregator
of
global
CSR
information,”
there
is
clear
evidence
of
greater
brand
strength

13

Wehr,
Kevin.
Green
Culture:
An
A-to-Z
Guide.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,

Inc.,
2011.
SAGE
knowledge.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

14

"Companies
Build
Public
Trust
Through
Sustainability
Reporting,
New
H&K

Research
Shows:
Most
Americans
Believe
Efforts
to
Be
Sustainable
Increase
Public

Trust
-‐-‐-‐
Even
When
Results
Fall
Short
of
Goals."
Bulldogreporter.com.
Bulldog

Reporter,
11
Apr.
2013.
Web.
June
2013.

Weatherly

|

18

with
companies
that
invest
in
sustainability,
and
greater
brand
strength
may
possibly
tie

into
increased
profits,
which
helps
make
a
better
business
case
for
the
investment
in
CSR.

CSRHub
ran
five
years
of
data
and
analyzed
more
than
1,000
companies
to
test
the

relationship
between
brand
strength
and
corporate
social
responsibility.
They
found
a
high

correlation
between
brand
reputation
and
environmental
policy
and
reporting;
companies

enjoyed
a
greater
brand
reputation
when
they
had
environmental
sustainability
embedded

in
their
business
models
or
had
environmental
programs.
The
interesting
part
of
this
data

was
that
in
2012,
CSR
correlation
and
brand
strength
more
than
doubled
to
28
percent
of

brand
strength
being
associated
with
CSR
performance
from
2011’s
10
percent
of
brand

strength
association
with
CSR
performance.
CSRHub’s
data
imply
that
now
is
an
ideal
time

for
companies
to
focus
on
their
socially
responsible
programs,
because
CSR
is
more

important
to
brand
strength
than
ever
before.
If
consumers
have
a
greater
loyalty
to
a

particular
brand
and
are
consistently
purchasing
products
and
services
from
a
company

they
believe
is
socially
responsible,
there
might
be
a
higher
return
on
investment
for
that

company.
15

The
CSRHub
data
is
exactly
what
CEOs
want
to
hear
when
considering
whether
to

invest
in
environmentally
friendly
programs
or
activities.
Socially
responsible
activities

also
provide
an
opportunity
for
a
company
to
be
strategic
in
distinguishing
itself
from

other
companies
and
products.
The
positive
trends
for
brand
strength
and
CSR

performance
generated
by
CSRHub
show
the
correlations
have
increased.
This
type
of

15

CSRHub.
"New
Insights
into
the
Correlation
Between
CSR
and
Brand

Strength."
Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
11
June
2013.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

19

external
pressure
could
help
influence
a
corporation’s
decision
to
not
only
revise
and

increase
its
environmental
policies,
but
to
increase
its
transparency
about
such
efforts.

Stricter
environmental
regulations
also
have
contributed
to
corporate
social

responsibility
practices.
Today,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
has
more
than

30
environmental
laws
and
executive
orders
to
ensure
companies
stay
in
compliance
with

regulations,
including
clean
water,
clean
air
and
proper
waste
removal.
16

However,
some

companies
may
mistakenly
believe
that
compliance
of
federal
and
state
environmental

regulations
is
sufficient
to
be
considered
“socially
responsible.”
Compliancy
creates
a
level

playing
field
for
CSR,
but
it’s
not
likely
to
be
a
strong
enough
strategy
for
corporations

striving
to
differentiate
themselves
from
other
companies.
Some
corporations
market
their

compliance
as
“environmental
sustainability”
by
reporting
reduced
carbon
emissions,

recycling
content,
or
improving
water
quality
where
they
operate
factories
or
stores.

However,
consumers
may
not
always
be
aware
that
sometimes
most
of
what
a
corporation

promotes
about
doing
environmental
good
could
actually
be
just
compliance
with
federal

and
state
regulations.
Marketing
compliance
can
be
misleading
for
consumers,
and

consumers
could
cry
“greenwash.”
Ideally,
corporate
social
responsibility
should
be
more

about
companies
trailblazing
environmental
initiatives
that
exceed
regulations
and

implementing
new
technologies
and
practices
that
are
ahead
of
the
curve.
Corporations

have
the
opportunity
to
pull
the
regulation
norms
towards
stronger
environmental

protection,
instead
of
just
meeting
the
basic
requirements.
17

16

"Laws
and
Executive
Orders."
Laws
and
Executive
Orders.
Environmental
Protection

Agency,
n.d.
Web.
Nov.
2013.

17

Wehr,
Kevin.
Green
Culture:
An
A-to-Z
Guide.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,

Inc.,
2011.
SAGE
knowledge.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

Weatherly

|

20

On
the
other
hand,
stricter
environmental
regulations
might
be
the
only
way
for

government
agencies
to
attain
compliance
from
corporations.
In
the
European
Union,

identifying
environmental
corporate
crime
is
a
priority
for
government
agencies,
and

environmental
criminals
face
fines
and
even
jail
time.
In
one
extreme
example
outside
of

the
U.S.,
Chinese
courts
are
now
allowing
death
sentences
for
Chinese
corporate
executives

who
are
found
guilty
as
extreme
polluters.
18

Sometimes
enacting
more
severe

consequences
(death
sentences
aside)
may
motivate
corporations
to
take
environmental

damage
seriously
and
might
be
the
primary
way
corporations
in
some
countries
reevaluate

their
responsibility
to
sustainability.

External
pressures
also
can
affect
the
company’s
brand
reputation.
Author
Kenny

Bruno
posits
that
a
corporation’s
main
motivation
to
engage
in
greenwashing
is
when

negative
attention
arises
about
its
products
or
services
not
being
the
most
environmentally

friendly,
and
it
needs
to
protect
its
reputation
with
stakeholders
such
as
consumers
and

nonprofits.
He
suggests
that
companies
without
products
that
present
potentially
negative

health
or
environmental
effects
have
less
incentive
to
greenwash;
the
practice
occurs
only

with
companies
that
know
they
are
not
being
ethical
with
their
products
and
are
fearful
of

what
reputational
harm
may
befall
the
company.
19

18

Siegel,
RP.
"China
Now
Handing
Down
Death
Penalty
to
Worst
Polluters."
Triple

Pundit
RSS.
N.p.,
3
July
2013.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

19

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

21

B.
How
Internal
Pressures
Can
Help
Corporations
Commit
to
Social
Responsibility

Finally,
internal
pressure
in
organizations
also
contributes
to
a
corporation’s

commitment
to
sustainability
and
social
responsibility.
WattzOn,
a
personal
energy

management
platform,
reported
survey
results
from
2013
indicating
that
U.S.
employees

valued
working
for
companies
that
were
committed
to
environmental
sustainability.
Only

27
percent
of
U.S.
workers
expressed
contentment
about
their
organizations’

environmental
programs,
and
75
percent
said
it
was
important
that
their
employers
take

action
to
commit
to
environmental
sustainability.
A
few
employees
were
even
willing
to

take
a
five
percent
pay
cut
to
work
for
a
company
that
had
pro-‐environmental
initiatives

versus
working
for
a
higher
paying
company
that
did
not
take
action
to
protect
the

environment,
and
one
in
four
respondents
indicated
they
would
consider
switching
to

companies
that
took
environmental
protection
seriously.
WattzOn
also
suggested
that

sustainable
initiatives
could
increase
employee
morale
and
increase
productivity
if
an

employee
felt
they
were
working
for
a
company
that
was
helping
the
environment.

Corporations
may
wish
to
take
these
findings
seriously
and
make
communicating
their

environmental
sustainability
policies
and
products
an
important
aspect
of
their
employee

communications.
The
WattzOn
survey
reveals
another
important
business
case
for

corporate
social
responsibility:
if
a
corporation
wants
to
keep
its
employees
satisfied
and

increase
productivity
or
efficiency
it
needs
to
ensure
it
is
taking
action
to
protect
the

environment.
20

The
survey
also
poses
implications
for
greenwashing,
as
well.
If
an

employee
learned
that
their
organization
used
greenwashing
as
a
manipulating
tactic
in
its

20

"CSR
In
Focus:
U.S.
Workers
Want
Their
Companies
to
Take
More
Action
to
Protect

the
Environment-‐-‐-‐But
Perception
and
Participation
Is
Low,
New
WattzOn
Study

Reveals."
Bulldogreporter.com.
Bulldog
Reporter,
7
June
2013.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

22

promotion
efforts,
it
could
motivate
him/her
to
potentially
seek
a
job
within
a
different

organization
that
was
truly
taking
the
initiative
to
protect
the
planet
and
be
ethical
in
its

communication.
Greenwashing
may
not
only
affect
an
organization’s
external
reputation,

but
it
can
affect
an
organization’s
internal
reputation
as
well,
and
it
can
lose
employees
if
it

cuts
corners
in
honesty
and
transparency.

V.
Greenwashing
in
Marketing
&
Public
Relations

A.
A
Brief
History
of
Greenwashing
in
Marketing
&
Public
Relations

According
to
Sharon
Beder,
author
of
Global
Spin:
The
Corporate
Assault
on

Environmentalism,
corporate
communicators
first
became
aware
of
greenwashing
in
the

1960s
when
Rachel
Carson’s
Silent
Spring
novel
shocked
the
nation
with
its
exposure
about

the
use
of
pesticides
and
other
chemicals
in
agriculture.
PR
firms
with
clients
such
as

Monsanto
and
Dow
Chemicals
set
out
to
transform
the
negative
image
American

consumers
had
about
the
agricultural
industry
after
this
book
was
released,
by
producing

damning
book
reviews
on
behalf
of
the
American
Chemical
Association,
an
organization

that
represented
the
main
producers
of
DDT.
Since
the
manifestation
of
Silent
Spring,

corporations
ran
to
PR
firms
to
“green”
their
images
and
find
ways
to
work
with

environmental
activists.
21

Greenwashing
also
became
a
part
of
the
Earth
Day
lexicon.
The
annual
holiday,
first

launched
in
1970,
is
commemorated
in
mid-‐April
and
helps
raise
awareness
of
solutions

for
environmental
problems.
By
1990,
many
corporations
saw
this
day
as
a
chance
to

“green”
their
images
and
sponsor
Earth
Day
events
with
local
nonprofits
or
environmental

community
groups.
21

21

Beder,
Sharon.
"Chapter
7:
The
Public
Relations
Industry."
Global
Spin:
The

Weatherly

|

23

B.
The
Federal
Trade
Commission’s
Green
Guides

But
as
more
corporate
greenwashing
appeared
in
the
early
‘90s,
the
Federal
Trade

Commission
(FTC)
sought
to
eradicate
intentionally
misleading
communication
by

publishing
guides
for
consumers
and
marketers.
In
1992,
the
FTC
and
the
EPA
collaborated

on
the
so-‐called
Green
Guides
to
help
marketers
ensure
their
claims
were
true
and
based

off
of
scientific
evidence.
The
Green
Guides
have
since
been
revised
three
times,
once
in

1996,
a
second
time
in
1998,
and
the
last
revision
occurring
in
2012.
These
Guides
not
only

regulate
actual
claims
made
by
corporations
regarding
green
product
attributes,
but
the

interpretation
of
green
claims
consumers
are
likely
to
make
about
a
product.
The
Guides

also
explain
that
a
company
must
specify
what
its
environmental
claim
refers
to:
the

packaging,
the
product,
or
the
manufacturing
of
it,
and
whether
such
claim(s)
apply
to
only

a
portion
of
the
packaging
or
the
entire
product.
22

The
Green
Guides
also
provide
specific
examples
to
clarify
the
regulation,
so

greenwashing
does
not
fall
through
the
cracks
in
communication.
For
example,
a
shower

curtain
might
be
labeled
“recyclable,”
but
it
might
not
say
whether
the
entire
product
is

recyclable,
or
just
the
packaging.
The
claim
would
be
misleading
if
it
didn’t
specify
the

claim
in
its
entirety.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
soda
bottle’s
entire
bottle
were
labeled

“recyclable,”
but
the
bottle
cap
were
not
recyclable,
the
claim
would
not
be
deceptive

Corporate
Assault
on
Environmentalism.
Dartington,
Totnes,
Devon,
UK:
Green,
2002.

107-‐24.
Print.

22

"Green
Guides."
Ftc.gov.
The
Federal
Trade
Commission,
1
Oct.
2012.
Web.
Aug.

2013.

Weatherly

|

24

because
the
bottle
cap
is
only
a
minor
component
compared
to
the
recyclability
of
the

entire
bottle.
23

In
addition,
the
Guides
interpret
irrelevant
environmental
claims
that
actually
are

deceptive.
For
example,
a
trash
bag
that
is
labeled
“recyclable”
without
proven
evidence

that
it
is,
in
fact,
recyclable
is
irrelevant;
since
trash
bags
are
not
usually
separated
from
the

actual
trash
within
the
bag
in
the
landfills,
they
are
never
actually
recycled.
According
to

the
Guides,
the
claim
would
have
no
environmental
benefit
and
be
considered
deceptive.
23

Another
claim
that
would
be
considered
irrelevant
is
overstating
an
environmental

benefit.
For
example,
a
product’s
label
is
considered
as
overstating
when
it
claims
it

contains
“50
percent
more
recycled
content
than
before”
when
recycled
content
of
the

product
really
only
increased
from
two
percent
to
three
percent.
Even
though
the
claim
is

technically
true,
it
misleads
consumers
into
thinking
that
the
manufacturer
has

dramatically
increased
the
product’s
recycled
content
and
presents
a
great
environmental

benefit.
However,
the
claim
“made
with
recycled
materials”
would
not
be
considered

deceptive
if
a
marketer
could
substantiate
the
claim
and
by
providing
scientific
evidence

that
it
was
in
fact
made
with
enough
recycled
material
that
could
be
considered
an

environmental
benefit.
23

One
of
the
most
popular
and
nuanced
greenwashing
claims
on
a
product
are
the

descriptions
of
“eco-‐friendly”
or
“all
natural.”
The
terms
convey
that
a
given
product
has
an

environmental
benefit
for
the
planet
and
does
not
have
any
negative
effects
on
the

biosphere
when
it
was
made,
when
it’s
used,
or
when
it’s
thrown
away.
These
terms
are

23

"Green
Guides."
Ftc.gov.
The
Federal
Trade
Commission,
1
Oct.
2012.
Web.
Aug.

2013.

Weatherly

|

25

deceptive,
however,
because
it’s
very
difficult
for
a
company
to
prove
any
of
these
claims

during
a
product’s
shelf
life.
PepsiCo
found
this
out
the
hard
way.
The
corporation
came

under
scrutiny
for
its
“all
natural”
claim
on
its
Naked
Juice
bottles.
As
of
2013,
the
U.S.
Food

and
Drug
Administration
has
not
yet
defined
the
term
“natural,”
because
most
food

ingredients
today
are
processed
and
not
a
product
of
the
soil,
plants
or
trees.
24

In
July
2013,

PepsiCo
paid
$9
million
to
settle
a
lawsuit
by
consumers
that
said
the
vegetable
and

smoothie
drink
did
not
contain
the
“natural”
ingredients
it
claimed
on
its
packaging.

Company
officials
realized
the
misleading
interpretation
consumers
carried
of
the
term
“all

natural”
and
has
since
nixed
the
ambiguous
label
from
its
drinks.
It’s
a
strong
example
of

ambiguous
claims
backfiring
on
a
corporation
and
demonstrating
that
greenwashing
can

not
only
hurt
a
brand’s
reputation,
but
cost
a
corporation
money.
25

Importantly,
the
Green
Guides
don’t
just
limit
the
regulation
of
words
that
might
be

considered
deceptive.
It
also
regulates
pictures,
drawings
and
photographs
that
might

mislead
consumers.
For
example,
a
product
label
could
be
considered
misleading
if
the

package
shows
a
picture
of
a
green
forest
with
smiley-‐faced
birds
that
could
make
a

consumer
believe
it
has
an
environmental
benefit.
The
same
interpretation
applies
to
a

picture
of
a
factory
with
colorful
flowers
sprouting
out
of
the
smoke
stacks.
The
consumer

is
more
likely
to
think
such
a
product
would
not
cause
any
environmental
destruction,
and

purchase
it
based
upon
this
assumption.

24

"What
Is
the
Meaning
of
'natural'
on
the
Label
of
Food?"
FDA.gov.
U.S.
Food
and
Drug

Administration,
n.d.
Web.
10
Jan.
2014.

25

Kaye,
Leon.
"PepsiCo
Scratches
"All
Natural"
Label
From
Naked
Juice

Bottles."
Triplepundit.com.
N.p.,
29
July
2013.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

26

The
Green
Guides
also
discuss
environmental
logos
that
are
independently

endorsed
or
endorsed
by
a
third
party.
It
references
a
“green
logo
for
environmental

excellence”
on
a
paint
can,
for
example.
The
logo
would
be
deceptive
because
it
does
not

provide
a
name
for
a
third
party
endorser,
and
it
misleads
consumers
into
assuming
the

paint
has
an
environmental
benefit
without
providing
any
such
evidence.
The
claim
would

not
be
deceptive
if
the
company
said
it
gave
its
own
product
a
seal
of
environmental

excellence
(even
if
the
requirements
were
pretty
lax),
and
if
it
clearly
stated
that
the

“environmental
excellence”
only
referred
to
a
portion
or
specific
area
of
the
paint
or
paint

can.
Consumers
also
typically
see
a
claim
that
a
product
is
“certified
non-‐toxic”
as
another

type
of
certified
environmental
benefit.
A
consumer
should
be
aware
that
this
certification

is
typically
processed
by
a
voluntary
consensus
standard,
and
vetoes
or
approvals
on

standards
could
occur
without
the
approval
of
an
objective
third
party.
A
typical
“certified”

claim
would
be
considered
deceptive
according
to
the
Green
Guides,
because
the
standards

for
third
party
endorsers
are
flexible
and
informal.
26

The
Green
Guides
upholds
the
same
deceptive
and
misleading
standards
with
other

commonly
used
terms
such
as
“compostable,”
“biodegradable,”
“is
free
of,”
“does
not

contain
or
use
a
specific
substance,”
and
“made
with
renewable
materials.”
26

But,
the
Green
Guides
are
only
limited
to
claims
about
a
product
and
the

environmental
attributes
of
the
actual
product
or
packaging.
It
doesn’t
mention
any

activities
related
to
corporate
lobbying
for
environmental
deregulation,
or
using
front

groups
for
polluting
industries,
which
could
be
considered
unethical,
as
well.
26

26

"Green
Guides."
Ftc.gov.
The
Federal
Trade
Commission,
1
Oct.
2012.
Web.
Aug.

2013.

Weatherly

|

27

C.
Watchdog
Agencies
of
Greenwashing

Besides
government
regulatory
organizations
such
as
the
FTC
and
the
EPA,
multiple

agencies
act
as
watchdogs
for
spotting
and
exposing
greenwashing
activities.
In
the
United

States,
two
such
organizations
are
the
Greenwashing
Index
and
SourceWatch.
The

Greenwashing
Index
is
an
initiative
by
EnviroMedia
and
the
University
of
Oregon
School
of

Journalism
and
Communication.
It
educates
consumers
about
greenwashing

advertisements
at
greenwashingindex.com.
It
shows
consumers
how
to
read
an
ad
and

decide
if
the
content
and/or
the
market
claim
is
deceptive
or
authentic.
On
a
broader
scale,

it
exposes
greenwashing
to
help
raise
the
standards
of
advertising
ethics
and
corporate

accountability.
It
allows
consumers
to
post
ads
they
believe
have
deceptive
marketing

claims
about
a
product
or
service’s
environmental
benefits.
Other
visitors
can
rate
how

deceptive
the
ad
is
on
a
scale
of
one
to
five,
with
one
being
“authentic”
and
five
being

“bogus.”
The
website
also
allows
visitors
to
browse
through
categories
of
greenwashing

advertisements
in
various
industries.
27

SourceWatch
belongs
to
the
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
a
nonprofit

investigative
reporting
group
focused
on
“exposing
the
undue
influence
of
corporations

and
front
groups
on
public
policy,
including
PR
campaigns.”
The
website,
sourcewatch.org,

allows
visitors
to
sign
petitions
for
campaigns
to
stop
unethical
corporate
communication,

watch
videos
related
to
greenwashing
hoaxes,
and
help
a
visitor
analyze
corporate
social

27

"About
Greenwashing."
Greenwashing
Index.
EnviroMedia
Social
Marketing
and
the

University
of
Oregon
School
of
Journalism
and
Communication,
n.d.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

28

responsibility
reports
and
external
relationships
for
any
unusual
behavior
that
could
be

considered
deceptive.
28

In
the
United
Kingdom,
the
Advertising
Standards
Authority
(ASA)
is
a
watchdog

agency
that
independently
regulates
“green”
advertising.
The
agency
allows
consumers
to

make
complaints
about
deceptive
or
misleading
“green”
advertising
claims.
The
agency
will

then
research
the
claims
and
contact
corporations
to
remedy
the
issue.
A
visitor
can
search

different
industries
on
the
organization’s
website,
asa.org.uk,
to
read
complaints,
which

range
from
car
companies
and
false
claims
about
carbon
emissions
to
consumer
product

advertisements
on
false
claims
about
misleading
environmental
benefits.
To
date,
there
are

almost
190
rulings
that
ASA
has
remedied
with
corporations
for
their
“green”

advertisements.
ASA’s
2007
annual
report
stated
that
the
number
of
complaints
about

misleading
environmental
advertisements
rose
to
561,
compared
to
only
117
complaints

the
year
before.
The
organization’s
annual
report
also
supports
conclusions
made
by
other

consumer
product
surveys
that
consumers
are
becoming
increasingly
aware
of

greenwashing
messaging
but
are
confused
about
what
the
terms
“sustainable”
and
“carbon

neutral”
mean.
29

D.
How
to
Spot
Greenwashing

Even
though
watchdog
agencies
and
government
regulations
exist
to
protect

consumers
against
misleading
claims,
sometimes
spotting
greenwash
can
be
difficult
for

consumers.
A
person
would
likely
have
to
research
every
product
and
company
before
a

28

"About
Us."
PR
Watch.
The
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
n.d.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

29

"Compliance
Report,
Environmental
Claims
Survey
2008."
asa.org.uk.
Advertising

Standards
Authority,
2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

29

quick
trip
to
a
local
supermarket
to
avoid
being
duped
by
greenwashing
claims.
That’s
why

Futerra,
a
British
public
relations
agency
that
markets
itself
as
a
sustainable

communications
firm,
published
its
own
Greenwashing
Guide
to
help
consumers
spot

misleading
environmental
claims.
Its
recommendations
include:
30

A
consumer
should
be
aware
of
“fluffy
language”
and
words
with
no
clear
meaning,

such
as
“eco-‐friendly”
or
“all
natural.”
30

Second,
a
company
in
an
industry
known
to
be
“dirty”
for
the
environment
is

unlikely
to
produce
“green”
products.
Futerra
recommends
consumers
remain
aware
of

such
oxymorons.
They
are
easy
to
spot
if
one
thinks
about
the
commonly
known
qualities

of
a
given
product.
30

A
consumer
also
needs
to
watch
for
irrelevant
claims,
such
as
a
hairspray
container

that
says
it
is
“CFC-‐free.”
30

CFC’s
were
banned
in
the
1980s
because
of
the
harm
they

caused
to
the
earth’s
ozone
layer.
31

Comparative
advertisements
of
“we’re
greener
than
X,
Y
and
Z”
are
not
the
best

claims
to
base
an
environmentally
friendly
purchasing
decision
on,
either.
There
is
not

really
one
company
significantly
better
than
the
others
in
terms
of
clean
consumer
product

technology,
except
for
those
that
have
always
based
their
business
model
on
being

30

"The
Greenwash
Guide."
Futerra.co.uk.
Futerra
Sustainability
Communications,
11

Apr.
2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

31

"The
Process
of
Ozone
Depletion."
EPA.gov.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
19

Aug.
2010.
Web.
Dec.
2013.

Weatherly

|

30

environmentally
sustainable,
such
as
Seventh
Generation’s
model
to
design
products
for
a

sustainable
future.
32

Consumers
should
beware
of
jargon
or
scientific
information
that
any
normal

person
could
not
interpret.
Companies
sometimes
try
to
use
big
words
to
confuse
the

consumers
into
thinking
the
product
is
scientifically
sound
so
they
will
not
fact
check
the

evidence.
33

Consumers
should
also
be
aware
of
third
party
endorsement.
Is
the
endorser
a

credible
source?
It’s
important
for
consumers
to
double-‐check
the
organization’s

background
of
the
third
party
endorsement
organization
and
for
thoroughness
of
the

endorsement.
33

Consumers
should
always
make
sure
to
look
for
the
evidence
with
claims
about

carbon
emissions
or
recycled
content.
If
a
product
or
package
does
not
present
the

evidence
on
the
package
or
reference
a
website
to
research
later,
it
might
not
have
the

evidence
to
back
up
its
claims.
33

Finally,
consumers
need
to
watch
for
claims
that
seem
completely
fake,
as
if
a

corporation
were
trying
to
slap
on
any
label
to
try
to
compete
with
other
“green”
products.

Consumers
should
always
use
their
best
judgment
in
determining
fabricated
claims
or

data.
3330

TerraChoice,
another
prominent
watchdog
organization,
publishes
annual

greenwashing
reports.
Currently,
TerraChoice
publishes
the
“Seven
Sins
of
Greenwashing”

32

"Seventh
Generation
Sustainability."
Seventhgeneration.com.
Seventh
Generation,
n.d.

Web.
July
2013.

33

"The
Greenwash
Guide."
Futerra.co.uk.
Futerra
Sustainability
Communications,
11

Apr.
2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

31

so
a
consumer
can
be
cautious
of
the
“greenwashing
sins”
when
making
a
purchasing

decision.
The
seven
sins
are
similar
to
Futerra’s
Greenwashing
Guide;
both
encourage

consumers
to
be
cautious
of
hidden
trade-‐offs,
lack
of
evidence,
vagueness,
false
labels,

irrelevant
claims,
distracting
claims
and
fibbing.
However,
it’s
important
to
note
that

Underwriter
Laboratories,
one
of
the
world’s
largest
testing
and
certification
organizations

recently
acquired
TerraChoice.
The
author
questions
this
acquisition
and
wonders
if

TerraChoice
can
now
independently
produce
unbiased
and
unregulated
reports
on

greenwashing
trends
if
it’s
now
owned
by
a
consumer
products
research
company.
34

VI.
Visual
Illustrations
of
Greenwashing

There
are
many
guides,
including
those
from
Futerra
and
TerraChoice
mentioned

earlier,
that
will
tell
a
consumer
what
to
look
for
on
a
product’s
packaging.
But
not
been
a

lot
has
been
said
about
what
greenwashing
might
look
like
in
a
corporation’s

communication.
The
author
wanted
to
find
what
greenwashing
visual
illustrations
looked

like
in
comparison
to
legitimate
environmental
ads,
to
determine
if
there
were
discernable

differences.
To
do
so,
the
author
examined
Newsweek’s
2012
Annual
Green
Rankings
list
of

the
top
500
sustainable
companies
in
America,
which
uses
data
about
a
corporation’s

environmental
footprint,
corporate
management
and
transparency
to
rank
companies
from

most
environmentally
friendly
to
least
environmentally
friendly.
The
author
chose

advertisements
from
the
top
10
ranked
as
“most
environmentally
friendly”
companies
and

compared
it
with
those
from
the
bottom
ranked
according
to
Newsweek’s
list.
35

34

"The
Sins
of
Greenwashing:
Home
and
Family
Edition."
The
Seven
Sins.
TerraChoice

and
Underwriters
Laboratories,
2010.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

35

"Green
Rankings
2012:
U.S.
Companies."
Newsweek.com.
Newsweek,
2012.
Web.
Oct.

2013.

Weatherly

|

32

Company
Name
Industry
Sector

1.
IBM
Information
Technology
&
Services

2.
Hewlett-‐Packard
Technology
Equipment

3.
Sprint
Nextel
Telecommunications

4.
Dell
Technology
Equipment

5.
CA
Technologies
Information
Technology
&
Services

6.
Nvidia

Technology
Equipment

7.
Intel
Technology
Equipment

8.
Accenture
Information
Technology
&
Services

9.
Office
Depot
Retailers

10.
Staples
Retailers

Exhibit
1:
Newsweek’s
10
Greenest
Companies
in
America
in
2012,
Newsweek.com
35

Company
Name
Industry
Sector

491.
FirstEnergy

Utilities

492.
Archer-‐Daniels-‐Midland
Food,
Beverage
&
Tobacco

493.
Peabody
Energy

Energy

494.
CONSOL
Energy

Energy

495.
Invesco
Financial

496.
Monsanto
Materials

497.
T.
Rowe
Price
Group
Financial

498.
CF
Industries
Holdings
Materials

499.
Alpha
Natural
Resources
Energy

500.
BlackRock
Financial

Exhibit
2:
Newsweek’s
10
Least
Green
Companies
in
America
in
2012,
Newsweek.com
35

The
author
conducted
a
Google
search
to
discover
advertisements
from
each
of
the

20
companies,
using
the
search
terms
of
“X’s
green
ads”
or
“X’s
sustainability
ads”
to
first

find
if
a
corporation
had
advertisements
directed
toward
sustainability
initiatives.
The

author
did
not
find
green
advertisements
from
all
20
of
the
sampled
organizations,
but
did

find
that
greenwashing
was
confined
not
only
to
advertisements,
but
also
apparent
in
some

of
the
companies’
other
communication
outlets,
i.e.,
websites
and
corporate
videos.

Weatherly

|

33

First,
60
percent
of
the
companies
from
the
“Newsweek’s
10
Greenest
Companies”

list
had
advertisements
that
promoted
their
sustainability
initiatives.
The
following

materials
were
taken
from
the
corporations’
websites.
Exhibits
3
–
6
show
a
sampling
of
a

few
sustainability-‐directed
advertisements
found
from
the
top
10
“greenest
companies”

list.

Exhibit
3:
Accenture’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Accenture.com

Exhibit
4:
Sprint’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Sprint.com

Weatherly

|

34

Exhibit
5:
HP’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
HP.com

Exhibit
6:
IBM’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
IBM.com

All
four
of
the
advertisements
shown
above
convey
that
the
respective
company
is

green
and
environmentally
friendly,
whether
using
statistics
shown
(as
shown
in
the
HP

and
Sprint
ads)
or
strong,
persuasive
language
and
nature-‐related
imagery
(as
shown
in

the
IBM
and
Accenture
ads).
Because
these
images
came
from
companies
on
Newsweek’s

Green
Rankings,
the
author
trusts
that
the
advertisements
are
not
greenwashing.
But,
what

if
another
consumer
saw
the
advertisements
without
trusting
or
seeing
the
Newsweek

Weatherly

|

35

rankings?
TerraChoice’s
“Seven
Sins
of
Greenwash”
and
Futerra’s
“Greenwash
Guide”
both

warn
consumers
to
be
cautious
against
green
advertisements
that
use
statistics
and

flowery
images
or
language.
So
how
would
the
average
consumer
identify
such

advertisements
as
legitimate
or
greenwash?

Next
are
comparisons
between
“green”
advertisements
from
the
lowest-‐ranked

greenest
companies
in
America.

Exhibit
7:
FirstEnergy’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Firstenergy.com

Exhibit
8:
Archer-Daniels-Midland
Environmental
Advertisement,
ADM.com

Weatherly

|

36

Exhibit
9:
Alpha
Natural
Resources
Environmental
Advertisement,
Alphanr.com

Exhibit
10:
Screenshot
from
Alpha
Natural
Resources
Corporate
Video,
Alphanr.com

Exhibit
11:
Screenshot
from
Alpha
Natural
Resources
Corporate
Video,
Alphanr.com

Weatherly

|

37

Exhibit
12:
Peabody’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Peabodyenergy.com

Weatherly

|

38

Exhibit
13:
Monsanto’s
Environmental
Advertisement,
Monsanto.com

The
author
found
that
only
40
percent
of
the
corporations
from
“Newsweek’s
10

Least
Green
Companies
in
America
in
2012”
ran
advertisements
that
promoted

sustainability
initiatives.
The
majority
of
the
advertisements
shown
are
from
the
coal
and

energy
sectors
(the
FirstEnergy,
Alpha
Natural
Resources
and
Peabody
Energy
ads),

including
two
screenshots
of
a
company
video
from
Alpha
Natural
Resources.
The
two

food-‐
and
grain-‐related
advertisements
come
from
companies
in
the
food
and
materials

sectors
(Monsanto
and
Archer-‐Daniels-‐Midland,
respectively).

Using
criteria
from
TerraChoice’s
“Seven
Sins
of
Greenwash”
and
Futerra’s

“Greenwash
Guide,”
the
author
considered
a
few
of
the
advertisements
could
qualify
as

greenwashing.
For
example,
the
FirstEnergy
advertisement
uses
the
words
“clean”
and

“renewable”
to
describe
energy
against
a
photo
of
a
diesel
truck.
Diesel
trucks
are
not

Weatherly

|

39

typically
environmentally
friendly.
The
advertisement
has
a
misleading
juxtaposition
of
a

diesel
truck
pictured
with
environmentally
friendly
words.

The
Alpha
Natural
Resources
screenshots
of
the
company
video
might
be

considered
almost
comical.
This
is
an
example
where
the
greenwashing
guides
can
help
to

pinpoint
a
misleading
advertisement.
The
first
screenshot
of
the
company
video
says,
“In

2012,
we
improved
our
compliance
with
the
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act

by
37%.”
Compliance
means
a
company
is
upholding
the
laws
in
environmental
health
and

safety,
and
Alpha
Natural
Resources
only
improved
its
compliance
by
37
percent?
That

suggests
the
company
is
not
even
fully
compliant
with
the
regulations.
But
it
encourages

the
reader
to
overlook
the
concerning
statistic
by
featuring
a
beautiful
mountain
landscape

in
the
background.
The
second
screenshot
of
the
company
video
states,
“Coal-‐fueled
power

plants
have
reduced
emissions
by
almost
90%
from
1970-‐2011.”
According
to
Duke

University
in
its
report,
“Tackling
CO2
Emissions
From
Existing
Coal-‐Fired
Power
Plants”

coal-‐fired
power
plants
do
NOT
reduce
emissions.
They
only
increase
CO2
and
methane

emissions.
36

Second,
the
timeline
from
“1970-‐2011”
is
not
even
relevant.
There
is
no
way

that
carbon
emissions
were
reduced
by
coal-‐powered
plants
in
a
41-‐year
timeframe,

especially
when,
as
Duke
University
notes,
the
past
technologies
of
coal-‐fired
plants
are

among
the
dirtiest
technologies
of
all
time.
36

The
Peabody
Energy
advertisement
is
similar
to
the
Alpha
Natural
Resources
one,
in

that
it
boasts
that
coal
can
be
clean
and
shows
a
cute
image
of
a
block
of
coal
wearing

sunglasses.
Consumers
can
use
the
available
greenwashing
guides
to
determine
that
these

36

Pearson,
Brooks
R.,
Jonas
Monast,
Jeremy
M.
Tarr,
and
Jessalee
Landfried.
"Tackling
CO2

Emissions
From
Existing
Coal-‐Fired
Power
Plants."Nicholasinstitute.duke.edu.
Duke

University,
Mar.
2013.
Web.
14
Dec.
2013.

Weatherly

|

40

advertisements
are
trying
to
hide
something
and
attempting
to
make
consumers
believe

that
the
industry
is
beneficial
for
the
environment.

Other
than
these
specific
examples
from
the
energy-‐related
industries,
most
of
the

ads
from
the
lowest-‐ranked
green
advertisements
seem
comparable
to
those
from
the

highest-‐ranked
companies,
and
it
is
likely
that
nobody
would
know
the
difference.
In
the

author’s
opinion,
Monsanto’s
“Improving
agriculture,
improving
lives”
and
Alpha
Natural

Resources’
“We
fuel
progress
around
the
world”
taglines
have
the
same
persuasive

language
as
the
top-‐ranked
companies’
advertisements.

It’s
clear
that
greenwashing
in
advertisements
and
communications
tools
may
not

be
clear
at
all.
In
assessing
the
sample,
the
author
determined
she
could
mix
both
sets
of

advertisements
together
and
not
really
find
comparable
differences
between
the
highest

and
lowest-‐ranked
corporations.
This
reinforces
that
there
is
a
greater
need
for
consumers

to
familiarize
themselves
with
third-‐party
rankings,
such
as
Newsweek’s,
if
they
wish
to

differentiate
between
the
two
types
of
companies.
It’s
not
enough
for
a
consumer
to

necessarily
believe
what
a
corporation
tells
them
about
its
green
marketing
efforts,

because
greenwashing
may
still
be
occurring
in
advertisements
and
other
communications

tools
such
as
corporate
websites
and
videos.

To
correlate
with
the
author’s
findings
in
legitimate
green
and
greenwashing

advertising,
the
author
recalls
her
interview
with
environmental
marketing
expert
Kenny

Bruno,
who
noted
that
the
standards
for
green
marketing
are
still
pretty
lax,
and
“it’s
rare

to
prove
that
an
advertisement
is
so
false
that
it
can
be
pulled.”
37

In
order
for
companies
to

37

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

41

be
ethical
in
their
green
marketing,
they
need
to
help
weed
out
all
of
the
greenwashing
in

the
market,
and
consumers
need
to
be
cautious
of
green
advertising,
because
it
seems

nearly
impossible
to
spot
the
differences.

VII.
Content
Analysis:
Media
Perceptions
of
Greenwashing

After
the
author
conducted
a
sufficient
amount
of
secondary
research
from

databases
and
surveys
about
possible
connections
between
CSR
and
greenwashing,

questions
arose
as
to
how
the
media
depicted
greenwashing
and
how
consumers
might

have
viewed
greenwashing
if
they
received
their
information
from
the
media.
Because

television,
radio,
newspaper,
magazine
and
online
stories
have
the
potential
to
influence

the
public
agenda,
consumers
can
be
vulnerable
to
positive
or
negative
coverage
of

greenwashing,
which
may
be
influenced
by
journalists’
opinions.
The
information
gathered

about
consumer
behavioral
trends
and
beliefs
about
CSR
and
greenwashing
in
the
surveys

mentioned
previously
could
have
been
influenced
by
positive
or
negative
media
coverage

of
corporate
sustainability.
The
author
analyzed
traditional
newspaper
articles
over
a
23-‐
year
period
of
time,
from
1990-‐2013,
and
compared
them
against
blog
posts
from
50

bloggers,
to
determine
how
each
outlet
depicted
greenwashing
and
whether
there
were

any
possible
links
to
corporate
social
responsibility.

A.
Initial
Primary
Research/Hypotheses

The
author
had
multiple
hypotheses
prior
to
conducting
a
full
content
analysis,

which
involved
50
newspaper
articles
and
50
blog
posts,
to
determine
whether
media

outlets
reported
greenwashing
in
specific
industries
and
ascertain
whether
there
were
any

future
trends
that
could
be
predicted
about
coverage
of
greenwashing
activities.
The

Weatherly

|

42

hypotheses,
which
are
summarized
below,
were
made
based
on
the
author’s
secondary

research
and
prior
personal
knowledge
about
the
practice
of
greenwashing.

I.
The
author
expected
there
would
be
a
large
number
of
U.S.-‐based
newspapers
writing

about
greenwashing,
because
many
consumers
expressed
skepticism
about
environmental

CSR.

II.
The
author
believed
the
majority
of
negative
articles
would
blame
the
PR
industry
or

that
a
majority
of
articles
about
greenwashing
would
reference
the

PR/advertising/marketing
departments
within
corporations.

III.
The
author
expected
there
would
be
a
decrease
in
greenwashing
articles
over
2008-‐
2013
period,
because
of
greater
transparency
found
in
CSR
reporting
and
the
rise
of
new

green
marketing
regulations
within
this
timeframe.

IV.
The
author
predicted
there
would
be
more
blog
posts
that
mentioned
the
term

“greenwashing”
than
newspaper
articles.
The
author
believed
bloggers
would
have
more

freedom
to
write
about
greenwashing
and
industry
secrets
than
newspapers,
which
are

more
likely
to
be
connected
to
corporate
media
interests.

V.
Finally,
the
author
believed
the
most
articles
exposing
greenwashing
would
relate
to
the

consumer
products
industry.
After
consumer
products,
the
author
predicted
the
most

content
about
greenwashing
would
be
related
to
stories/posts
about
the
oil
and
energy

industries.

B.
Methodology

I.
Legacy
Press
Articles
–
LexisNexis
was
used
to
find
newspaper
articles
that
discussed

greenwashing
with
a
more
advanced
search
of
“major
publications”
and
“greenwash”
in
the

headlines.
It’s
important
to
note
that
no
year
limitations
were
placed
on
the
search.
The

Weatherly

|

43

author
wanted
to
search
all
articles
to
determine
if
there
had
been
a
change
in
the
number

of
articles
written
about
greenwashing
based
on
specified
years.
The
search
yielded
213

results
from
168
newspaper
articles.
The
author
used
those
168
newspaper
articles
as
the

basis
for
a
“universe,”
from
which
a
subsequent
random
sample
of
50
articles
could
be

created
for
review.

II.
Blog
Posts
–
Because
LexisNexis
was
only
used
for
newspaper
articles,
the
author
also

used
basic
Google
searches
(google.com)
to
find
environmental
blog
posts
with

“greenwash”
in
the
headline
and
through
the
“green
blogs”
section
on
technorati.com.
The

blog
section
on
the
Greenpeace
website
(greenpeace.org)
also
had
links
to
other

environmental
blogs
with
posts
about
“greenwashing,”
which
were
used
for
a
random

sample
search.
Almost
all
of
the
posts
used
“greenwash”
in
the
headline,
although
a
small

minority
did
not.
The
author
ensured
that
any
post
without
the
search
term
in
the
headline

used
the
term
in
the
body
of
the
post
before
including
it
in
the
random
sample
population.

III.
Random
Sample
–
The
author
used
an
Excel
data
sheet
and
a
random
sample
formula
to

randomize
the
collection
of
newspaper
articles
and
blog
posts.
38

IV.
Qualtrics
–
The
author
used
Qualtrics
(qualtrics.com)
third-‐party
survey
software
to

“code”
the
randomly
selected
newspaper
articles
and
blog
posts,
based
on
questions
the

author
had
created
when
developing
her
hypotheses.
The
survey
questions
are
noted
in
the

Appendix.
The
author
used
13
questions
to
code
her
analysis.
There
were
11
multiple-‐
choice
questions
and
two
fill-‐in
text
questions
for
characterization
of
positive
or
negative

tones
of
the
term
“greenwashing/greenwash.”
It
was
a
private
survey
without
public

38

The
author
randomly
selected
50
blog
posts
among
the
85
that
had
been
collected,
and

50
newspaper
articles
from
the
168
articles
collected
for
the
content
analysis
to
ascertain

comparisons.

Weatherly

|

44

access.
The
author
was
able
to
use
reports
and
cross
tabulations
to
look
up
survey
data

after
she
recorded
the
100
responses.

C.
Findings

i.
Newspaper
article
findings
prior
to
start
of
content
analysis

The
author
found
significant
support
for
some
of
her
hypotheses
based
on

reviewing
the
168
articles
that
had
been
identified
in
search
results
in
LexisNexis,
before

she
randomized
and
content
analyzed
the
subgroup
of
50
articles.
The
chart
below
shows

the
results
of
the
top
three
industries
that
contained
the
most
articles
with
“greenwash”
in

the
headlines.

Industry
Number
of
Articles

Energy
and
Utilities
86

Energy
and
Environment

56

Marketing
and
Advertising
43

Exhibit
14:
Top
Three
Industries
with
the
Most
Articles
with
“Greenwash”
in
the
Newspaper

Headlines,
According
to
Lexis
Nexis

In
this
initial
analysis,
the
Public
Relations
industry
ranked
53
rd

with
five
articles
with
the

term
“greenwash”
in
the
headline.

Second,
the
author
looked
at
the
search
results
by
year
to
determine
if
there
was
an

increase
or
decrease
in
articles
published
with
“greenwash”
in
the
headlines.
In
2013,
four

newspaper
articles
were
published
with
the
specific
search
terms.
From
2011-‐13,
eight

articles
were
published
with
the
specific
search
terms.
In
this
timeframe,
there
were
no

published
articles
regarding
greenwashing
that
mentioned
the
public
relations,
marketing

and
advertising
industries.
Finally,
from
2008-‐13,
76
newspaper
articles
were
published.

Weatherly

|

45

ii.
Qualtrics
results

The
author
found
that
55
percent
of
the
randomized
newspaper
articles
and
blog

posts
that
had
been
selected
were
NOT
U.S.-‐based
media
outlets.
There
was
only
one

newspaper
article
from
a
U.S.-‐based
media
outlet
that
referenced
greenwashing,
although

there
were
more
U.S.-‐based
blog
posts
(44)
written
about
the
topic.

In
a
cross-‐tabulation
by
year,
all
of
the
randomly
selected
blog
posts
with
the
term

“greenwash”
in
the
headline
or
in
the
body
of
the
post
had
been
written
between
2006-‐13.

However,
the
majority
of
blog
posts
about
greenwashing
were
written
between
2011-‐13,

with
31
articles.
Only
19
blog
posts
mentioned
greenwashing
between
2006-‐10.

Most
of
the
randomly
selected
newspaper
articles
with
“greenwash”
in
the
headline

were
written
between
2006-‐10,
during
which
time
42
articles
appeared.
There
was
a

significant
decrease
from
the
number
of
articles
written
from
this
timeframe
to
the
2011-‐
13
period,
during
which
only
3
were
found.
There
have
been
three
newspaper
articles

written
in
the
past
three
years
with
“greenwash”
in
the
headline.
In
other
timeframes,
only

two
newspaper
articles
were
written
in
the
2001-‐2005
timeframe;
one
article
had
been

written
from
1996-‐2000
and
two
articles
were
written
from
1990-‐1995.

Weatherly

|

46

Exhibit
15:
Content
Analysis
Cross
Tabulation
of
Year
and
Type
of
Content
with
“Greenwash”

in
the
Headline

The
author
applied
her
own
opinion
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
newspaper

article
or
blog
post
had
a
positive
or
negative
tone
about
greenwashing,
using
the
following

criteria:
positive
or
negative
tones
were
based
on
connotation
of
words
or
phrases

surrounding
the
headline
or
in
the
body
of
the
text
that
referred
to
greenwashing.
There

was
one
newspaper
article
and
two
blog
posts
that
had
a
positive
tone
about
greenwashing.

However,
when
coding
for
positive
words,
the
author
attempted
to
find
words
that

presented
greenwashing
on
a
moderate
scale.
There
were
11
words/phrases
that
were

found
and
considered
to
convey
a
positive
tone
about
greenwash.
Some
examples
included:

“honest
mistake;”
“not
their
fault;”
“unfair
criticism;”
“imperfect
progress
is
still
progress;”

“sincere
efforts;”
“oblivious,”
and
“misguided.”

Conversely,
most
of
the
content
analysis
results
indicated
there
was
a
negative
tone

in
almost
all
of
the
newspaper
articles
and
blog
posts.
There
were
88
total
incidences
of

negative
words
or
phrases
being
coded.
Exhibit
16
features
a
word
cloud
generated
from

Weatherly

|

47

wordle.net
that
illustrates
the
most
frequently
used
negative
terms
to
describe

greenwashing
based
on
an
analysis
of
the
100
randomly
selected
newspaper
articles
and

blog
posts.

Exhibit
16:
Word
Cloud
of
the
Most
Frequently
Used
Negative
Terms
to
Describe

Greenwashing
Based
on
the
Content
Analysis

Almost
every
article
or
post
among
the
100
randomly
selected
mentioned
a
product

or
service
in
relation
to
greenwashing.
There
were
92
responses
that
mentioned
a
specific

product
or
service,
and
six
that
did
not.
Two
responses
were
not
recorded
due
to

irrelevance
of
the
article’s
topic
once
it
had
been
randomly
selected.
For
the
analysis,
the

author
coded
each
“product”
as
a
concrete
object
(car,
grocery
item,
dishwashing
soap,

Weatherly

|

48

etc.),
while
a
“service”
was
coded
as
an
inanimate
object
(law
or
regulation,
electricity,

public
relations/marketing
services,
political
campaign,
etc.).

Once
the
coding
was
completed,
the
author
asked
a
follow-‐up
question
to
determine

whether
the
newspaper
article
or
blog
post
mentioned
a
specific
industry
associated
with

the
featured
product
or
service.
Exhibit
17
shows
the
industries
where
greenwashing

occurred
the
most.

Exhibit
17:
The
Industries
Where
the
Most
Greenwashing
Occurred
Based
on
the
Author’s

Content
Analysis

The
content
analysis
of
the
100
randomized
articles
and
blog
posts
showed
that
the

most
greenwashing
mentions
were
associated
with
the
advertising/marketing/PR

industries,
with
a
total
of
26
items.
This
finding
conflicts
with
the
author’s
initial
LexisNexis

search,
which
indicated
that
most
of
the
articles
written
about
greenwashing
were

associated
with
a
specific
industry
other
than
advertising,
marketing
or
PR.
In
this
analysis,

the
consumer
products
industry
was
ranked
second,
with
20
articles
associated
with

greenwashing.
In
third
place,
the
“other”
category
contained
19
articles.
The
“other”

category
included
11
other
industries
that
mentioned
a
product
or
service
that
had
not

been
programmed
as
an
available
choice
in
the
survey
instrument.
The
highest
number
of

Weatherly

|

49

responses
from
the
“other”
bracket
came
from
the
travel
industry,
with
four
articles.
The

nonprofit
industry
ranked
second
in
the
“other”
category,
followed
by
a
tie
between
the

sports
industry
(most
notably,
the
London
Olympics)
and
the
agriculture
industry.
Other

articles
recorded
in
the
“other”
category
came
from
the
food/beverage,
education,

pharmaceutical,
real
estate
and
transportation
(different
from
automotive)
industries.
Only

96
articles
were
recorded
due
to
irrelevance
of
four
remaining
articles
that
were
unrelated

to
the
topic
of
greenwashing.

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Automotive

4
4%

2
Consumer
Products

20
21%

3
Oil

5
5%

4
Government

12
13%

5
Energy/Utilities

10
10%

6
Advertising/Marketing/PR

26
27%

7
Other

19
20%

Total

96
100%

Exhibit
18:
Article/Post
Numerical
Results
of
the
Industries
Where
Greenwashing
Occurred

the
Most

Next,
the
author
wanted
to
determine
if
articles
or
blog
posts
mentioned
a
specific

company
as
well
as
a
corresponding
industry.
Generally,
the
author
found
each
article
or

post
mentioned
both
an
industry
and
a
company.
For
example,
one
article
stated
there
was

greenwashing
associated
with
public
relations
or
marketing
activities
of
a
consumer

products
company.
In
another
instance,
the
author
found
an
article
mentioning
a

greenwashing
legislation
bill
(cataloged
as
“service”)
that
specifically
referenced
an
energy

or
utilities
company.
Exploring
this
possible
correlation
gave
the
author
an
additional

chance
to
see
if
the
articles
or
blog
posts
had
been
written
about
a
specific
company
or
an

entire
industry.
The
government
was
mentioned
the
most
out
of
a
specific
company,
with

21
articles.
This
meant
a
political
candidate
or
a
government
agency
was
quoted
as
the

Weatherly

|

50

“company”
that
used
greenwashing
messages.
The
second
highest
ranked
item
yielded
15

articles
or
blog
posts
that
mentioned
companies
in
the
consumer
products
industry.

Following
consumer
products,
oil
companies
yielded
13
results.
There
were
an
equal

amount
of
company
names
quoted
from
the
energy/utilities
and
advertising/marketing/PR

industries.
On
a
separate
note,
the
author
also
found
that
the
food
and
beverage
companies

yielded
the
most
results
from
the
highest
ranking
“other”
category,
with
six
articles.

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Automotive

5
5%

6
Advertising/Marketing/PR

7
7%

5
Energy/Utilities

7
7%

3
Oil

13
14%

2
Consumer
Products

15
16%

4
Government

21
22%

7
Other

28
29%

Total

96
100%

Exhibit
19:
Numerical
Results
From
the
Author’s
Content
Analysis
Question:
“From
What

Industry
Does
it
[Article/Post]
Mention
a
Company
From?”

iii.
Other

The
author
performed
another
cross-‐tabulation
to
determine
whether
a
newspaper

article/blog
post
was
from
a
liberal
or
conservative
outlet.
The
author
used
her
own

judgment
and
prior
knowledge
to
create
these
definitions,
based
on
language
and
tone
of

how
the
article
or
post
was
written.
While
the
author
coded
a
small
number
of
articles
and

posts
and
found
that
more
liberal
outlets
tended
to
yield
newspaper
articles
and
blog
posts

about
greenwashing,
ultimately
it
was
not
possible
to
code
every
article
or
blog
post
in
this

manner;
thus,
these
results
are
incomplete.

D.
Discussion

The
findings
from
the
author’s
hypotheses
from
the
content
analysis
can
be
applied

to
consider
present
and
future
greenwashing
trends.
Most
articles
referenced

Weatherly

|

51

greenwashing
in
the
public
relations/marketing/advertising
industries,
which
correlated

with
the
second
hypothesis.
Journalists
and
bloggers
expressed
beliefs
that
greenwashing

and
misleading
information
regarding
sustainability
reports
were
coming
out
of
the

communications
industry
or
communications
departments
in
corporations.
Thus,

consumers
could
be
more
likely
to
believe
greenwashing
is
encouraged
by
the
public

relations/marketing/advertising
industries
as
well,
which
could
have
consequences
in

affecting
consumer
perception
of
the
communications
industry
and
its
ability
to
market

accurate
green
messages.
Because
of
this
finding,
consumers
could
more
likely
believe
a

green
product
or
service
is
merely
a
“PR
gimmick.”

On
the
other
hand,
the
author
found
that
the
number
of
newspaper
articles
written

about
greenwashing
had
dramatically
decreased
in
the
past
two
years.
This
could
mean

that
the
public
relations/marketing/advertising
industries
are
becoming
more
transparent

in
their
reports
and
messages
because
of
the
evidence
of
potential
damage
to
a
brand

reputation;
thus
a
lesser
need
for
journalists
to
report
on
corporate
greenwashing

activities.
Or,
it
could
be
because
of
the
stricter
regulation
of
environmental
marketing

claims.
The
author
hopes
this
implies
that
less
greenwashing
is
occurring.
While
there
were

more
blog
posts
written
about
greenwashing
in
the
recent
years,
the
author
attributes
this

finding
to
the
newer
nature
of
the
platform.

The
author
was
surprised
to
find
there
were
more
newspaper
articles
written
about

greenwashing
outside
of
the
United
States.
Almost
every
newspaper
article
assessed
from

the
randomly
sampled
population
was
from
a
Western
European
media
outlet.
This
may

allude
to
the
controversy
surrounding
greenwashing
and
the
fact
that
Western
European

countries
are
typically
ranked
higher
up
than
the
United
States
on
the
Reporters
Without

Weatherly

|

52

Borders’
“World
Press
Freedom
Index.”
Currently,
the
U.S.
ranks
#32
on
the
Press
Freedom

Index.
But,
the
Press
Freedom
Index
claim
could
apply
to
the
increase
in
blog
posts
written

about
greenwashing
from
2008-‐2013,
because
U.S.
blog
authors
might
have
more
freedom

to
cover
controversial
issues;
therefore,
the
blogosphere
could
provide
a
more
open
and

uncensored
outlet
to
discuss
corporate
secrets
and
controversial
topics.
39

During
the
author’s
interview
with
Kenny
Bruno,
he
mentioned
that
greenwashing

in
the
press
occurs
in
ebbs
and
flows.
He
believes
the
coverage
of
greenwashing
has

definitely
increased
over
the
years,
but
there
will
be
more
spotting
of
greenwashing
during

specific
timelines,
especially
if
it
is
a
big
election
year,
if
an
environmental
summit
is

scheduled
to
occur,
or
if
a
new
environmental
legislation
is
being
debated.
Perhaps
the

recent
unusual
decrease
in
newspaper
articles
published
about
greenwashing
can
be
due
to

2013
being
between
presidential
election
years.
40

VIII.
An
Inconvenient
Truth
about
the
PR
Industry
&
Greenwashing

A.
The
Rise
of
Environmental
Public
Relations

Environmental
public
relations
increased
after
the
introduction
of
Rachel
Carson’s

Silent
Spring
in
1962.
The
top
firms
that
specialized
in
environmental
PR
in
the
early
1990s

included
big
names
in
the
PR
industry,
such
as
Burson-‐Marsteller,
Ketchum,
Hill
&

Knowlton,
and
Fleishman-‐Hillard.
Sharon
Beder,
in
her
book
Global
Spin:
The
Corporate

Assault
on
Environmentalism,
states
that
environmental
PR
was
on
the
rise
in
the
early
‘90s

for
three
reasons.
First,
horrible,
fiery
images
of
industrial
accidents
and
corporate

39

"Press
Freedom
Index
2013."
En.rsf.org.
Reporters
Without
Borders,
2013.
Web.
Sept.

2013.

40

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

53

environmental
disasters
were
“burned
into
the
minds
of
Americans.”
Second,
factory
and

industrial
environmental
records
(CO2
emission
data)
started
to
be
made
public.
Finally,

Americans
started
to
consider
themselves
environmentalists,
and
most
of
them
did
not

trust
corporations
to
protect
the
environment.
41

But
Global
Spin
states
environmental
PR
in
the
late
1980s
and
early
‘90s
might
not

have
turned
out
to
be
what
the
public
hoped
for.
It
was
actually
anti-‐environmental
PR.

Beder
writes
that
public
relations
practitioners
engaged
front
groups
or
other

greenwashing
tactics
to
alleviate
or
calm
environmental
activism
associated
with
accidents

and
crimes
in
the
chemical,
oil
and
paper
industries.

According
to
Kenny
Bruno,
the
original
greenwashing
companies
were
Dow,

DuPont,
Chevron
and
chemical
manufacturers.
However,
Bruno
says
they
didn’t
greenwash

because
of
consumer
pressure
like
some
corporations
are
facing
today;
they
participated
in

greenwashing
because
environmental
catastrophes
were
increasing,
and
policymakers

were
becoming
concerned.
He
argues
that
the
rise
in
green
image
advertising
occurred

after
Union
Carbide’s
Bhopal
explosion
in
India
in
1984,
considered
one
of
the
worst

environmental
catastrophes
to
date.
Bruno
says
the
chemical
industry
used
green

advertising
for
its
audience
of
government
regulators
so
it
wouldn’t
have
to
meet
the

proposed
regulation
standards
in
India
that
were
already
required
in
the
United
States.

More
regulation
in
India,
Bruno
says,
would
have
meant
higher
costs
for
the
chemical

industry
to
meet
those
elevated
health
and
safety
standards.
42

41

Beder,
Sharon.
"Chapter
7:
The
Public
Relations
Industry."
Global
Spin:
The

Corporate
Assault
on
Environmentalism.
Dartington,
Totnes,
Devon,
UK:
Green,
2002.

107-‐24.
Print.

42

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

Weatherly

|

54

Bruno
also
reports
that
the
fossil
fuel,
coal,
oil,
gas
and
nuclear
industries
are
still

using
greenwashing
arguments
to
prove
to
policymakers
and
regulators
that
they
are

environmentally
responsible
industries.
42

He
says
companies
turned
to
greenwashing
because
it
was
less
expensive
to
change

perceptions
than
it
was
to
change
business
practices,
and
the
author
wonders
whether

some
companies
still
think
of
the
benefit
of
environmental
public
relations
the
same
way

today.
42

B.
Agents
of
Greenwashing
in
Public
Relations

According
to
Global
Spin,
the
public
relations
industry
employs
certain
practitioners

whose
job
is
to
mitigate
negative
public
perception.
These
jobs
in
corporations
may
be

entitled
risk
communicator,
crisis
communicator,
and
the
newly
coined
title
of

sustainability
manager.
43

According
to
Beder,
in
true
greenwashing
fashion,
risk
communicators
aim
to

change
a
public’s
“misguided”
view
of
an
environmental
risk
or
environmental
issue
to
a

more
open
and
friendly
view,
based
on
their
client’s
or
employer’s
interest.
For
example,
a

risk
communicator
might
represent
the
oil
industry,
which
does
not
have
a
very
positive

environmental
image.
The
risk
communicator
would
then
try
to
change
negative
opinion

and
perception
to
a
more
positive
view
of
the
oil
industry
by
publicizing
the
good
things

the
oil
industry
does
for
the
environment.
These
communicators
might
also
offer
help
to

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

43

Beder,
Sharon.
"Chapter
8:
Public
Relations
Strategies."
Global
Spin:
The
Corporate

Assault
on
Environmentalism.
Dartington,
Totnes,
Devon,
UK:
Green,
2002.
125-‐40.

Print.

Weatherly

|

55

companies
battling
environmental
regulations
or
laws
by
persuading
the
press
and

consumers
to
believe
in
the
benefits
of
deregulation.

John
C.
Stauber
and
Sheldon
Rampton,
authors
of
the
well-‐known
investigative
book

Toxic
Sludge
Is
Good
for
You:
Lies,
Damn
Lies
and
the
Public
Relations
Industry,
believe

environmental
public
relations
attempts
to
convince
consumers
that
there
is
no
such
thing

as
environmental
disasters.
In
this
case,
risk
communicators
will
try
to
persuade
the
public

that
corporations
are
actually
improving
the
environment
and
will
make
the
activists
look

like
“‘eco-‐terrorists,’
fear
mongers,
and
the
latest
incarnation
of
the
communist
menace”

(Stauber
and
Rampton,
126).
44

Sharon
Beder
notes
that
risk
communication
also
was
employed
in
the
‘70s
by

Burson-‐Marsteller
(BM),
specifically
for
the
forest
products
industry.
BM
practitioners

helped
launch
an
expensive
campaign
on
behalf
of
the
forest
products
industry
over
a
five-‐
year
span,
intended
to
mitigate
growing
environmental
activism
opposed
to
clear-‐cutting

forests
that
caused
destruction
to
the
rainforests.
According
to
Beder,
BM
officials
advised

the
industry
to
work
not
only
on
“greening”
its
image,
but
to
also
employ
the
tactics
of

psychiatry
on
the
public.
BM
suggested
that
the
corporate
leaders
of
the
forest
products

industry
gain
public
trust
by
using
sympathy
and
emotional
appeals
to
create
a
“green”

image
of
companies
being
attacked
by
environmental
opposition.
Once
public
trust
was

achieved,
the
communicators
could
begin
transmitting
misleading
information,
i.e.

greenwashing,
to
the
public
audiences
to
build
a
façade
that
the
companies
had
true

concerns
about
the
environment
and
wanted
to
solve
environmental
problems.
Beder

44

Stauber,
John
C.,
and
Sheldon
Rampton.
"Chapter
9:
Silencing
Spring."
Toxic
Sludge
Is

Good
for
You:
Lies,
Damn
Lies,
and
the
Public
Relations
Industry.
Monroe,
ME:

Common
Courage,
1995.
N.
pag.
Print.

Weatherly

|

56

suggests
that
the
corporate
leaders
in
the
forest
products
industry
also
created
special

interest
groups
to
attack
the
opposition.
45

Crisis
communicators
manage
public
perception
following
an
environmental

disaster
or
if
the
public
uncovers
a
potentially
damaging
corporate
secret.
Global
Spin

explains
that
crisis
communicators
only
help
a
corporation’s
reputation
following
an

accident,
but
they
don’t
try
to
help
the
corporation
be
pro-‐active
to
prevent
a
disaster
in

the
first
place.
45

The
oil
industry
is
typically
known
to
employ
crisis
communicators
in
the
event
of

an
oil
spill
or
another
type
of
industrial
accident.
According
to
the
book
Global
Spin,
crisis

communicators
suggest
that
a
corporation
should
try
to
fit
in
with
their
community,
and
act

as
a
victim.
As
an
example,
the
author
points
to
what
British
Petroleum
(BP)
attempted
to

do
in
2010
after
the
Deepwater
Horizon
oil
fracking
accident.
In
this
case,
the
attempt
to

play
the
victim
in
the
accident
failed.
The
CEO
was
unable
to
empathize
with
the
American

community
and
hurt
the
company’s
reputation
even
further.
46

Beder
in
Global
Spin
also
points
to
the
time
US
Gypsum’s
corporate
leaders
turned
to

Hill
and
Knowlton’s
crisis
communicators
to
rebuild
the
company’s
image
following
a
legal

crisis.
In
the
1980s,
US
Gypsum
was
sued
for
using
asbestos
in
its
public
buildings
in
New

Jersey.
Hill
and
Knowlton
advisors
suggested
US
Gypsum
officials
stop
negative
media

coverage
at
the
local
level,
so
it
could
not
spread
into
a
national
controversy.
According
to

45

Beder,
Sharon.
"Chapter
8:
Public
Relations
Strategies."
Global
Spin:
The
Corporate

Assault
on
Environmentalism.
Dartington,
Totnes,
Devon,
UK:
Green,
2002.
125-‐40.

Print.

46

Krauss,
Clifford.
"Oil
Spill’s
Blow
to
BP’s
Image
May
Eclipse
Costs."
Nytimes.com.
The

New
York
Times,
29
Apr.
2010.
Web.
Nov.
2013.

Weatherly

|

57

Corporate
Watch
UK,
Hill
and
Knowlton
practitioners
planted
news
stories
written
by

experts
that
carried
a
sympathetic
point
of
view
for
the
building
materials
manufacturer

and
downplayed
the
health
effects
of
asbestos.
47

The
author
believes
there
also
is
a
new
type
of
communicator
that
is
finding
its
way

to
the
forefront
of
environmental
communications:
A
sustainability
manager,
or
CSR

manager,
who
focuses
on
the
triple
bottom
line
mission
of
the
corporation
to
help
it

maximize
profits
while
protecting
the
environment
and
benefitting
social
welfare.
By

creating
this
type
of
position,
corporations
may
be
able
to
strategically
partner
with

stakeholders
(nonprofits,
government
agencies
or
other
corporations)
in
alliances,
using
a

strategy
known
as
cross-‐pollination.

C.
The
Benefits
and
Dangers
of
Cross-Pollination

As
a
communication
strategy,
cross-‐pollination
has
the
potential
to
be
either

beneficial
or
dangerous
for
a
corporation.
A
beneficial
partnership
example
comes
from
the

relationship
between
Chiquita
bananas
and
the
well-‐known
nonprofit,
the
Rainforest

Alliance.
From
1992-‐2000,
Chiquita
partnered
with
the
Rainforest
Alliance
to
protect
forest

patches,
reduce
pollution,
discontinue
use
of
agrochemicals
that
exposed
hazards
to

aquatic
life
and
workers,
and
improve
workers’
housing
and
safety.
As
of
2013,
all
of

Chiquita’s
farms
and
products
were
Rainforest
Alliance-‐certified
through
a
reliable

certification
process.
This
partnership
began
with
an
initial
$20
million
investment
to

improve
Chiquita’s
bottom
line
and
to
protect
the
environment
and
the
countries
where

the
corporation
has
farm
locations.
However,
the
partnership
yielded
a
$100
million
cut
in

47

Corporate
Watch
UK.
"Hill
&
Knowlton."
Corporatewatch.org.
Corporate
Watch
UK,

June
2002.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

58

production
costs
because
of
less
materials
and
higher
operating
efficiencies.
Chiquita
also

likely
benefited
from
a
better
brand
reputation.
Rather
than
engaging
in
greenwashing,
the

corporation
took
the
necessary
steps
to
prove
that
environmental
sustainability
and
social

welfare
were
priorities
for
the
company
and
used
an
independent
nonprofit
certification

process
that
aligned
with
Chiquita’s
mission
and
overall
business.
48

But
cross-‐pollination
isn’t
always
the
best
option
for
a
corporation’s
triple
bottom

line
or
its
reputation.
The
authors
of
Toxic
Sludge
argue
that
partnerships
between

corporations
and
nonprofits
are
only
created
to
help
corporations
look
caring
and
angelic

to
their
biggest
activists
while
they
continue
to
damage
the
environment
and
society.
49

This

kind
of
approach
might
develop
into
greenwashing
if
it
uses
an
unreliable
third-‐party

endorsement,
such
as
one
a
corporation
purchases.
According
to
the
2013
Edelman
Trust

Barometer,
audiences
in
developed
countries
trust
nonprofits
to
do
the
right
thing
more

than
they
trust
businesses.
Therefore,
consumers
may
be
more
likely
to
trust
an

endorsement
or
partnership
between
a
corporation
and
nonprofit,
because
they
expect
the

nonprofit
to
act
as
the
whistleblower
if
the
corporation
acts
in
bad
faith.
50

A
cross-‐pollination
partnership
may
be
considered
greenwashing
if
a
company
uses

the
public’s
trust
in
nonprofits
in
an
unethical
manner,
as
in
the
case
of
the
cross-‐
pollination
partnership
with
the
American
Cancer
Society,
the
pesticide
industry
and

48

"Chiquita
Reaps
a
Better
Banana."
Rainforest-alliance.org.
Rainforest
Alliance,
n.d.

Web.
Sept.
2013.

49

Stauber,
John
C.,
and
Sheldon
Rampton.
"Chapter
9:
Silencing
Spring."
Toxic
Sludge
Is

Good
for
You:
Lies,
Damn
Lies,
and
the
Public
Relations
Industry.
Monroe,
ME:

Common
Courage,
1995.
N.
pag.
Print.

50

"Executive
Summary:
2013
Edelman
Trust
Barometer."
Edelman.com.
Edelman,
9

Jan.
2013.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

Weatherly

|

59

Porter
Novelli,
a
public
relations
agency.
Beder
of
Global
Spin
states
that
throughout
the

1990s,
Porter
Novelli
practitioners
provided
pro
bono
public
relations
services
to
the

American
Cancer
Society.
When
a
documentary
was
to
be
aired
on
“Frontline”
in
1993
that

exposed
the
dangers
of
pesticides
and
the
link
between
chemicals
and
cancer
in
children,

Porter
Novelli
advisors
used
cross-‐pollination
partnerships
to
their
client’s
(agricultural

businesses)
advantage.
The
agency
asked
the
American
Cancer
Society
to
write
a
memo

condemning
the
documentary
and
state
that
the
facts
in
the
documentary
were
false.

Porter
Novelli
executives
gave
this
memo
to
the
agricultural
businesses
it
represented,

which
then
used
the
memo
to
lobby
against
the
airing
of
this
documentary.
According
to

“American
Cancer
Society:
The
World’s
Wealthiest
‘Nonprofit’
Institution,”
TV
producer

Marty
Koughan
was
shocked
at
this
surprising
memo
by
the
American
Cancer
Society
that

defended
the
agricultural
producers,
including
DuPont
and
Monsanto.
But
he
then
realized,

“they
were
willing
partners
in
the
deception.”
51

As
these
examples
show,
consumers
must

take
partnerships
between
corporations
and
nonprofits
with
a
grain
of
salt,
because
they

can
sometimes
lead
to
dangerous
and
unethical
conflicts
of
interest
that
could
hurt
both
the

health
of
society
and
the
reputations
of
organizations
that
are
involved.

D.
Dark
Tactics:
Lobbying
for
Environmental
Deregulation
&
Environmental
Front
Groups

While
the
prior
examples
about
the
public
relations
industry
pertaining
to

greenwash
and
cross-‐pollination
may
be
shocking,
it’s
not
the
worst
things
corporations

51

"The
American
Cancer
Society:
The
World's
Wealthiest
"Nonprofit"
Institution."
The

American
Cancer
Society:
The
World's
Wealthiest
"Nonprofit"
Institution.

Preventcancer.com,
Jan.
1999.
Web.
12
Jan.
2014.

Weatherly

|

60

and
the
PR
industry
have
accomplished
together.
Public
relations
tactics
can
often
be

darker
and
more
controversial
with
the
use
of
lobbying
and
special
interest
or
so-‐called

“front”
groups.

Annie
Leonard
and
Ariane
Conrad
in
The
Story
of
Stuff:
How
Our
Obsession
with
Stuff

Is
Trashing
the
Planet,
Our
Communities,
and
Our
Health--and
a
Vision
for
Change,
note
that

political
lobbying
came
in
handy
for
Shell
Oil
when
it
received
negative
attention
for
its
oil

drilling
in
Nigeria
and
the
environmental
destruction
it
caused
in
Ogoniland,
an
area
where

500,000
inhabitants
were
not
protected
under
the
Nigerian
constitution.
52

In
1990,
a
group

of
peaceful
Ogonis
organized
the
Movement
for
the
Survival
of
the
Ogoni
People
under
the

leadership
of
Ken
Saro-‐Wiwa.
Saro-‐Wiwa
traveled
internationally
to
raise
awareness
about

the
devastation
Shell
was
causing
to
his
homeland
and
the
health
effects
on
the
Ogoni

citizens.
Saro-‐Wiwa
created
a
stir
around
the
world,
and
organizations
such
as
Greenpeace

created
campaigns
to
band
with
him
and
his
movement.
According
to
Leonard
and
Conrad,

Shell
and
the
Nigerian
government
(which
received
85
percent
of
its
revenue
from
Shell’s

oil
drilling)
wanted
to
stop
Saro-‐Wiwa
and
his
movement.
The
Nigerian
army
charged
Saro-‐
Wiwa
with
a
false
allegation
and
accused
him
for
a
murder.
In
1995,
he
was
hanged.

In
the
subsequent
lawsuit
known
as
Wiwa
vs.
Shell,
plaintiffs
accused
Shell
of

providing
arms,
transportation
and
collaboration
with
the
Nigerian
army
to
stop
Saro-‐
Wiwa
and
his
resistance
group.
Ultimately,
Shell
paid
an
out-‐of-‐court
settlement
of
$15.5

52

Leonard,
Annie,
and
Ariane
Conrad.
The
Story
of
Stuff:
How
Our
Obsession
with
Stuff

Is
Trashing
the
Planet,
Our
Communities,
and
Our
Health--and
a
Vision
for
Change.

New
York:
Free,
2010.
31-‐33.
Print.

Weatherly

|

61

million
for
the
relatives
of
Saro-‐Wiwa
and
other
victims,
although
it
denied
any
connection

to
the
death
sentence
and
characterized
the
settlement
as
a
“humanitarian
gesture.”
53

Leonard
and
Conrad
write
that
the
U.S.
was
outraged
at
what
it
perceived
to
be
the

corporation’s
lack
of
interest
in
societal
and
environmental
protection
in
developing

countries
and
its
willingness
to
work
with
the
Nigerian
government
in
halting
the
Ogoni

movement.
According
to
the
authors,
Shell
needed
a
way
for
the
American
public
to
think
of

Nigeria
as
a
non-‐violent
country
so
it
could
continue
conducting
business
and
oil
drilling

with
the
Nigerian
government.

According
to
Global
Spin,
a
paid
lobbyist
for
the
Nigerian
government
created
three

special
interest
groups
-‐-‐
the
National
Coalition
for
Fairness
to
Nigeria,
the
National

Coalition
for
Fairness
in
African
Policy,
and
Americans
for
Democracy
in
Africa
-‐-‐
to
turn

around
Nigerian’s
negative
image
in
the
American
public
eye.
These
groups
carried
out

media
relations
strategies
and
paid
for
advertorials
in
major
news
outlets
such
as
The
New

York
Times.
Author
Beder
contends
that
Shell
and
the
Nigerian
government
collaborated
to

create
special
interest
groups
and
hire
lobbyists
to
protect
the
reputations
that
would
have

been
harmed
if
Saro-‐Wiwa
had
continued
his
movement.
In
the
end,
it
cost
a
peaceful
man

his
life.
This
case
demonstrates
the
extent
of
what
corporations
and
governments
can

accomplish
with
misleading
communication
and
dirty
politics;
the
very
far
end
of
the

greenwashing
spectrum.
According
to
Leonard
and
Conrad,
as
an
issue
of
environmental

social
justice
Wiwa
vs.
Shell
exemplifies
what
happens
when
a
large
corporation
has
enough

wealth
and
power
to
be
able
to
cause
destruction
to
a
minority
group
and
their
homeland,

53

Leonard,
Annie,
and
Ariane
Conrad.
The
Story
of
Stuff:
How
Our
Obsession
with
Stuff

Is
Trashing
the
Planet,
Our
Communities,
and
Our
Health--and
a
Vision
for
Change.

New
York:
Free,
2010.
31-‐33.
Print.

Weatherly

|

62

but
still
tries
to
persuade
the
public
to
think
of
the
corporation
as
a
humanitarian.
To

silence
an
activist
who
pledges
for
the
betterment
of
his/her
community
and
environment

could
be
considered
the
very
darkest
version
of
greenwashing.
54

IX.
Case
Study:
Keep
America
Beautiful
–
Lifting
the
Green
Curtain
on
CSR
&
Front

Groups

In
keeping
with
the
idea
of
the
potential
controversy
that
could
surround
special

interest
groups,
the
author
addresses
a
case
study
of
a
particular
nonprofit
organization

that
has
received
some
scrutiny
for
its
potential
reasons
for
existence,
and
the
sponsorship

dollars
it
receives
in
the
form
of
corporate
philanthropy.
It
illustrates
how
corporations

and
a
nonprofit
organization
partnership
might
be
considered
greenwashing.

Organization
&
Industry/Category
Overview:

Keep
America
Beautiful
(KAB)
is
a
nonprofit
organization
whose
mission
is
to

reduce
waste
and
litter
on
communities
and
inspire
generations
of
environmental

stewards.
It
started
in
the
mid-‐1950s
in
New
York
City
to
bring
the
public
and
private

sectors
together
to
teach
the
nation
about
cleaning
up
its
trash.
Tobacco
manufacturer

Phillip
Morris
was
a
founding
member
of
KAB.
Many
people
recognize
Keep
America

Beautiful
from
the
1970s
“Crying
Indian”
public
service
announcement
(PSA).
Its
board
of

directors
is
comprised
of
presidents
of
environmental
groups,
corporate
CEOs
and

corporate
social
responsibility
VPs.
55

54

Leonard,
Annie,
and
Ariane
Conrad.
The
Story
of
Stuff:
How
Our
Obsession
with
Stuff

Is
Trashing
the
Planet,
Our
Communities,
and
Our
Health--and
a
Vision
for
Change.

New
York:
Free,
2010.
31-‐33.
Print.

55

"About
Us."
Keepamericabeautiful.org.
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

63

The
nonprofit
collaborates
with
numerous
corporations
to
fulfill
its
mission.
Its
200

partners
include
a
variety
of
companies
from
the
largest
food/beverage,
chemical
and
oil

industries,
including
Coca
Cola,
Glad,
Nestle
Waters,
the
American
Chemistry
Council,
Dow

Chemical
Company,
Pepsico,
McDonalds
and
Shell
Oil.
The
corporate
partners
give
millions

of
dollars
to
the
nonprofit
each
year
to
carry
out
its
environmental
activities
and
programs.

According
to
Charity
Navigator,
the
nonprofit
received
$7.5
million
of
its
total
$8.4
million

revenue
from
contributions,
gifts
and
grants
in
2013
and
only
fundraised
$222,000
itself.

Its
CEO
makes
$300,000
a
year.
56

Competitive
Analysis:

Keep
America
Beautiful’s
competitors
could
be
considered
other
environmental

nonprofits
that
also
receive
corporate
support
dollars.
In
addition,
environmental

corporate
social
responsibility
initiatives
in
companies
could
create
direct
competition
for

corporate
sponsorship
dollars
that
support
the
nonprofit.
A
company
could
choose
to
keep

the
corporate
philanthropy
dollars
it
previously
funneled
into
KAB
for
its
own
internal
CSR

programs.

Because
beverage
companies
are
KAB’s
biggest
supporters,
future
legislation
could

create
conflicts
for
KAB.
The
beverage
industry,
for
example,
could
face
bottle
bills
that

could
create
stricter
regulation
on,
or
even
ban,
plastic
water
bottles.
If
plastic
bottles
were

banned,
the
beverage
industry
could
experience
severe
revenue
loss,
subsequently
leading

to
loss
of
corporate
support
dollars
for
KAB.
Also,
the
author’s
review
of
KAB’s
programs

from
the
organization’s
website
suggests
they
are
aimed
at
recycling,
but
not
reusing
or

56

"Keep
America
Beautiful."
Charitynavigator.org.
Charity
Navigator,
n.d.
Web.
Aug.

2013.

Weatherly

|

64

reducing
consumption.
If
plastic
water
bottle
bans
were
to
enter
into
the
picture,
KAB

would
have
to
consider
a
potentially
expensive
redesign
of
its
programs
and
mission.

Environmental
activists
and
watchdog
agencies
also
could
be
KAB’s
competitors

because
they
have
the
power
to
expose
potentially
negative
corporate
partnership
secrets

to
the
public.
As
a
nonprofit,
KAB
would
want
to
uphold
its
reputation
as
a
trusted

organization
and
increase
its
recycling
and
environmental
stewardship
programs.
But,
in

the
age
of
social
media,
one
questionable
action
could
have
the
potential
to
go
viral.
For

example,
SourceWatch
has
already
published
a
lengthy
background
on
KAB
that
bares
its

controversial
corporate
history.
57

Challenge/Opportunity

KAB’s
website
reveals
that
the
average
American
produces
4.4
pounds
of
trash
per

day,
and
that
many
Americans
do
not
know
how
to
recycle
or
make
recycling
an
everyday

habit.
That
statistic
is
a
challenge
for
KAB,
because
it
is
a
nonprofit
that
promotes
recycling.

But,
it
also
found
the
opportunity
to
influence
that
behavior.
KAB
recently
launched
a

recycling
PSA
campaign
to
change
the
habits
of
occasional
recyclers
to
everyday
recyclers.

The
campaign,
entitled
“I
Want
To
Be
Recycled,”
raises
awareness
about
litter
prevention

and
recycling.
Its
key
audiences
are
Americans
who
do
not
actively
recycle.
The
campaign

is
raising
awareness
through
TV
commercials,
radio,
billboards,
and
banner
ads.
The

heartfelt
PSA
shows
that
aluminum
cans
and
plastic
water
bottles
can
turn
into
beautiful

things
when
recycled,
and
attempts
to
use
emotional
appeals
to
persuade
consumers
to

57

"Keep
America
Beautiful."
Sourcewatch.org.
The
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,

15
May
2009.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

Weatherly

|

65

recycle
their
aluminum
cans
and
plastic
water
bottles.
58

In
reality,
according
to
the
EPA
and

the
nonprofit
Earth911,
aluminum
cans
have
about
a
50
percent
recyclability
rate
59
,
but

plastic
bottles
are
only
recycled
by
an
average
of
eight
percent.
60

Point
of
View:

The
author
supports
Leonard
and
Conrad
in
The
Story
of
Stuff:
How
Our
Obsession

with
Stuff
Is
Trashing
the
Planet,
Our
Communities,
and
Our
Health--and
a
Vision
for
Change

in
believing
that
KAB
is
a
special
interest
group
for
the
largest
food/beverage
and
plastic

companies
that
try
to
sell
environmental
stewardship
to
their
consumers
through

affiliation
with
a
nonprofit.
In
this
campaign,
it
appears
the
corporate
sponsors
are

attempting
to
alleviate
the
burden
placed
on
them
to
clean
up
their
products
and
recycling

standards
by
making
the
consumers
responsible
for
their
own
litter.
The
author
fears
the

corporate
sponsors
are
greenwashing
with
their
public
relations
and
“CSR”
efforts
by

persuading
the
consumers
that
they
care
about
recycling
and
the
environment,
while
in

reality,
Leonard
and
Conrad
note
KAB
and
its
corporate
sponsors
also
partner
to
lobby

against
stricter
recycling
regulations
and
bottle
bills
(Leonard
and
Conrad,
196).

The
nonprofit’s
“I
Want
to
be
Recycled”
campaign
is
not
the
worst
campaign

produced
by
the
organization.
The
campaign
uses
accurate
and
horrifying
facts
about
how

much
Americans
waste
products
and
packaging,
especially
when
the
majority
of
the
items

58

"KAB,
Ad
Council
Unveil
Landmark
Recycling
Campaign
PSA."
Keepamericabeautiful.org.

N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

59

"Facts
About
Aluminum
Recycling."
Earth911.com.
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
11
Jan.
2014.

60

"Plastics,
Common
Wastes
&
Materials."
EPA.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
n.d.

Web.
12
Jan.
2014.

Weatherly

|

66

are
almost
always
recyclable.
It
is
true
that
recycling
is
a
great
way
to
help
the
environment

and
avoid
trash
filling
up
in
the
landfills.

But
reusing
items
and
reducing
consumption,
i.e.,
using
reusable
water
bottles,
are

BETTER
options
for
the
environment
than
merely
recycling
empty
containers.
The
“I
Want

to
be
Recycled”
campaign
could
thus
be
seen
as
greenwashing.
The
corporate
sponsors
may

be
encouraging
recycling
in
order
to
appear
that
they
care
about
the
environment,
but
they

are
not
actively
discouraging
the
purchase
of
aluminum
cans
and
plastic
water
bottles,
so

long
as
they
are
recycled
when
empty.
If
Americans
find
easier
ways
to
reduce

consumption
and
reuse
their
items,
the
companies
sponsoring
KAB
could
face
serious

revenue
losses.
The
author
believes
this
is
why
this
campaign
exists:
to
tell
Americans
that

it’s
okay
to
purchase
as
many
products
as
they
wish,
so
long
as
they
are
recycling
them
and

doing
something
good
for
the
environment.
Yes,
recycling
is
a
good
option
for
the
planet,

but
it’s
not
the
best
and
only
option.
Americans
may
think
they
are
providing
a
benefit
to

the
environment
by
running
out
to
their
nearest
grocery
store
to
purchase
the
latest

“recyclable”
or
“plant-‐based”
can
or
bottle,
when
really
they
are
just
generating
more
waste

for
the
landfills.
Greenwashing
and
the
“I
Want
to
be
Recycled”
campaign
do
not
attempt
to

change
consumer
behaviors;
they
just
move
consumers’
purchasing
powers
in
“greener”

directions.

X.
Case
Study:
Patagonia

–
Greenwash
or
Green
Biz?

Next,
the
author
identifies
a
case
study
she
believes
could
be
considered
a
true

corporate
sustainability
campaign
in
comparison
to
the
case
study
above.

Weatherly

|

67

Organization
&
Industry/Category
Overview:

It’s
sometimes
hard
to
determine
who
wears
the
true
“green
hat”
in
corporate
social

responsibility
and
environmental
sustainability.
Lines
can
become
so
blurred
that

consumers
do
not
know
what
to
consider
as
truth
in
regards
to
sustainability,
and
which

corporation
is
being
honest
and
transparent
in
its
CSR
efforts.
From
the
author’s
research,

it
is
clear
that
Patagonia
stands
apart
from
other
companies
in
its
environmental

sustainability
and
transparency
initiatives.

According
to
its
website,
patagonia.com,
Patagonia’s
mission
is
to
be
“the
leader
in

green
outdoor
apparel.”
The
company’s
CSR
focus
is
on
environmental
programs
and

initiatives.
But
it
also
incorporates
sustainability
in
the
company
culture,
with
a
well-‐
developed
environmental
analysis
department
and
a
two-‐month
paid
sabbatical
for

employees
to
leave
Patagonia
and
intern
at
an
environmental
organization
of
the

employee’s
choice.
The
company
also
has
ensured
that
its
supply
chain
is
compliant
with
its

mission,
and
it
takes
pride
in
its
transparency
by
allowing
customers
to
track
a
product’s

origins
from
design
to
delivery
and
by
clearly
explaining
its
sustainable
manufacturing

processes.

For
example,
Patagonia
is
considered
a
trailblazer
in
the
organic
cotton
farming

industry.
The
company
is
credited
with
first
creating
awareness
of
the
environmental

benefits
of
organic
cotton
farming.
In
addition,
Patagonia
expects
to
be
the
first
major

retailer
to
partner
with
Fair
Trade
USA,
a
third
party
verifier,
to
make
nine
apparel
styles

Fair
Trade
Certified
by
Fall
2014.
61

61

Boynton,
Jen.
"Patagonia
Goes
Fair
Trade."
Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
22
Oct.

2013.
Web.
Nov.
2013.

Weatherly

|

68

Competitive
Analysis:

The
company’s
competitors
include
other
outdoor
apparel
retailers,
such
as

Northface,
Nike,
REI,
Eddie
Bauer
and
Cabela’s.
Patagonia
differentiates
itself
in
the
entire

apparel
industry
with
its
many
environmental
commitments
to
have
LEED-‐certified
retail

facilities;
making
contributions
to
environmental
grants
for
communities;
providing

donations
of
one
percent
of
its
annual
revenue
to
environmental
nonprofits
with
the
1%

for
the
Planet
organization;
reducing
its
water
use,
and
continually
improving
its
100

percent
organic
cotton
program.

Challenge/Opportunity

In
this
author’s
opinion,
Patagonia’s
“Common
Threads
Initiative”
is
the
most

outstanding
CSR,
non-‐greenwashing
campaign
to
come
out
of
any
corporation.
This

initiative
gained
the
spotlight
in
December
2011,
a
date
most
commonly
known
as
“Cyber

Monday;”
the
online
shopping
equivalent
of
“Black
Friday,”
which
is
considered
the
biggest

shopping
day
of
the
year.
On
that
day
in
2011,
Patagonia
published
an
advertisement

shown
below
in
Exhibit
20
with
a
picture
of
one
of
their
outdoor
jackets
accompanied
by

words
in
big,
black
print
that
said
“DON’T
BUY
THIS
JACKET.”

Weatherly

|

69

Exhibit
20:
Patagonia’s
“Don’t
Buy
This
Jacket”
Advertisement,
Patagonia.com

The
advertisement
kicked
off
Patagonia’s
Common
Threads
Initiative.
According
to

Patagonia’s
website,
the
initiative
is
intended
to
raise
consumer
conscious
about

purchasing
items
they
didn’t
need.
It
forced
consumers
to
ask
themselves
if
they
really

needed
a
new
garment,
especially
if
they
had
a
perfectly
good
item
in
their
closet
or
had
the

option
to
repair
the
item.
In
its
website,
Patagonia
acknowledges
the
culture
of

consumption
and
“green
products,”
and
seeks
to
educate
consumers
about
the
issue
and
its

detrimental
effects
on
the
environment.
In
Patagonia’s
webpage
dedicated
to
the
initiative,

it
revealed
the
reason
for
its
“Don’t
Buy
This
Jacket”
advertisement:
“Because
Patagonia

wants
to
be
in
business
for
a
good
long
time
–
and
leave
a
world
inhabitable
for
our
kids
–

we
want
to
do
the
opposite
of
every
other
business
today.
We
ask
you
to
buy
less
and
to

reflect
before
you
spend
a
dime
on
this
jacket
or
anything
else.”
Patagonia
recognizes
that

the
apparel
industry
is
using
the
planet’s
natural
resources
at
a
rapid
pace
for
its
clothing,

and
the
company
wants
to
educate
consumers
about
the
literal
and
environmental
costs
of

Weatherly

|

70

over-‐consumption.
In
the
“Don’t
Buy
This
Jacket”
campaign,
it
actually
gave
consumers

statistics
about
how
much
CO2
emissions,
cotton,
water,
and
packaging
waste
went
into
just

one
of
Patagonia’s
jackets.
The
campaign
was
considered
revolutionary
for
the
apparel

industry,
and
it
could
lead
to
a
decrease
in
consumption
if
Patagonia
succeeds
in
such

consumer
education
efforts.
62

Point
of
View:

Patagonia
nails
CSR.
The
company
asks
its
customers
to
stop
and
think
about

purchasing
their
products
they
might
not
need,
which
is
completely
unheard-‐of
in
the
retail

industry.
It
asks
customers
to
reduce,
repair,
reuse
and
THEN
recycle
their
clothing,
in

comparison
to
Keep
America
Beautiful,
which
only
asks
consumers
to
recycle
rather
than

reduce
or
reuse
their
plastic
water
bottles.
The
awareness
Patagonia
is
raising
about
over-‐
consumption
may
create
a
long-‐term
benefit
to
the
environment,
on
top
of
Patagonia’s

existing
goals
to
significantly
reduce
its
waste,
CO2
emissions
and
water
in
their

manufacturing.
It’s
a
smart
business
move
for
Patagonia,
because
it
wants
to
stay
in

business,
and
its
product
lines
likely
appeal
to
physically
active,
environmentally
conscious

consumers.
Patagonia
can’t
succeed
if
over-‐consumption
devastates
the
natural

environment
and
resources
upon
which
it
relies
on
to
create
its
apparel.
Interestingly,

Patagonia
still
manages
to
be
a
leader
in
the
outdoor
apparel
market,
even
though
it
asks

customers
to
not
purchase
clothes
they
don’t
need.

This
is
a
company
that
builds
CSR
from
the
top!down,
from
its
industry
ideologies

to
its
business
model,
to
its
company
culture
and
THEN
to
its
products
and
philanthropic

62

"Patagonia's
Common
Threads
Partnership."
Patagonia.com.
Patagonia,
n.d.
Web.

Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

71

programs.
Many
corporations
start
their
CSR
programs
from
the
bottom!
up
with
the

occasional
philanthropic
check
or
recycling
program
on
the
lower
levels
of
the
pyramid,

but
their
CSR
efforts
seldom
spread
to
the
top
of
the
pyramid
at
the
business
model
level.

Patagonia
is
a
pioneer
in
CSR,
and
companies
should
learn
from
this
industry
leader.

XI.
Public
Relations
Fights
Back
–
Professional
PR
Ethics

A.
The
Public
Relations
Society
of
America

Even
though
the
public
relations
industry
has
endured
some
disheartening

examples
of
greenwashing
and
the
making
of
unethical
environmental
claims,
the
industry

also
appears
to
be
fighting
to
gain
good
faith
with
the
public.

In
2009,
the
Public
Relations
Society
of
America
(PRSA),
the
largest
U.S.

professional
PR
organization,
announced
a
“Professional
Standards
Advisory
on

Questionable
Environmental
Claims
and
Endorsements,”
a.k.a.
greenwashing.
The

organization
based
the
Advisory
on
its
Code
of
Ethics,
which
adheres
to
standards
of

advocacy,
honesty,
expertise,
independence,
loyalty
and
fairness.
The
2009
Advisory
warns

PR
professionals
employed
in
corporations
that
could
be
participating
in
greenwashing
of

the
potential
damage
and
consequences
that
can
occur
to
their
reputations
as
practitioners,

or
to
the
reputations
of
the
companies
where
they
are
employed.
63

According
to
the
Advisory,
greenwashing
cripples
four
important
PRSA
values:
free

flow
of
information;
competition;
disclosure
of
information,
and
enhancing
the
profession.

Greenwashing
inhibits
the
free
flow
of
information
when
a
PR
professional
knowingly

63

"Professional
Standards
Advisory
PS-‐12
Questionable
Environmental
Claims
and

Endorsements
(Greenwashing)."
Prsa.org.
Public
Relations
Society
of
America,
Oct.

2009.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

72

withholds
or
attempts
to
constrain
factual
information
into
the
flow
of
markets.
64

It

conflicts
with
competition
when
a
company
claims
inaccurate
or
misleading
superiority
for

its
product
or
service
with
an
environmental
benefit.
Disclosure
of
information
is
obviously

affected,
because
a
company
can
withhold
facts
about
paid
endorsements
or
exaggerated

environmental
product
attributes.
When
PR
professionals
use
greenwashing
tactics,
the

industry’s
reputation
as
a
whole
becomes
vulnerable,
because
PR
pros
are
the

communicators
of
corporations.
If
they
are
inaccurate
or
misleading,
the
industry
itself
can

get
a
bad
reputation
because
of
even
one
practitioner’s
inability
to
uphold
the
PRSA
Code
of

Ethics.
When
it
comes
to
greenwashing
and
the
public
relations
industry,
one
bad
apple
can

spoil
the
bunch.

The
PRSA
Advisory
goes
on
to
cite
examples
of
improper
communication
practices,

similar
to
TerraChoice’s
“Seven
Sins
of
Greenwashing.”
The
third
section
of
the
provision

lists
recommended
best
practices
for
PR
practitioners,
including:
64

• The
practitioner
should
educate
themselves
on
the
actual
product
and
fact
check

product
information
with
the
associated
messages
they
wish
to
make.

• The
practitioner
needs
to
provide
accurate
evidence
on
all
facts
and
studies
related

to
the
product
information
and
have
them
available
if
and
when
a
customer
or

journalist
contacts
them.

• Environmental
sustainability
and
corporate
social
responsibility
go
hand-‐in-‐hand.

The
only
way
to
be
a
socially
responsible
corporation
is
to
be
truthful
about
a
green

64

"Professional
Standards
Advisory
PS-‐12
Questionable
Environmental
Claims
and

Endorsements
(Greenwashing)."
Prsa.org.
Public
Relations
Society
of
America,
Oct.

2009.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

73

product,
and
one
of
the
best
practices
a
company
can
embrace
is
to
prove
its

committed
to
sustainability
and
responsibility.

• The
practitioner
should
educate
the
consumer
about
the
environmental
attributes

of
a
product,
not
confuse
them.

• A
practitioner
needs
to
use
universal
words
an
audience
can
understand,
and
be
as

specific
as
possible
in
their
communication.

• A
practitioner
should
always
strive
to
eliminate
the
possibility
of
misinterpretation

that
could
lead
to
green
marketing
investigations
by
the
FTC.

• A
product
should
always
be
aligned
with
the
company’s
overall
sustainability

mission.
For
example,
if
the
company’s
overall
sustainability
goal
is
to
be
a
zero-‐
waste
corporation,
but
it
makes
a
product
with
non-‐recyclable
packing,
this
is

neither
sustainable
nor
socially
responsible.
The
company
could
be
considered

greenwashing.
If
a
company
truly
wants
to
commit
to
sustainability,
it
needs
to

demonstrate
this
commitment
throughout
its
entire
manufacturing
process,
not
just

in
the
marketing
of
the
product.

It
is
the
author’s
opinion
that
these
provisions
are
necessary
for
the
public
relations

industry;
the
reputation
and
honesty
of
the
profession
are
susceptible
to
being
damaged
by

misleading
environmental
communication.
Communicators
are
the
gateway
to
a
company,

which
is
why
it’s
important
for
professionals
to
think
about
how
they
can
uphold
the
PRSA

Code
of
Ethics
in
their
everyday
work
environments.
65

65

"Professional
Standards
Advisory
PS-‐12
Questionable
Environmental
Claims
and

Endorsements
(Greenwashing)."
Prsa.org.
Public
Relations
Society
of
America,
Oct.

2009.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

74

B.
The
UK’s
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations

Practitioners
in
the
United
Kingdom
also
recognize
the
potential
harm

greenwashing
and
irresponsible
communication
can
create
to
corporations
and
to
the

public
relations
industry.
The
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations
(CIPR)
published
a

“Best
Practices
Guideline
for
Environmental
Sustainability
Communications.”
The
guideline

starts
by
emphasizing
that
PR
practitioners
have
a
moral
duty
to
set
the
standards
for

ethical
communication.
66

The
CIPR
guideline
defines
greenwashing
as
“misleading
or
false
environmental

communication
that
generally
occurs
when
a
company
spends
more
money
on
promoting
a

product
that
is
not
environmentally
friendly
than
re-‐making
the
product
in
a
sustainable

manner.”
The
organization
also
sees
greenwashing
as
a
“distraction
strategy,”
intended
to

make
a
company
look
environmentally
friendly
so
no
one
will
notice
it
performing
some

other
unethical
practice.
CIPR’s
guideline
discusses
not
only
the
negative
effects
of

greenwashing,
such
as
diminished
trust
in
the
brand
from
consumers
and
stakeholders,
but

the
harm
greenwashing
does
to
the
actual
environment.
The
CIPR
contends
that

exaggerating
claims
creates
suspicion
and
distracts
stakeholders
from
the
work
that

actually
needs
to
be
done
to
protect
the
environment.
66

As
a
practice,
greenwashing
conflicts
with
two
CIPR
Codes
of
Conduct:
integrity
and

competence.
According
to
the
CIPR,
greenwashing
clouds
integrity
when
integrity
is

needed
for
environmental
communications.
Integrity
requires
that
practitioners
are
honest

and
open
about
product
or
service
attributes
and
partnerships.
Competence
is
linked
to
the

66

"CIPR
Best
Practice
Guidelines
for
Environmental
Sustainability

Communications."Cipr.co.uk.
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.

2013.

Weatherly

|

75

act
of
greenwashing,
because
a
communicator
should
not
take
on
the
responsibility
to

market
environmental
sustainability
if
he/she
does
not
have
the
knowledge
to
do
so
in
an

ethical
manner.

The
competence
Code
of
Conduct
supports
an
idea
in
the
author’s
content
analysis

of
the
portrayal
of
greenwashing
in
traditional
media
versus
blogs.
Only
“neutral”
words
or

phrases
in
the
100
newspaper
articles
and
blogs
about
greenwashing
popped
up
when
the

communicator
of
the
industry
or
company
was
unable
to
accurately
describe
product

attributes
due
to
insubstantial
skills
or
experience,
such
as
“misguided,”
or
“honest

mistake.”
If
greenwashing
slipped
through
a
corporation’s
communication
unintentionally,

it
could
hurt
both
the
practitioner
and
the
corporation.
A
corporate
reputation
could
be

damaged
without
deliberate
falsification.
67

In
its
guideline,
CIPR
also
explains
the
causes
of
greenwashing,
which
include:
67

Corporate
culture
as
a
potential
contributing
cause,
especially
if
a
company
is

reluctant
to
own
up
to
mistakes
and
recognize
its
wrongdoings.
An
egotistical
corporate

culture
allows
the
potential
for
unethical
communication
to
be
swept
under
the
rug

without
learning
how
to
implement
better
practices
for
the
future.
In
this
case,
a

corporation
may
not
place
a
high
value
on
honesty
and
transparency,
nor
on
gaining
and

keeping
trust
with
its
stakeholders
and
consumers.

Second,
the
organization
might
aspire
to
be
socially
responsible
and

environmentally
sustainable,
but
actual
practices
sometimes
do
not
live
up
to
these

expectations.
Greenwashing
can
therefore
occur
in
the
organizations
that
blur
the
gap

67

"CIPR
Best
Practice
Guidelines
for
Environmental
Sustainability

Communications."Cipr.co.uk.
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.

2013.

Weatherly

|

76

between
action
and
aspiration.
If
pressure
is
placed
on
the
company
to
be
environmentally

sustainable,
companies
can
use
greenwashing
tactics
to
appeal
its
stakeholders
and
not
feel

like
it
failed
their
expectations.
But
as
the
earlier
study
from
Hill
+
Knowlton
Strategies

indicated,
consumers
and
stakeholders
would
prefer
to
have
the
corporation
be
honest
in

its
CSR
reports
and
address
its
shortcomings
rather
than
falsify
or
provide
misleading

information.
68

There
is
not
a
“one
size
fits
all”
approach
to
CSR,
and
a
company’s

commitment
to
environmental
protection
can
be
accomplished.
But,
it’s
a
long-‐term

commitment.
Consumers
and
stakeholders
do
not
expect
corporations
to
save
the
world
in

a
day,
but
they
do
expect
them
to
make
a
consistent
effort
in
the
fight
against
climate

change.

CIPR
also
advises
that
transparency
is
the
most
important
key
to
communicate

environmental
attributes.
Specific
recommendations
include:
69

• Using
accepted
industry
standards/methodologies
in
a
company’s
product
or

service
studies
and
reports.

• Avoiding
making
claims
that
are
difficult
for
journalists
or
stakeholders
to
prove
or

understand.
A
product
or
service
claim
should
not
be
used
at
all
if
a
communicator

cannot
find
an
easy
and
universal
way
to
use
it
in
their
marketing.

68

"Companies
Build
Public
Trust
Through
Sustainability
Reporting,
New
H&K

Research
Shows:
Most
Americans
Believe
Efforts
to
Be
Sustainable
Increase
Public

Trust
-‐-‐-‐
Even
When
Results
Fall
Short
of
Goals."
Bulldogreporter.com.
Bulldog

Reporter,
11
Apr.
2013.
Web.
June
2013.

69

"CIPR
Best
Practice
Guidelines
for
Environmental
Sustainability

Communications."Cipr.co.uk.
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.

2013.

Weatherly

|

77

• Being
aware
of
potential
conflicts
of
interest
in
environmental
campaigns.
For

example,
if
a
company’s
environmental
campaign
is
about
recycling,
a
press
release

should
not
be
sent
hard
copy
on
non-‐recycled
paper.

• CIPR’s
guidelines
reinforce
that
“actions
speak
louder
than
words”
in
environmental

sustainability.
It
is
therefore
necessary
to
look
at
every
action
a
company
takes
to

promote
its
sustainability
messages.

• Legal
compliance
also
is
mentioned
in
the
CIPR
code.
Compliance
and
regulation

should
not
be
decorated
to
make
the
corporation
look
like
it
is
taking
extra
efforts
to

protect
the
environment,
especially
if
the
entire
industry
is
making
the
same
exact

changes.

• Finally,
PR
practitioners
should
always
fact
check
environmental
claims
they
receive

from
a
client
or
their
own
company
and
never
deliberately
lie.

The
guideline
explains
that
in
the
end,
unethical
communication
about

environmental
sustainability
is
not
helping
anyone.
Consumers
and
stakeholders
will

eventually
find
out
about
an
organization’s
false
information,
and
greenwashing
only
adds

to
cynicism
about
the
PR
industry
by
the
media
and
the
public.
It
also
makes
it
harder
for

honest
PR
practitioners
and
companies
to
make
any
headway
into
making
legitimate

improvements
to
the
environment,
because
claims
are
likely
to
be
misconstrued
and

pinpointed
as
greenwashing.
70

70

"CIPR
Best
Practice
Guidelines
for
Environmental
Sustainability

Communications."Cipr.co.uk.
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.

2013.

Weatherly

|

78

XII.
Best
Practices

A.
It’s
Not
Easy
Being
Green
–
How
Corporations
Can
Avoid
Greenwashing

In
its
Greenwashing
Guide,
Futerra,
the
communications
agency
that
specializes
in

environmental
public
relations,
help
companies,
as
well
as
consumers,
avoid
greenwashing.

The
Guide
offers
seven
steps
for
companies
to
dodge
the
green
marketing
pits
that
befall
on

many
companies,
including:
71

1.
A
corporation
should
look
at
its
business
models,
products
and
company
culture.
It’s

not
useful
to
create
a
CSR
model
if
a
company
is
not
truly
“green”
from
the
inside
out.

2.
If
CSR
only
applies
to
the
bottom
level
of
business
(in
its
communication
materials),

the
media
and
public
are
more
likely
to
criticize
the
corporation,
and
its
reputation
can

take
a
damaging
hit.

3.
A
company
should
not
promote
a
small
environmental
aspect
of
a
product
or
service

if
the
entire
process
is
not
sustainable.
It’s
not
wise
for
an
automobile
maker
to
market

itself
as
the
“leader
in
energy
efficient
cars,”
for
example,
if
it
makes
everything
from

hybrids
to
Hummers.

4.
The
agency
also
explains
that
being
green
by
design
is
important.
It
discourages

companies
from
seeking
out
markets
where
they
can
be
sustainable
just
to
hop
on
the

“green
train.”
Instead,
companies
should
take
the
products
or
services
they
already

have
and
redesign
those
to
be
more
sustainable.
This
way,
the
product
is
easier
to

promote
and
will
most
likely
be
more
cost-‐efficient
for
the
company.

71

"The
Greenwash
Guide."
Futerra.co.uk.
Futerra
Sustainability
Communications,
11

Apr.
2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

79

5.
Fact
checking
has
already
been
recommended
many
times,
but
Futerra
notes
this
is

one
of
the
worst
and
easily
avoidable
mistakes
a
company
can
make.
The
company

should
employ
reliable,
unbiased
experts
to
check
a
design
of
a
product
all
the
way

through
its
life
cycle
and
disposal.
In
the
same
regards,
hiring
third
parties
to
endorse
a

product
can
be
dangerous.
A
corporation
needs
to
ensure
it
doesn’t
get
tempted
with

easy
alternatives.
Futerra
explains
that
the
credible
organizations
are
the
hardest
to

bring
in,
but
that’s
exactly
why
consumers
trust
them
the
most.

6.
Words
can
backfire.
Consumers
do
not
buy
into
the
descriptions
of
“eco-‐friendly”
and

“free
of
toxins”
any
longer.
A
corporation
needs
to
use
specific,
legitimate
words
to

promote
an
environmental
product
attribute.
It
also
needs
to
use
discretion
when
using

suggestive
“green”
pictures.

7.
Product
packaging
isn’t
the
only
place
where
greenwashing
occurs.
A
company

should
greencheck
all
of
its
informational
outlets
all
the
way
from
CEO’s
speeches,
to

websites
and
Facebook,
to
media
interviews.
Futerra
suggests
checking
all
channels
for

“greenwash
infestation.”

B.
What
Makes
a
Good
CSR
Report

A
well-‐written
and
transparent
CSR
report
means
that
a
company
is
making
strides

in
environmental
improvements
and
communicating
honestly
about
what
it
has
done
and

its
goals
for
the
future.
If
a
company
does
not
have
established
goals
or
objectives,
it
is

difficult
to
measure
its
success.
But
a
corporation
should
not
create
objectives
regarding
its

CSR
activities
without
knowing
how
it
is
going
to
get
there.
Having
a
realistic,
measurable

Weatherly

|

80

and
strategic
timeframe,
as
well
as
clear
objectives
are
important
for
a
corporation
to
avoid

greenwashing
in
its
CSR
reports.
72

A
corporation
doesn’t
have
to
hide
the
poor
environmental
impacts
of
its
business.
It

should
acknowledge
any
negatives
but
explain
that
it
has
definitive
plans
to
turn
this

challenge
into
an
opportunity
to
improve
its
environmental
impact.
However,
the

corporation
needs
to
actually
take
the
required
steps
to
lessen
its
impact
and
follow

through
with
its
set
goals
and
not
just
present
it
in
pretty,
green
font
to
misguide

stakeholders
and
shareholders.
72

In
the
first
session
of
the
author’s
Communication
Management
577:

Communicating
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
course
at
the
University
of
Southern

California,
she
learned
that
CSR
is
NOT
philanthropy.
This
ideology
should
be
recognized
in

CSR
reports,
as
well.
A
corporation
should
not
devote
a
CSR
report
to
its
philanthropy

efforts.
While
philanthropic
checks
to
nonprofits
are
nice,
they
don’t
fully
demonstrate
the

sustainable
direction
a
corporation
may
be
taking
to
enhance
its
business
model
and
how

that
direction
is
trickling
down
through
the
corporation’s
products
or
programs.
72

A
company
should
not
be
afraid
to
ask
for
help
with
its
CSR
reports.
There
are

reliable
third-‐party
reporting
organizations,
like
the
UN
Global
Reporting
Initiative,
which

it
can
use
to
become
certified
in
CSR
reporting.
72

In
public
relations,
storytelling
is
a
great
strategy
to
communicate
CSR
messages.

However,
CSR
reports
should
strive
for
a
balance
of
powerful
statistics
of
what
the

corporation
has
accomplished,
as
well
as
heartwarming
stories.
According
to
Triplepundit,

72

3P
Contributor.
"How
to
Write
a
Great
Corporate
Social
Responsibility

Report."Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
26
July
2013.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

81

a
website
that
covers
corporate
social
responsibility,
in
its
article
“How
to
Write
a
Great

Corporate
Social
Responsibility
Report,”
telling
a
story
may
even
be
more
meaningful
if
it

follows
a
statistic
of
how
that
story
began,
but
a
report
that
is
more
heavily
relying
on

painting
an
emotional
picture
over
facts
could
come
across
as
greenwashing
and
a
“PR

gimmick.”
73

XIII.
Current
CSR
and
Greenwashing

Bruno
also
mentioned
a
newer
trend
in
corporate
communications
practices
that
he

believes
is
being
used
alongside
greenwashing:
bluewashing.
According
to
a
New
York

Times
blog
post
from
2010,
corporations
may
use
bluewashing
to
gain
access
and

advantage
in
developing
countries
by
portraying
themselves
as
humanitarians
that
will

eliminate
child
labor
and
gender
discrimination
and
work
toward
the
preservation
of

human
rights.
74

As
with
greenwashing,
such
corporations
would
use
bluewashing
to

mislead
consumers
and
countries
that
they
need
to
construct
a
power
plant
or

manufacturing
factory
for
the
betterment
of
human
and
labor
development.
Bruno,

however,
believes
that
both
misleading
arguments
are
being
used
together
to
“give

corporations
a
more
powerful
edge
to
do
environmental
and
social
‘good’
for
the
world.”
75

This
bluewashing
trend
may
distract
consumers
and
policymakers
from
the
core
of

environmental
problems.
One
example
may
be
seen
in
the
energy
industry’s
position
on
the

use
of
fossil
fuels.
While
there
may
be
growing
public
sentiment
that
to
stop
climate

73

3P
Contributor.
"How
to
Write
a
Great
Corporate
Social
Responsibility

Report."Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
26
July
2013.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

74

"Bluewashing."
Nytimes.com.
The
New
York
Times,
4
Feb.
2010.
Web.
Dec.
2013.

75

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

82

change,
the
fossil
fuel
industry
needs
to
be
eradicated
or
find
ways
to
use
less
non-‐
renewable,
dirty,
polluting
energy
sources,
some
corporations
may
be
using
the
argument

that
fossil
fuels
create
an
energy
source
for
people
in
the
developing
world,
and
they
can

help
bring
energy
sources
to
underdeveloped
countries
by
further
expanding
the
use
of

fossil
fuels.
However,
in
order
to
successfully
address
the
fight
against
climate
change,
it

seems
contradictory
to
expand
usage
of
fossil
fuels
in
developing
countries
while

diminishing
it
in
developed
countries
at
the
same
time.
But
fossil
fuel
corporations
may
be

using
the
argument
that
social
responsibility
needs
to
be
a
priority
over
environmental

responsibility.
Such
an
approach
could
be
characterized
as
the
use
of
bluewashing
and

greenwashing
together.

While
some
unethical
companies
may
still
be
engaged
in
inappropriate

greenwashing,
consumers
also
need
to
be
aware
of
the
potential
use
of
bluewashing
as
a

new
argument
for
alleviating
poverty
in
the
developing
world.
Consumers
need
to
be

aware
of
this
potential
new
trend
if
they
want
to
purchase
from
companies
that
are
truly

environmentally
responsible
AND
socially
responsible.

XIV.
Consequences
of
Greenwashing

A.
Future
Implications
for
Environmental
PR

Ultimately,
neither
bluewashing
nor
greenwashing
is
healthy
for
a
corporation’s

reputation,
nor
for
the
environment
as
a
whole.
Consumers
can
become
confused
when

corporations
use
misleading
claims
to
promote
their
not-‐so-‐green
products
or
services,

while
other
corporations
promote
truly
“green”
products
or
services
through
ethical
public

relations
practices.
In
some
cases,
this
confusion
might
lead
to
consumers
not
buying
either

product
for
fear
of
being
misled.
In
a
worst-‐case
scenario,
both
companies
could
go
out
of

Weatherly

|

83

business
because
of
declines
in
revenues,
including
the
one
that
had
created
genuinely

environmentally
friendly
products.
76

Environmental
marketing
expert
Bruno
believes
that
the
long
history
of

greenwashing
(and
now
bluewashing)
has
given
consumers
and
policymakers
a
healthy

dose
of
skepticism,
and
neither
are
buying
what
corporations
are
“spinning”
when
it
comes

to
a
corporation’s
claims
to
be
sustainable
and
socially
beneficial.
Bruno
suggests
that
a

different
kind
of
public
relations
is
needed
and
advocates
for
honesty
as
the
best
practice

PR
professionals
can
use,
since
it’s
also
what
consumers
want
the
most.
According
to

Bruno,
a
company
should
strive
towards
building
a
strong,
positive,
long-‐term
reputation,

which
is
more
important
than
short-‐term
goals
that
might
be
accomplished
through

greenwashing.
77

Bruno
notes
there
may
be
a
need
for
stricter
government
regulation
as
well
as
more

consumer
pressure
for
corporations
to
be
truly
sustainable.
It
has
to
be
a
trifecta
of

collaboration
to
eliminate
greenwashing,
involving
watchdog
agencies,
consumer
pressure,

and
government
regulation.
The
only
true
way
to
eradicate
greenwashing
is
for

corporations
to
actually
be
sustainable
and
accountable,
no
if’s,
and’s,
or
but’s.
This
would

create
a
level
playing
field
so
that
no
corporation
could
use
greenwashing
to
manipulate

messages
in
order
to
sell
more
products
and
make
more
profits;
no
corporation
would

have
a
greater
competitive
advantage
in
sustainability.
77

76

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

77

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone

interview.
16
Sept.
2013.

Weatherly

|

84

Importantly,
Bruno
does
not
believe
it’s
a
crime
for
an
industry
to
be
fundamentally

at
odds
with
sustainability.
For
example,
he
notes
that
it’s
no
secret
that
the
coal
industry
is

a
very
polluting
field,
but
it
is
possible
to
work
towards
transitioning
the
coal
industry
to

become
more
environmentally
friendly,
without
using
greenwashing,
such
as
by
having
a

coal-‐fired
power
plant
work
towards
using
renewable
energy
sources,
instead
of
using

fossil
fuels.
7777

According
to
Bruno,
a
corporation
also
should
avoid
lobbying
for
environmental

deregulation
or
environmentally
unfriendly
policies
when
it
is
marketing
itself
as
an

environmentally
responsible
company.
For
example,
the
possibility
of
expanding
a
huge
oil

pipeline
project
in
the
United
States
known
as
the
Keystone
XL
pipeline
is
a
very

controversial
topic.
But
opponents
believe
the
expansion
could
have
a
lot
of
negative

environmental
consequences
if
approved
by
the
Obama
Administration.
In
mid-‐October
of

2013,
150
companies
(most
of
whom
market
themselves
as
sustainable)
wrote
a
letter
to

President
Obama
urging
him
to
okay
the
construction
of
the
project.
Normally,
companies

from
the
oil,
coal
and
energy-‐related
industries
would
write
these
letters.
But
General

Electric,
AT&T
and
Waste
Management
were
among
those
lobbying
for
approval,
even

though
they
are
called
corporate
leaders
in
environmental
responsibility.
78

The
author
wonders
whether
a
corporation
can
market
itself
solely
as
sustainable

and
then
turn
around
and
lobby
for
unsustainable
environmental
projects.
Questions
of

ethical
morality
as
well
as
potential
impact
on
the
company’s
brand
reputation
and

corporate
social
responsibility
investment
must
be
considered.

78

Godelnik,
Raz.
"Sustainable
Business
Leaders
Call
on
Obama
to
Approve
the

Keystone
XL
Pipeline."
Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
18
Oct.
2013.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

Weatherly

|

85

The
author
hopes
that
this
thesis
will
bring
to
light
the
negative
consequences
of

greenwashing
for
corporations.
To
remain
socially
responsible,
the
number
one
thing
a

corporation
can
do
is
continuously
act
in
favor
of
sustainable
initiatives.
Improving
its

ethical
environmental
PR
and
marketing
efforts
with
legitimate
green
marketing
claims

should
come
second.
A
corporation
cannot
“talk
the
talk”
if
it
cannot
“walk
the
walk,”
first

and
foremost.

The
author
hopes
this
work
has
raised
new
considerations
in
environmental
public

relations
and
marketing
practices,
and
that
ultimately
it
ushers
in
a
new
era,
in
which

greenwashing
is
no
longer
used
to
gain
profits,
and
corporations
become
more
sustainable

and
environmentally
responsible
as
a
whole.

Weatherly

|

86

Reference
List:

"2013
Cone
Communications/Echo
Global
CSR
Study."
Global
CSR
Study.
Cone

Communications
and
Echo
Research,
22
May
2013.
Web.
June
2013.

3P
Contributor.
"How
to
Write
a
Great
Corporate
Social
Responsibility
Report."

Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
26
July
2013.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"About
Greenwashing."
Greenwashing
Index.
EnviroMedia
Social
Marketing
and
the

University
of
Oregon
School
of
Journalism
and
Communication,
n.d.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

"About
Us."
Keepamericabeautiful.org.
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"About
Us."
PR
Watch.
The
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
n.d.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

"The
American
Cancer
Society:
The
World's
Wealthiest
"Nonprofit"
Institution."
The

American
Cancer
Society:
The
World's
Wealthiest
"Nonprofit"
Institution.

Preventcancer.com,
Jan.
1999.
Web.
12
Jan.
2014.

Beder,
Sharon.
"Chapter
7:
The
Public
Relations
Industry."
Global
Spin:
The

Corporate
Assault
on
Environmentalism.
Dartington,
Totnes,
Devon,
UK:
Green,
2002.

107-‐24.
Print.

Beder,
Sharon.
"Chapter
8:
Public
Relations
Strategies."
Global
Spin:
The
Corporate

Assault
on
Environmentalism.
Dartington,
Totnes,
Devon,
UK:
Green,
2002.
125-‐40.

Print

Beder,
Sharon.
"Chapter
11:
Advertisers:
Influence
&
Strategies."
Global
Spin:
The

Corporate
Assault
on
Environmentalism.
Dartington,
Totnes,
Devon,
UK:
Green,
2002.

175-‐94.
Print.

"Bluewashing."
Nytimes.com.
The
New
York
Times,
4
Feb.
2010.
Web.
Dec.
2013.

Boynton,
Jen.
"Patagonia
Goes
Fair
Trade."
Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
22
Oct.
2013.

Web.
Nov.
2013.

Broughton,
Edward.
"The
Bhopal
Disaster
and
Its
Aftermath:
A
Review."
Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

U.S.
National
Library
of
Medicine,
05
Oct.
2005.
Web.
27
Dec.
2013.

Bruno,
Kenny.
"Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Greenwashing."
Telephone
interview.

16
Sept.
2013.

"Chiquita
Reaps
a
Better
Banana."
Rainforest-alliance.org.
Rainforest
Alliance,
n.d.
Web.

Sept.
2013.

"CIPR
Best
Practice
Guidelines
for
Environmental
Sustainability
Communications."

Weatherly

|

87

Cipr.co.uk.
Chartered
Institute
of
Public
Relations,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"Companies
Build
Public
Trust
Through
Sustainability
Reporting,
New
H&K
Research

Shows:
Most
Americans
Believe
Efforts
to
Be
Sustainable
Increase
Public
Trust
-‐-‐-‐

Even
When
Results
Fall
Short
of
Goals."
Bulldogreporter.com.
Bulldog
Reporter,
11

Apr.
2013.
Web.
June
2013.

"Compliance
Report,
Environmental
Claims
Survey
2008."
Http://www.asa.org.uk/.

Advertising
Standards
Authority,
2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Corporate
Watch
UK.
"Hill
&
Knowlton."
Corporatewatch.org.
Corporate
Watch
UK,
June

2002.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"CSR
In
Focus:
U.S.
Workers
Want
Their
Companies
to
Take
More
Action
to
Protect
the

Environment-‐-‐-‐But
Perception
and
Participation
Is
Low,
New
WattzOn
Study

Reveals."
Bulldogreporter.com.
Bulldog
Reporter,
7
June
2013.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

CSRHub.
"New
Insights
into
the
Correlation
Between
CSR
and
Brand
Strength."

Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
11
June
2013.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Engardio,
Pete.
"Beyond
The
Green
Corporation."
Businessweek.com.
Bloomberg

Businessweek,
28
Jan.
2007.
Web.
June
2013.

"Environment."
Environment.
United
Nations,
9
Dec.
2011.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

"Environmental
Stewardship
Strategy."
Unglobalcompact.org.
United
Nations
and
Duke

University,
June
2010.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"Executive
Summary:
2013
Edelman
Trust
Barometer."
Edelman.com.
Edelman,
9
Jan.
2013.

Web.
Oct.
2013.

"Facts
About
Aluminum
Recycling."
Earth911.com.
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
11
Jan.
2014.

"Glossary."
Http://ombo.berkeley.edu/.
University
of
California,
Berkeley,
n.d.
Web.
27
Dec.

2013.

Godelnik,
Raz.
"Sustainable
Business
Leaders
Call
on
Obama
to
Approve
the
Keystone
XL

Pipeline."
Triplepundit.com.
Triple
Pundit,
18
Oct.
2013.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

"Green
Guides."
Ftc.gov.
The
Federal
Trade
Commission,
1
Oct.
2012.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

"Green
Rankings
2012:
U.S.
Companies."
Newsweek.com.
Newsweek,
2012.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

"The
Greenwash
Guide."
Futerra.co.uk.
Futerra
Sustainability
Communications,
11
Apr.

2008.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Weatherly

|

88

"KAB,
Ad
Council
Unveil
Landmark
Recycling
Campaign
PSA."
Keepamericabeautiful.org.

N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

Kaye,
Leon.
"PepsiCo
Scratches
"All
Natural"
Label
From
Naked
Juice
Bottles."
Triple
Pundit

RSS.
N.p.,
29
July
2013.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"Keep
America
Beautiful."
Charitynavigator.org.
Charity
Navigator,
n.d.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

"Keep
America
Beautiful."
Sourcewatch.org.
The
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
15
May

2009.
Web.
Oct.
2013.

Krauss,
Clifford.
"Oil
Spill’s
Blow
to
BP’s
Image
May
Eclipse
Costs."
Nytimes.com.
The
New

York
Times,
29
Apr.
2010.
Web.
Nov.
2013.

"Laws
and
Executive
Orders."
Laws
and
Executive
Orders.
Environmental
Protection

Agency,
n.d.
Web.
Nov.
2013.

Leonard,
Annie,
and
Ariane
Conrad.
The
Story
of
Stuff:
How
Our
Obsession
with
Stuff
Is

Trashing
the
Planet,
Our
Communities,
and
Our
Health--and
a
Vision
for
Change.
New

York:
Free,
2010.
31-‐33.
Print.

"Patagonia's
Common
Threads
Partnership."
Patagonia.com.
Patagonia,
n.d.
Web.
Sept.

2013.

"Plastics,
Common
Wastes
&
Materials."
EPA.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
n.d.
Web.

12
Jan.
2014.

Pongtratic,
Melissa.
Greening
the
Supply
Chain:
A
Case
Analysis
of
Patagonia.
Diss.
University

of
California,
San
Diego,
2007.
N.p.:
n.p.,
n.d.
Web.

"Press
Freedom
Index
2013."
En.rsf.org.
Reporters
Without
Borders,
2013.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"The
Process
of
Ozone
Depletion."
EPA.gov.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
19
Aug.

2010.
Web.
Dec.
2013.

"Professional
Standards
Advisory
PS-‐12
Questionable
Environmental
Claims
and

Endorsements
(Greenwashing)."
Prsa.org.
Public
Relations
Society
of
America,
Oct.

2009.
Web.
Sept.
2013.

"Purpose-‐Driven
Consumers
Planning
Sharp
Increase
in
Socially
Conscious
Purchases,
New

Good.Must.Grow.
Study
Finds."
Bulldogreporter.com.
Bulldog
Reporter,
10
Apr.

2013.
Web.
June
2013.

"Seventh
Generation
Sustainability."
Seventhgeneration.com.
Seventh
Generation,
n.d.
Web.

July
2013.

Weatherly

|

89

Siegel,
RP.
"China
Now
Handing
Down
Death
Penalty
to
Worst
Polluters."
Triple
Pundit
RSS.

N.p.,
3
July
2013.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

"The
Sins
of
Greenwashing:
Home
and
Family
Edition."
The
Seven
Sins.
TerraChoice
and

Underwriters
Laboratories,
2010.
Web.
Aug.
2013.

Stauber,
John
C.,
and
Sheldon
Rampton.
"Chapter
9:
Silencing
Spring."
Toxic
Sludge
Is
Good

for
You:
Lies,
Damn
Lies,
and
the
Public
Relations
Industry.
Monroe,
ME:
Common

Courage,
1995.
N.
pag.
Print.

"The
Ten
Principles."
The
Ten
Principles.
United
Nations,
n.d.
Web.
05
Jan.
2014.

Wehr,
Kevin.
Green
Culture:
An
A-to-Z
Guide.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,

Inc.,
2011.
SAGE
knowledge.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

"What
Is
the
Meaning
of
'natural'
on
the
Label
of
Food?"
FDA.gov.
U.S.
Food
and
Drug

Administration,
n.d.
Web.
10
Jan.
2014.

Bibliography
(received
information
but
did
not
directly
cite)

Cruger,
Katherine
M.
"Greenwashing."
Green
Ethics
and
Philosophy:
An
A-to-Z

Guide.
Ed.
Julie
Newman.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.,
2011.
526-‐
31.
SAGE
knowledge.Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

DesJardins,
Joseph
R.
"Green
Values."
Encyclopedia
of
Business
Ethics
and
Society.
Ed.

Robert
W.
Kolb.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.,
2008.
1041-‐43.
SAGE

knowledge.Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

Engardio,
Pete.
"Beyond
The
Green
Corporation."
Businessweek.com.
Bloomberg

Businessweek,
28
Jan.
2007.
Web.
June
2013.

"greenwashing."
International
Encyclopedia
of
Environmental
Politics.
London:

Routledge,
2002.
Credo
Reference.
Web.
26
December
2013.

Islam,
Md
Saidul.
"Green
Consumerism."
Green
Culture:
An
A-to-Z
Guide.
Ed.
Kevin

Wehr.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.,
2011.
405-‐11.
SAGE

knowledge.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

Lippert,
Ingmar.
"Greenwashing."
Green
Culture:
An
A-to-Z
Guide.
Ed.
Kevin
Wehr.

Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.,
2011.
421-‐30.
SAGE
knowledge.
Web.
26

Dec.
2013.

Roy,
Abhijit.
"Green
Marketing."
Encyclopedia
of
Business
Ethics
and
Society.
Ed.

Robert
W.
Kolb.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.,
2008.
1035-‐39.
SAGE

knowledge.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

Weatherly

|

90

Waddock,
Sandra.
"Corporate
Citizenship."
Encyclopedia
of
Business
Ethics
and

Society.
Ed.
Robert
W.
Kolb.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.,
2008.
457-‐
66.
SAGE
knowledge.
Web.
26
Dec.
2013.

Weatherly

|

91

Appendix
A-1

Survey
Report
(Content
Analysis)

1.

What
type
of
article
is
it?

#
Answer

Response
%

1

Newspaper

Article

50
50%

2
Blog
Post

50
50%

Total

100
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
2

Mean
1.50

Variance
0.25

Standard
Deviation
0.50

Total
Responses
100

2.

Is
it
a
U.S.-‐based
newspaper/blog?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Yes

45
45%

2
No

55
55%

Total

100
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
2

Mean
1.55

Variance
0.25

Standard
Deviation
0.50

Total
Responses
100

Weatherly

|

92

3.

When
was
the
article/blog
post
written?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
1990-‐1995

2
2%

2
1996-‐2000

1
1%

3
2001-‐2005

2
2%

4
2006-‐2010

61
61%

5
2011-‐2013

34
34%

Total

100
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
5

Mean
4.24

Variance
0.53

Standard
Deviation
0.73

Total
Responses
100

4.

Is
it
a
liberal
or
conservative
outlet?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Liberal

17
68%

2
Conservative

3
12%

3
Unbiased

3
12%

4
Not
Applicable

2
8%

Total

25
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
4

Mean
1.60

Variance
1.00

Standard
Deviation
1.00

Total
Responses
25

5.

Does
it
mention
the
term
"greenwash"
in
the
headline?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Yes

78
81%

2
No

18
19%

Total

96
100%

Weatherly

|

93

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
2

Mean
1.19

Variance
0.15

Standard
Deviation
0.39

Total
Responses
96

6.

Does
the
article
have
a
positive
or
negative
tone
about

greenwash?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Positive

3
3%

2
Negative

91
97%

Total

94
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
2

Mean
1.97

Variance
0.03

Standard
Deviation
0.18

Total
Responses
94

7.

What
words
does
it
use
to
display
a
positive
tone?

Text
Response

honest
mistake

"not
their
fault"

don't
understand

unfair
criticism

care,
value,
difference

cynical

valuable,

innovation,
stronger
green
brand,
imperfect
progress
is
still
progress

sincere
efforts,
impact,
real
change,

unwitting

oblivious

misguided

Statistic
Value

Total
Responses
12

Weatherly

|

94

8.

What
words
does
it
use
to
display
a
negative
tone?

Text
Response

denial,
clouding,
pernicious,
reckless,
mismanagement

spin,
insult,
stop

"missed
opportunity"

pathetic,
outrageous,
smokescreen

threat

fashionable

blinded,
corporate
spin,
chaos,
destructive

scheme,
rorts
and
bungling,
farce,
missed
opportunity,
mismanagement

packaging
claims,
embellish,
misleading

"misleading
claims,"
"green
shoe
brigade,"
scheme,
scam,
shameful

misleading,
increasing,
duped,
over-‐selling,
reputational
damage,
unacceptable,
deceive

overarching

shameful

drop
in
the
ocean

guilty,
sins,
exploiting,
fake
labels,
false
suggestions,
vagueness,
irrelevance,

"meaningless
claims,"
greenspin,
insubstantial
claims

not
honest,
incompetent,
secret,
agenda,
pretending

fake,
"the
great
green
swindle,"
ludicrous,
overspecific,
pernicious,
absurd

foul,
unsubstantiated,
misleading,
inaccurate,
dubious,
ambiguous,
exaggerated,
sweeping
claims

misleading,
unacceptable

green
propaganda,
pointless
gestures,
incantations

false
information,
deceptive
marketing

spin,
image,
half-‐hearted

exposed,
fooled,
"out
of
control,"
"greenwash
arms
race,"

smokescreen

marketing
craze,
jingoistic,
stunt

tricking,
ignorance

marketing
spin,
"tinkering
around
the
edges,"
scorn,
"green
spice"

sneaky,
impression,
camouflage,
gullible,
disinformation,
convince

grey

overselling

pretend

accused,
skepticism,

convince

publicity-‐oriented,
waffle,
scant

abused,
destructive,
unnecessary

denial,
toxic,
assault,
verbal
detoxification,
illusions

unspeakable
acts,
damaging

worst,
hide,
dangerous

disaster,
spin,
failure,
shoddy

propaganda

mislead

PR
spin

hiding,
deflecting,
deception,
misleading

elusive,
skeptical,
close-‐lipped,
naive,
unverified,
superficial

Weatherly

|

95

cynical

denial,
misinform,
distort

inaccurate,
shame,
wrong

schemes

misrepresent,
deceptive,
mislead,
flawed

misrepresent,
ploy,
false,
exaggerated,
duped

fraudulent,
false,
misleading,
erroneous

misleading,
omissions

cautious,
environmental
offender

spin,
manipulate,
questionable,
deceptive,
false

misleading,
questionable,
spin

hiding

skeptical,
unauthentic

unaccountable,
misleading,
false,
deceptive,
superficial,
skeptical

havoc,
undermine,
compromising,
schemes,
shame

flouting

shame,
misleading,
ill-‐informed,
intent

nightmare,
fail,
scam,
burnish

ballyhoo,
coyness,
persuading

elastic,
ragbag

insensitive,
irresponsible,
callous,
unaccountable,
misconception,
manipulation,
alter,
glitz

hide,
trick

failing,
publicity,
image,
flawed

mask,
misleading,
scam

barrage,
spinning

misleading,
movement,
perception,
hypocrisy,
hidden

erroneous,
skeptical,
red
herring,
vague,
unproven,
lying

blanket
claims,
unclear,
misleading

unrealistic,
unprovable,
false,
unsubstantiated,
misleading

artificial

cog,
sanctimonious,
delusional

deception,
scrub,
spinning,
crooked,
denial

misconception

egregious

bogus,
misleading

unnecessary,
ridiculous

brass,
bogus,
ubiquitous,
disturbing,
alarming,
dubious

damage

sham,
mask

corruption,
problem,
deception

hypocrisy,
unsubstantiated,
failing

failure,
grandiose,

embarrassing,
distasteful,
innocuous,
offending

Statistic
Value

Total
Responses
88

Weatherly

|

96

9.

Does
it
mention
a
product
or
service?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Yes

92
94%

2
No

6
6%

Total

98
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
2

Mean
1.06

Variance
0.06

Standard
Deviation
0.24

Total
Responses
98

10.

From
what
industry
does
it
mention
a
product
or
service
from?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Automotive

4
4%

2
Consumer
Products

20
21%

3
Oil

5
5%

4
Government

12
13%

5
Energy/Utilities

10
10%

6
Advertising/Marketing/PR

26
27%

7
Other

19
20%

Total

96
100%

Weatherly

|

97

Other

Agriculture

Agriculture

Beverage

Education

Finance

Food

Nonprofit

Nonprofit

Nonprofit

Pharmaceutical

Real
Estate

Sports-‐London
Olympics

Sports-‐London
Olympics

Transportation

Travel

Travel

Travel

Travel/Tourism

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
7

Mean
4.65

Variance
3.85

Standard
Deviation
1.96

Total
Responses
96

11.

Does
it
mention
a
company?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Yes

92
95%

2
No

5
5%

Total

97
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
2

Mean
1.05

Variance
0.05

Standard
Deviation
0.22

Total
Responses
97

Weatherly

|

98

12.

From
what
industry
does
it
mention
a
company
from?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
Automotive

5
5%

2
Consumer
Products

15
16%

3
Oil

13
14%

4
Government

21
22%

5
Energy/Utilities

7
7%

6
Advertising/Marketing/PR

7
7%

7
Other

28
29%

Total

96
100%

Other

Banking

Travel

Transportation

Transportation

Travel

Nonprofit

Sports
(Olympic
Games)

Travel/Tourism

Nonprofit

Finance

Food

Food

Religious
Organization

Nonprofit

Food

Mining

Nonprofit

Travel

Logging

Paint

Beverage

Beverage

Food

Sports
(Olympic
Games)

Nonprofit

Paper

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
7

Mean
4.49

Variance
4.02

Standard
Deviation
2.01

Total
Responses
96

Weatherly

|

99

13.

How
many
times
does
it
mention
the
term
"greenwash"
in

article?

#
Answer

Response
%

1
1-‐5

93
93%

2
6-‐10

6
6%

3
11-‐15

1
1%

4
16-‐20

0
0%

Total

100
100%

Statistic
Value

Min
Value
1

Max
Value
3

Mean
1.08

Variance
0.09

Standard
Deviation
0.31

Total
Responses
100

Weatherly

|

100

Appendix
B-1

Interviewer:
Kaylee
Weatherly

Interviewee:
Kenny
Bruno,
Campaign
Director
at
Corporate
Ethics
International
and
the

US
Coordinator
for
the
No
Tar
Sands
Oil
Campaign,
and
co-‐author
"Greenwash:
The
Reality

Behind
Corporate
Environmentalism"

Date
of
Interview:
Monday,
September
16,
2013

Total
Interview
Time:
27
minutes

Location:
Long
Beach,
CA
Phone
Interview

Consumer
Behavior

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
Consumers
are
more
likely
to
purchase
a
product
if
it’s

labeled
“green”
or
“environmentally
friendly.”
Based
on
this
find,
do
you
think
it’s
the

consumers
that
pressure
corporations
to
greenwash
because
of
this
behavior?
OR,
in
your

experience
are
consumers
increasing
the
demand
for
fewer
greenwashing
activities?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
think
that’s
a
great
question.
I
don’t
think
the
pressure
for

greenwash
comes
from
consumers.
Greenwash
and
CSR
to
some
extent,
did
not
come
from

consumer-‐oriented
companies.
It
came
from
the
chemical
industry
and
oil
industry.
Many
if

not
most
of
those
companies
did
not
sell
to
consumers.
So
the
original
audiences
for

greenwash
were
government
and
policy
makers.
And
the
general
public
was
more
of
an

additional
audience,
but
not
the
primary
audience.
So
the
consumer-‐oriented
companies,
in

my
own
opinion,
is
a
mix
of
companies
that
really
have
a
more
a
environmentally-‐sound

product,
or
better
way
of
producing
that
product
and
that’s
what
they’re
dedicated
to,
and
I

would
include
companies
like
Seventh
Generation
and
a
mix
of
those
companies,
and

companies
who
are
simply
looking
at
it
as
a
niche
market.
Again,
greenwashing
companies

like
Dow
and
the
original
greenwashing
companies,
DuPont,
Chevron
and
chemical

manufacturing
associations-‐
those
were
not
really
vulnerable
to
consumer
pressure.
They

were
related
by
the
fact
that
environmental
catastrophes
were
starting
to
get
policy

makers
very
concerned
and
they
were
trying
to
avoid
regulation.
So
if
you
look
at
the

explosion
of
environmental
image
advertising,
that
happened
in
the
mid
80’s
and

coinciding
with
the
Formation
of
Responsible
Care,
which
was
the
chemical
industry’s

program,
it
happened
after
the
Bopal
accident
in
India,
and
instead
of
new
regulations
on

the
chemicals
that
were
involved
or
national
regulation
so
that
Indian
plants
would
have
to

meet
the
standards
of
U.S.
plants.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
Do
you
think
the
greenwashing
companies
today
are
oil
and

chemical
related?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:

Yeah,
I
do
think
that
the
big
fossil
fuel
companies,
coal,
oil
and
gas

and
nuclear
companies
are
still
using
environmental
arguments
and
they’ve
also
added

human
rights
arguments
to
justify
themselves.
So
they
are
saying,
“well
you
know
people
in

India
need
energy,
so
we’re
going
to
supply
that.”
It’s
a
combination
of
greenwash
and

Weatherly

|

101

bluewash,
a
color
from
the
United
Nations.
They’re
presenting
their
business
as
a
friend
of

the
environment
but
also
as
a
friend
to
the
poor.
In
bluewash,
you
would
be
posing
as
a

humanitarian.
I
think
the
companies
that
are
marketing
directly
to
consumers
that’s
a
little

bit
different-‐
they’re
actually
saying
their
product
is
organic
or
sustainably
developed,
but
I

think
in
those
cases
you
need
to
study
the
product
itself
and
what
the
claims
are
and
make

up
your
mind.
In
some
cases,
you
have
a
label
that
says
organic,
and
you
don’t
have
to

prove
that
to
the
FDA.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
To
what
degree
do
you
think
consumers
are
aware
of

greenwashing?
How
is
it
usually
exposed?
Who
leads
that
effort?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
Unfortunately
I
think
that
the
standards
for
advertising
are
lax-‐
it’s

rare
to
prove
that
an
advertisement
is
so
false
that
you
can
get
it
pulled.
And
even
if
you
do,

they
can
still
change
the
wording
so
that
its
not
technically
false
but
its
still
misleading.

That
happened
in
a
couple
of
cases
in
the
UK
where
a
claim
was
brought
against
Shell
for

its
advertising,
but
overall
its
pretty
easy
to
design
an
ad
if
it
doesn’t
have
an
outright

falsehood.
I
don’t
think
there’s
a
government
agency
that
can
regulate
greenwash,
I
think

it’s
the
consumer
and
policy
maker
that
needs
to
have
a
healthy
dose
of
skepticism.
I
think

that
young
people
especially
have
grown
up
pretty
skeptical
of
advertising
in
general.

There
needs
to
be
a
different
kind
public
relations
coming
in
to
get
around
that
healthy

skepticism.
I
think
that
it’s
a
real
lengthy
process
to
expose
greenwash,
and
groups
like

ForestEthics,
Greenpeace
and
others
that
have
exposed
it
are
really
positive.
And

consumers
just
need
to
educate
themselves
on
something
if
it’s
a
good
quality
or
good

value,
or
what’s
a
reasonable
claim
to
make.

Corporate
Social
Responsibility

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
Research
finds
that
greenwashing
is
more
likely
to
occur
if

the
culture
of
an
organization
does
not
place
as
high
of
a
value
on
honesty,
transparency

and
trust.
What
other
factors
do
you
think
might
cause
an
organization
to
greenwash?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
think
that
main
factor
is
negative
attention
on
their
practices,

especially
if
theres
been
an
accident
or
a
product
is
known
to
have
detrimental
health

effects.
When
a
company
starts
seeing
scrutiny
coming
down
the
turnpike,
that’s
when
they

look
to
greenwash.
Because
they
want
to
distract
the
policy-‐makers,
the
decision
makers

from
focusing
on
their
major
error
on
their
products.
Interestingly,
the
major
companies

that
don’t
have
products
that
do
any
harm
do
not
have
a
strong
incentive
to
greenwash.
If

you
see
a
heavy
emphasis
on
environmental
image
advertising,
it’s
probably
because
a

company
has
something
they’re
worried
about
or
a
company
really
believes
in
it
from
the

top-‐down
from
the
CEO
all
the
way
through.
I
think
when
you
see
that
kind
of
advertising,

you
need
to
be
suspicious
and
examine
it.
A
lot
of
times
you’ll
find
a
company
is
fearful
of

something
happening
to
it.
Interestingly,
Exxon
is
one
of
the
biggestest
oil
companies
in
the

world,
and
they
don’t
do
a
lot
of
greenwash
and
a
lot
of
advertising.
The
slightly
smaller

companies
like
Shell
and
BP
do.
Exxon
isn’t
scared
of
anything
there,
they
might
feel
like

they’re
so
big
that
no
ones
going
to
hurt
them.
The
facts
of
having
something
they
want
to

Weatherly

|

102

distract
from
like
a
product
that’s
harmful
or
a
practice
that’s
harmful,
that’s
a
big
move

there
for
companies
to
turn
to
greenwash.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
Have
you
found
an
increase
or
decrease

in
companies'
greenwashing
activities?
Any
new
greenwashing
trends
in

particular
industries?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
think
greenwashing
has
ebbs
and
flows.
It’s
increased
over
the

years
but
there’s
ebbing
and
flowing
over
the
years
if
you
have
an
environmental
summit

coming
up
there
will
be
an
increase
or
if
you
have
environmental
legislation
coming
up

there
will
be
an
increase.
Over
the
years,
it’s
been
pretty
steady.
I
think
that
the
one
thing

that
has
changed
very
recently
but
over
time
the
addition
of
arguments
about
poverty
and

development
and
humanitarianism
to
the
claims
of
environmental
soundness.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
So
you
think
that
bluewash
has
added
on
top
of
greenwash,

so
there’s
that
triple
bottom
line
claim
that
companies
are
talking
about?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
Yeah,
I
do.
It
helps
distract
from
the
core
of
environmental

problems
and
contradictions.
For
example,
take
climate
change.
We
know
we
have
to
stop

burning
so
much
fossil
fuel,
but
what
an
oil
executive
will
say
something
to
the
effect
that

we’re
going
to
have
these
around
for
a
long
time
and
people
in
the
developing
world
need

this
energy
source
and
we’re
going
to
expand.
Now,
you
can’t
really
expand
and
shrink

fossil
fuels
at
the
same
time
can
you?
(If
you
want
to
do
something
about
climate
change)

That’s
greenwash
because
you
can’t
expand
fossil
fuels
and
still
address
climate
change.

They’re
saying
they’re
a
fundamental
contribution
to
the
developing
world,
they’re
saying

that
people
in
the
developing
world
need
us.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
What
could
professionals
do
if
they
found
greenwash
in

their
industry
or
company
and
wanted
to
stop
it?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
don’t
know.
Everything
depends
on
your
position.
I
think,
just
be

honest.
If
your
product
causes
problems,
you
got
to
try
to
stop
it.
Be
honest
and
take
a
long-‐
term
view.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
What
steps
can
a
corporation
take
to
avoid
greenwashing

and
to
avoid
getting
a
reputation
for
potentially
greenwashing?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
First
and
foremost,
if
you’re
in
an
industry
that
is
fundamentally
at

odds
with
sustainability,
everyone
understands
that.
I
don’t
think
it’s
a
crime
to
admit
it.
In

other
words,
if
you
are
a
coal
executive,
coal
is
really
polluting
and
I
don’t
think
it’s
a
secret.

First
thing
is
to
say
look
we
know
coal
is
part
of
the
problem,
but
we
can’t
just
shut
down

all
of
the
coal
plants
tomorrow,
but
here’s
our
plan
for
transition.
I
think
that
kind
of

honesty
will
be
respected.
But
I
know
that
a
lot
of
times
the
legal
department
in
company

will
not
want
you
to
admit
anything
wrong.
To
allow
for
regulation
that
makes
the
playing

Weatherly

|

103

field
level.
Some
companies
just
don’t
want
any
regulation.
I
think
if
a
company
plans
to

stay
out
of
that
kind
of
lobbying,
that
would
be
a
really
good
start.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
How
can
a
corporation
practice
ethical
green
marketing/PR

without
greenwashing?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
think
to
just
tell
the
truth
and
don’t
strive
for
spin.
It’s
pretty

simple.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
What
are
the
consequences
of
greenwashing,
not
only
on
a

corporation’s
brand
reputation
if
it's
discovered,
but
on
the
environment
as
a
whole?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
would
look
at
the
big
picture.
I
think
a
greenwash
project
for

companies
as
a
whole
have
unfortunately
been
successful.
And
what
I
mean
by
that
is
a
lot

of
people
are
convinced
that
companies
are
going
to
do
the
right
thing.
But
the
reality
is

that
we
need
government
regulation
as
well
as
consumer
pressure
to
force
corporations
to

do
the
right
thing.
They’re
not
going
to
do
the
right
thing
just
out
of
the
goodness
of
their

hearts.
They
need
the
pressure,
and
they
need
the
regulation.
And
to
the
extent
that

greenwash
has
convinced
people
to
sit
back
and
let
the
private
sector
take
care
of
their

problem,
that
in
itself
is
a
loss
for
the
environment.
Because
we
need
the
regulation,

nationally
and
locally,
and
internationally.

Other:

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
In
your
opinion,
is
Earth
Day
still
effective
for
raising

consumer
awareness
about
environmental
problems?
Or
has
it
become
a
"corporate

holiday,"
for
marketing
a
company's
green
policies
to
increase
brand
reputation/consumer

purchasing?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
mean,
I
don’t
know.
I’m
sure
there
are
people
who
participate
in

it
and
who
are
really
trying
to
raise
awareness.
But
from
what
I’ve
seen
it’s
really
been

taking
over
by
corporations.
If
you
go
back
to
the
original
Earth
Day,
it
wasn’t
a
commercial

thing.
It
was
people.
It
wasn’t
commercials
to
brag
about
their
recycling
programs.
In
the

big
picture,
it’s
become
commercialized
and
that’s
unfortunate.

Kaylee
Weatherly:
Question:
Is
there
anything
else
you'd
like
to
tell
me
about

greenwashing
and
communications?

Kenny
Bruno:
Answer:
I
think
you’ve
asked
some
really
great
questions,
I
think
we’ve

covered
it.

Asset Metadata

Creator Weatherly, Kaylee (author)

Core Title An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 03/04/2014

Defense Date 03/04/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag corporate social responsibility,CSR,greenwashing,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public Relations

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Floto, Jennifer D. (committee chair), Jackson, Laura Min (committee member), Thorson, Kjerstin (committee member)

Creator Email kayleeweatherly@gmail.com,weatherl@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-367390

Unique identifier UC11297143

Identifier etd-WeatherlyK-2279.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-367390 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WeatherlyK-2279.pdf

Dmrecord 367390

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Weatherly, Kaylee

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract It’s no secret that many corporations have a significant amount of power and wealth. Today, corporations have the opportunity to use corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to help mitigate the world’s most challenging environmental problems, including climate change, waste reduction and the preservation of our natural resources. Communicating about corporate social responsibility is important for a corporation’s many stakeholders and shareholders to understand what a company is trying to accomplish by strategically aligning its business with an environmental challenge it wants to help overcome. Public relations practitioners have the responsibility to market a corporation’s sustainability messages and product claims in an ethical and legitimate manner. ❧ However, the author believes we’re at a crossroads when it comes to environmental CSR and the public relations practice. There’s an imminent danger to the PR industry’s reputation if corporations continue on the path of greenwashing