Greenwashing and the discussion that follows

 By Jamie Miller 

Breathing is a universal experience. Who doesn't want clean air? Or clean water, forests, and a healthy environment? In 2022, sustainability has been integrated into the mission statements of many companies. But sometimes, in the eye of the businessman, other priorities take precedent. Recent research suggests that consumers are more likely to purchase products if labeled as sustainable, biodegradable, eco-friendly, or made of recycled materials. However, the companies providing such products rarely state to what extent the product is environmentally friendly. A product labeled "made from recycled materials" may be manufactured from a small percentage of reused sources. The product can be up charged, the company's profits maximized, and accountability avoided.

Photo from Shutterstock

The Guardian cracks down on UK fashion firms claiming "eco-friendly" and "sustainable" work. Although Britain's fashion seen claims to prioritize the environment on packaging and advertisements, there is little evidence to back these statements. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stated in an article on Friday, Mar 11, 2022, that it intends to name and publicly shame these companies. However, the fashion industry contributes to 2-8% of all global carbon emissions and pollution and waste. Furthermore, by advertising with misleading sustainability claims, the consumer is tricked into believing higher-priced products are higher-quality. 

However, the dilemma doesn't just stop there. Journalists are responsible for covering such issues as greenwashing and its subsequent effect on climate change. However, trust in the media is at an all-time low. Kyle Pope discusses this and Mark Hertsgaard in their The Guardian article entitled "Why are the US news media so bad at covering climate change?" Journalists are often dismissed as biased when covering topics on climate change. But is it biased to point out scientifically based phenomena like climate change? Or is it biased to speak in favor of clean air? MSNBC reporter Chris Hayes stated that pieces receive the lowest views when their topics relate to climate change. In 2016, MSNBC stories regarding the California wildfires were the least popular and received the most amount of negative criticism. So, any economic incentive to speak about climate change or a polluted planet is rare, if existent. This practice leaves journalists stuck between a rock and a hard place. While greenwashing is commonplace, immoral, and all-too-common, to write about it is not an economically viable source of income. 

While we all like to breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water, perhaps economic incentives had clouded the consumer's better judgment.