Ever since the environmental movement began, businesses and corporations have been criticized for their lack of interest in the well-being of the environment. As a result, they were forced by environmentalists to take action to implement environmental initiatives within their corporate mandate or suffer the consequences of losing profit and current or potential consumers.
However, we’ve been led to believe that through their new acts of being green and “eco friendly,” that the intentions of these businesses and corporations are as genuine as ours when it comes to the environment – yet it’s far from it. Instead businesses and corporations are “greenwashing,” a term referred to as the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.
According to Greenpeace’s stopgreenwash.org, “greenwashing took root in the 1970s when the growth of the environmental movement brought awareness of ecological damage to the general public. The practice was honed and perfected by professional public relations companies. Since then, the intensity and frequency of greenwashing waxes and wanes with the public and political mood of the times. This latest phase is no different than earlier cycles except that the stakes are higher as global warming looms.”
One example I could think of in terms of greenwashing is Tim Hortons and their infamous paper cups. As a consumer we are told to not litter their paper cups, in thus doing so we are doing our part for the environment by recycling them instead. Yet regardless that they state, “please do no litter,” the cup itself is not recycable.
According to timhortons.com, a Tim Hortons coffee cup can be recycled but it is not accepted for recycling everywhere at this time. So why deceive us through false advertisement into thinking they are recyclable in the first place? And if they are recyclable, why aren’t they recyclable everywhere?
What corporations like Tim Hortons ultimately gain in using tactics such as these is they can still profit from our ignorance. In other words, what we don’t know won’t hurt us. To write about all the businesses and corporations that are guilty of greenwashing would perhaps make this article exceedingly tedious for my editor to edit. But the main issue is not to try and call out these corporations on their wrongdoing; rather it is to educate the public on the idea that the majority of corporations that build our economy have used our belief in being environmentally conscious to further profit in the long run. Not only that, but what about the businesses that are in fact eco-friendly? Is it possible that they become undermined for their efforts? Or better yet, can a business be about more than profits?
Image courtesy stock.xchng.
Comments
However, we are printed on matte stock with vegetable based dyes. Not perfect, but it's better than glossy, as you point out. Also, we don't purport ourselves to be a green magazine. We are a business magazine for women. We are making strides in trying to use printing processes that are more environmentally friendly, but it takes time for a magazine of our size to do so. We like to open up dialogue about issues, whether pertaining to the environment or anything else. We don't pigeonhole ourselves, and we have many contrasting views represented by the unique perspectives of our columnists. Thank you for your comment/concern.
Exactly right, like this magazine Women's Post for example. I can imagine how many trees are cut down to produce each issue, and when the reader is finished with it they just dump it into the trash. Plus it is a glossy magazine which means that clay is likely used to make it glossy. That means somewhere clay is being mined just make this magazine, which means a huge hole is ripped out of the ground, watersheds are probably being polluted, fish stocks are probably being damaged, tons of carbon is being emitted, people are being used as slave labour and who knows what else to obtain that clay. Just to have glossy paper for this women's magazine. But it's being promoted as a green magazine of course; this is greenwashing a it's worst.
Post new comment