Talk:Greenwashing/Archives/2012

Comments
March 6 '04 The current greenwash definition is about useless.

Wikipedia says: "The term [greenwash] arose in the aftermath of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992."

Wrong. Try, at least since the May/June 1991 issue of _Greenpeace_ magazine.

From: Jym Dyer (jym@mica.berkeley.edu) Subject: Media Coverage of Clorox's "Crisis Management Plan" Newsgroups: alt.activism, talk.environment, alt.save.the.earth Date: 1991-06-13          17:40:26 PST

"...The _New_York__Times_ has not run the story, and the _Wall_Street_Journal_ may incorporated it into a  future story about greenwashing (green-washing is  environmentally-oriented whitewashing).  The broadcast media has not touched the story.

" Incidentally, Bill Walker's written a splendid story about greenwashing himself, in the latest (May/June 1991) issue of _Greenpeace_ magazine."

This Google search:

returned: Google Searched NewsGroups for greenwashing from May 12, 1981 to Mar 5, 1992. Results about 5. Search took 0.23 seconds. Sorted by relevance

Media Coverage of Clorox's "Crisis Management Plan" ... The _New_York_ _Times_ has not run the story, and the _Wall_Street_Journal_ may incorporated it into a future story about greenwashing (green- washing is ... alt.activism - Jun 13, 1991 by Jym Dyer -

Re: Sleazy "Green" Marketing Although it is very superficial, and often little more than out-and-out "greenwashing", it *nevertheless reinforces that market trend*. ... sci.environment - Feb 9, 1992 by Alan McGowen -

NEWS & ACTIVISM: Tour Dudeath Protest and Action Alert ... Over 200 million people will be watching this event. What a great opportunity for exposing these greenwashing multi-nationals. More info to follow. Peace. ... rec.bicycles - May 28, 1991 by Jym Dyer - )

Global Greenpeace Headlines (April 26, 1991) ... 1 in Poisoned Water, in Radioactivity, in Greenwashing." Activists also offered Phosphoric Punch, Arsenic-Cola, Radioactive  Sparkler and Cancer Cooler to ... talk.environment - Apr 26, 1991 by Jym Dyer - View Thread (1 article)

Doug Bashford.

March 6 '04 I'm not sure what happened to the previous versions of "Greenwash." I show only: ****Revision history *25 Jan 2004. . Lowellian *23 Sep 2003. . Lexor (Some NPOVing. Add wikilinks.) *23 Sep 2003. . Viajero (new article)****

"Greenwashing" seems to have devolved into a confusing vague off-topic skree about the Earth Summit and sustainable development, etc, with an arguable and largely irrelevan

Biased: whatt claim that this was the word's source. Perhaps so, perhaps no. Regardless, other, better versions of the definion, with other examples (generic and specific, (such as "Green Forests Initiative)) have disappeared without a trace. (I authored the original.) Fact is, "greenwash" is commonly used with zero referance nor knowledge of that Earth Summit.

The current definion is so uselss, so Earth Summit-specific, I am forced to delete a link to it I was authoring. --Doug Bashford http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-sust-f.html


 * Well, Doug, thanks for your contribution, but the great think about Wikipedia, is that if you don't think something is accurate, you can fix it! Your primary research from Usenet and Google is of great help to us.  You can help upgrade the article!  Be our guest, if you don't want to or don't get around to it, I'll fix it myself.  That's the great think about a wiki... --Lexor|Talk 08:37, 6 Mar 2004 (

biased article eg: what about all the efficient products that free markets and new technologies have created like better cars with lower milage and more efficient planes and in fact more cost effective and less fuel intensive everything. i mean the list goes on forever: better logistics and transportation, construction, distribution. in general if it costs less, it uses less fuel and is better, if the industry is regulated. i dont think we'd have a toyota prius with 55 miles per galon under communism

---RE ABOVE: this is not an article about pollution, but rather green washing. The issues isn't whether or not pollution/climate change exists, but whether or not products claim or insinuate that they are environmentally friendly when they are not. Your personal opinion about the pros and cons of free markets and industry is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.13.172 (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples
I think it would be good if this article had a brief list of examples of 'greenwashing'. It'd need to be carefully written and sourced, to be unbiased and keeping the correct side of libel laws! --duncan 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe the list of the worst offending companies adds to the article, and leans towards a non neutral point of view. G.pilkington-oates 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The cited Ford example is silly for the following reasons: 1) The 1990 model of the Taurus and the 2010 model are in a different size-class of automobile. The 1990 model was a "mid-size", 2010 is a "full-size" The 1990 model compares more closely with the current Fusion. 2) The EPA method of testing fuel mileage has changed. http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.htm 3) The 1990 model complied with less-strict government crash test ratings. Current crash test requirements require 500+lbs in additional reinforcement per car. The 1990 model automobile was produced to a different set of rules to the 2010 model. 4) The wording makes it seem as though the engine is the only change to the automobile between 1990 to 2010. A better comparison would be within the current lineup to which a more relevant argument could be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfranci3 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rainforest Alliance was listed as an example - I deleted this because this is opinion and not fact - and is therefore a violation of NPOV. Genuine examples of greenwashing need to be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine hard (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Horrible
This is an absolutely horrible article. I know what greenwashing is and this article baffles me. "describe the activity of giving a positive public image to putatively environmentally unsound practices", what does that mean? also, "free markets policies, new technology and economic growth" has nothing to do with greenwashing. It is only about the environment. The description is so verbose and ambiguous to make it unreadable. "Greenwashing is thus a deceptive marketing technique only", that is a clear violation of NPOV. I will be rewriting it, I imaging it will be opposed but i will do my best to keep it NPOV on both sides. Keep in mind the article is suppose to be about greenwashing, not about it being bad. Opposition should be in the critics section not in the main article. ZyMOS 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree partly, I don't think it is NPOV to call greenwashing deceptive. It may be POV to declare that this or that is an example of greenwashing. If it's not deceptive, it's not greenwashing.--RLent (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RLent to some extent: the whole intent of greenwashing is to mislead people, so it doesn't violate NPOV to call it deceptive. However, I think this article is blatantly biased in other ways. Most importantly, there is a severe anti-capitalist spin. Several examples discuss "greenwashed" products along with a cost-cutting measure. This assumes that if you make money by making an environmentally-friendly product, somehow it doesn't count. In actuality, environmentally-friendly alternatives will have the largest environmental impact if they are also cheaper or more profitable, and they are often designed with this in mind.

One other issue I have is with the absolutism of this article. There is no such thing as an absolutely "green" (zero environmental impact) alternative, only more or less green alternatives. "Green" is therefore a relative term. For example, the Airbus A380 has a valid claim on green-ness: if normal fuel consumption is 5 L per passenger, but the A380 is only 2.9 L, that is a big reduction in CO2 emissions. Since there are no greener alternatives to airliners when you have to travel very far very fast, the A380 can honestly claim to be the "green" choice for long-distance travel. Until these issues are resolved, I officially dispute the neutrality of this article.Inhtmf (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Metrics
Shouldn't green metrics (life-cycle assessment, etc.) also be mentioned somewhere? A good way to identify a truly green product vs. a greenwashed one is to actually measure their environmental impacts. If green claims are made without an honest assessment of all their impacts, the product may not actually be green. Inhtmf (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed link
I just removed a 'see also' link to Strategic Planning, I think it is not closely related enough to appear as a sole entry. I'm sure all sorts of long-term marketing strategies are part of strategic planning carried out by companies and organisations, but as part of a overall marketing strategy. Maybe it should go back as part of a bigger list, other candidates could be marketing strategy,. And maybe reputation, False advertising, spin, Spin (public relations), Environmentalism, Green brands, Secrets and Lies (Hager), Free-market environmentalism, and so on ad infinitum..

What I cannot find is anything going the other way, eg deliberately accusing a company/org of being anti-environmental, polluting, unsustainable etc.. to damage it's reputation for political or commercial reasons. A sort of 'green smear' or similar. I'm sure it happens (most marketeers morals are inversely related to their salary) but can't find any references.. EasyTarget 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ERROR: "99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing" is bad math. Whoever wrote this just added up the percentages guilty of each sin. You can't add percentages of different things that way. It's wrong and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.76.139 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ERROR: "However, only .5 percent of the money the consumer spends goes into purchasing carbon offsets. The other 99.5 percent goes to the bank." The rest "goes to the bank" only if you forget that they're actually paying it on (net of 2-3% merchant fees) to the people that actually sold you the stuff. Blatantly incorrect, so I'm fixing it; too bad most WP citations are to random stuff on the Internet. Sendhil (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the term
I have put a fact tag on the claim that it was coined by Jay Westerveld. This may be correct but it does need a ref. It is interesting to note how often that sentence is parroted on blogs and in the print media. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

School project
Im working on this page for one of my college classes. Ineed to improve the page in a significant way so if anyone has any ideas im open to them. Also if anyone is posting or fixing up this page let me know i would love to do the work for you.I plan on adding some new sections. history,regulations,how to spot GW, and greenwashing around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpetro (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * you could start by getting rid of the biased and one sided points of view in this article. Articles like this do more harm to environmental causes than good!  Find references for each statement and remove anything which you can't find a reference for. It looks like this article could really benefit from an edit war!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.204.66 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How to spot Greenwashing
This whole section seems to violate WP:NPOV as well as disrupting the tone of the rest of the article. I'm uncomfortable with both the direct imperative address to the reader rather than a declarative one, and the in-article plug for an external website. The Website should be linked as a reference or an external link at the bottom of the page if at all, and definitely not situated in the middle of the article. I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is inform, not to actively promote a particular behavior, course of action or for that matter, outside websites, and certainly articles should not be addressed to YOU, dear reader. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Mander and "Ecopornography"
There is no reliable source provided for this quote. It is mentioned on two advocacy websites, without any accurate information about where or when he may have used this term, or in what context. As this is cited, vaguely, as the origins of a critique of greenwashing, it should be far better referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Removing the Cape Wind Project as an Example of Greenwashing
I removed the example of the Cape Wind project - as it is a particularly poor example of Greenwashing. The example was written in a way as to suggest that the entire project is "faux environmentalism" - and this is a tenuous arguement at best. Of the two cited sources, one was the opinion of Ted Kennedy Jr. - and the other came out in support of the environmental impact of the Cape Wind project. If anything, the evidence suggests that the anti-project camp is using greenwashing to support its cause.

Lenordbater (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Kraft Foods?
I was reading a book about shopping, and Kraft had been accused of greenwashing. Is there any solid evidence? 24.205.80.153 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "bags" example, and problem with "Examples" section in general
The last bullet item in the "examples" list read "The recent practice of major grocery and retail chains charging money for plastic bags in an effort to minimize environmental damage is an example of greenwashing." This claim, completely unsubstantiated on its own (and badly written), was sourced with an article that also gave it no support. The bullet item was therefore removed.

In general, the bullet list is one of the poorer-quality sections of a generally very poor-quality article. It seems to forget the article's own necessary condition for what constitutes greenwashing, which is that more resources are allocated toward burnishing a "green" public image than those allocated toward truly green business practices. 74.132.150.154 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "cost cuts" example at top of article
The assertion that "one example is presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources" was removed, since:

1. it was superfluous; there is an "examples" section below; 2. it was poorly sourced, linking only to the main page of a "green" marketing firm; and 3. it does not, as stated, meet the article's own necessary conditions for what constitutes "greenwashing."74.132.150.154 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging of "history" section into the "usage" one
The "history" section gives extremely imprecise dates, is not particularly helpful on its own, and relies mostly (until I found a better source for the first quote, relied entirely) on two single web pages, both from advocacy organizations. If there are no immediate objections I'm going to take what little helpful information is found in this section, attribute it to better sources, then combine it into the "usage" section.74.132.150.154 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Broaden definition
I suggest changing the definition to include non-governmental and governmental agencies instead of just companies. Greenwashing may be used for purposes other than profit. A government that wishes to allay concerns that they are doing too little to reduce their environmental impact may convey new policies and platforms as "green" or environmentally conscious. When these designs fail to achieve the purported goal due to a clear lack of investment, then it may be a case of politically motivated greenwashing. Propaganda is may be used by such agents, whatever its form. Eldelorme (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldelorme (talk • contribs) 20:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Some additional changes and references
I will add two new examples of greenwashing as well as a small section on the reception and evolution of the practice. I will also post a list of references I have used in compiling these additions as well as some external sources for further development of this article. Overall the article needs to be reformatted to include examples of greenwashing prior coining of the term in 1986. The Body Shop may be used as one such example as it predates the Hotel used in the History section. The Body Shop created a public image wherein it's products were more "natural" and ecologically friendly. While it may have lived up to it's reputation at its start in the 1970s, it has since fallen into disfavour among environmentalists for its questionable practices and affiliation with corporate giants such as L'Oreal. Although the companies' past may be perceived as less reputable than it's present, this may be a result of a lack of public interest prior to the advent of greenwashing as a term. The previous statement is my own thought and requires further research before it can be validated. If there are any takers, feel free to investigate. Eldelorme (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point about how companies are perceived before and after these marketing changes, though I do not think that the reputability has as much to do with the advent of the term "greenwashing", but rather with the advent of strategies used to "greenwash". By this I simply mean that a company may be perceived as being "green" because prior to its marketing as "more natural" it would have flow under the radar to the extent that any non-environmentally friendly practices went unnoticed up until the point where the product became "more natural". At which point, any previous practices were forgotten in light of the new reputation. Mlcrowell (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging relevant information and references from Jay Westerveld to this article because 1) he coined the neologism "Greenwashing," 2) the neologism is his central, most apparently noteworthy aspect as covered by multiple reliable sources, and 3) he is otherwise of very marginal biographical notability, if any at all. In short, the only topic covered by multiple reliable sources in regards to this subject coincide with Greenwashing. Local news where the Westerveld is not the actual topic of coverage should be discounted. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree: Careful investigation of this article's history reveals a recent "whittling away" of legitimate 3rd party media references. This editing has been implemented by several editors who seem to edit only this page, and whom all seem to defend one motel that was evidently impacted by the subject's work. take a look at older versions of this page and check those references. Also note the "last warnings", etc., issued to these editors by admin. staff at wikipedia. Subtly removing legitimate references without noting these removals in edit log seems to be recurrent on this page. Semperfly (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think there are/were sources that support notability beyond the neologism, then bring them here. The sources you're referring to must be in the edit history. Be sure to see edit summaries for reasons for removal. You seem to have ignored the fact that one was removed because it was at least partially sourced to Wikipedia. Talking about other editors is off the mark, especially when you yourself are a single-purpose account just like the others. Produce the references here and stop talking about others' behavior, or retract your comment. JFHJr (㊟) 15:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Good response John. Fuque (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Mr Westervelt if you could actually produce legitimate references then you would have no problem.


 * Disagree Subject is significantly notable on its own. By all means, bring in more references and information contained in other entries, i.e. Jay Westerveld, but this term clearly stands on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clever turn of phrase. I never questioned whether "this term clearly stands on its own" — I did question whether Jay Westerveld stands on his own. Please don't recreate the question for me. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree I side with The Gnome here. Karmos (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree And I am concerned that the evidence that Westerveld was the only person to coin the portmanteau is weak -- two sources from way after 2000, and I found a 1990 NYT usage which does not cite anyone in particular for creating the term. For Wikipedia to give full credit, it should have sources which do not appear to trace directly to the coiner asserting his own origination of the term - we should require material from pre-1990 (when the NYT used it as a "common term") to trace its actual ancestry.    Doing Google news archives search finds a number of uses before 1999.   Not a single one of them connects Westerveld to the term.  In fact, diligent searches find all uses before 1999 specifically do not mention any person as the "coiner".  Almost all internet sources -- use Wikipedia as the source .   He may have well used the portmanteau - but I find no credible evidence that his essay is the primary source for later usage per any contemporary reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If his only claimed notability is this term and there's no verifiability of that, WP:AfD is where to go after this RfC finishes up. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree It seems that on the surface the subject's most notable contribution is as a single instance neologism producer. The remaining is shallow in substance with vapor thin support at best. FaFaFohi (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree It's pretty clear if you just google for Jay Westerveld with -greenwashing to get rid of all the greenwashing references, there's plenty of substance left.  Indeed, a number of the articles I found by doing this are in cited in the Wikipedia article.   The article itself has some serious problems, not the least of which is the problem that no doubt led to this complaint: the article leads off with greenwashing and barely touches on his actual scientific background and research work.   In addition, the scare word "claims" is used with reference to his discovery of clam shrimp in upstate New York, when it's clearly not justified by the citation.   I won't go into this at length here, because this is the wrong talk page.   But the point is that Westerveld is pretty clearly notable, based on cites in the article and based on my Google search.   It would be totally inappropriate to "merge" his biography into this non-biographical article. Abhayakara (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is an argument for deleting Jay Westerveld, which seems to be over-ruled by the valid notability arguments above.
 * So what would the results be if we did merge? Jay Westerveld would still be covered adequately by his embedded section (he's presumably non-notable in such a context, so that's no problem). However the greenwashing article itself then gets bloated by an added section on a non-notable person. Why did we add this appurtenance to greenwashing? – because it wasn't notable elsewhere. It seems a strange thing to do to an article, to be adding barely-related, non-notable baggage to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)