Do you read Colette Chandler’s writings here on Keyboard Culture? If you do not, I strongly recommend that you begin doing so immediately. You’ll find the link along the right margin of my column. The name is Green Marketing .
Colette and I have shared real estate here on KBC for quite some time and recently have begun collaborating offline. At the same time we formalized the crossover between our two columns, Colette initiated coverage of the topic of green washing.
It’s a really big deal which we in the environmental community must explain adequately, lest two undesirable consequences come to pass:
1) Our credibility is damaged because consumers who seek an unbiased opinion about a company’s green initiatives distrust us; and
2) Those who engage in pernicious green washing score significant victories.
Here, then, is my take. The term green washing means:
When an individual, company or group seeks to label a product or service as friendly to the environment or created using sustainable practices when it is not.
Now, green washing comes in many forms and can take many shapes. That is the most compelling reason why environmentalists and our allies must frame the debate. What happens, though, when a manufacturer which was guilty of green washing mends its ways? How much penance must such an environmental sinner pay before we grant forgiveness? Is the environmental community better off with reformed allies or only those who have been with them from the start?
There are no set answers to the above questions. Indeed, as I have alluded in recent posts, there is dissent within the environmental community on a great many aspects of green washing, particularly the definition (or existence) of sustainable forestry. In my writings, I have attempted to court as many sides of the dispute as possible because diplomacy is the art of the possible.
A landmark event last month has compelled me to make an overt declaration. It is the alliance between the Sierra Club and Clorox upon the launch of the latter’s Green Works line. There are some who judge Sierra’s move as a wholesale abandoning of the Club’s century-long tradition of environmental protection. Others view it as environmental blasphemy, especially in light of Clorox’s past transgressions.
Then, there is the flip side. Cleaning products are a large source of pollution, both greenhouse gas emissions and general pollutants of the air and water. Millions of people purchase cleaning products every day, though. How are we supposed to convince them to buy green cleaning products if those alternatives cost much more since they have not yet achieved the economies of scale of such leading manufacturers as Clorox?
In the second part of this thread, I will lay it out for you.
Sustainable Justice For All!Corbett Kroehler
Ask
a Question or Leave a Comment
(0)
Digg This 
Del.icio.us