I.

INTRODUCTION

The term “greenwashing” was first used in print to refer to the hotel industry ‟s

attempts to appear green through the well-publicized encouragement of customer reuse of

linens; the resulting reduction of washing linen cut costs and reduced related environmental

impacts. As nothing else was changed that would have positive environmental effects,

however, it appeared to some to be more greenwash than green progress (http://www.abs-

cbnnews.com/special-report/09/16/08/beware-green-marketing-warns-greenpeace-exec).

Greenwashing has been defined as “the expenditure by companies of more

money to appear environmentally responsible than to be environmentally responsible”

(http://www.greenwashingindex.com/what.php). Unfortunately, this characterization

understates the scope of the problem in a number of ways.

To assist in the identification of various forms of greenwashing, a number of

organizations have published simple greenwash categorization schemes, with which the

student of greenwashing should be familiar. EnviroMedia is an advertising and public

relations organization which has positioned itself to do good and do well with the same

actions (http://www.greencanary.net/news-item.php?id=693). It lists some basic ways in

which greenwashing is accomplished. These are characterized by following; mislead with

words, mislead with visuals/graphics, vagueness in claims, exaggeration and avoidance of

helpful information.

What customers demand, companies will do their best to provide. And as they

compete for the attention of consumers and for profit, they will innovate and advance one

another in that pursuit. So, as consumers demand greener products, and companies race to

meet that demand, they will advance the cause of environmental sustainability dramatically;

perhaps more rapidly and efficiently than any governmental intervention ever has or could

produce. Because there is an increase of green markets, followed by the phenomenon

greenwashing the stakeholders have an increasing problem to trust the information given by

the entities (Gangadharbatla, et al., 2013). Today there is lack of regulation and punishment

for entities using greenwashing to deceive stakeholders (Cuerel Burbano & Delmas, 2011).
In order to expose these entities, some NGOs have taken the role of holding dishonest

entities accountable for their actions through reputational damage (Cuerel Burbano &

Delmas, 2011). The NGOs try to influence the entities environmental reporting, activities and

performances by pressuring them to comply with the demands through negative publicity.

The pressure, such as through different campaigns, has proven to be effective for the NGOs

when trying to challenge entities (Brennan & Merkl-Davies, 2014; Jordens Vänner, n.d.c).

Product-Level Green washing was categorized by The TerraChoice Group into

“seven sins.” These sins range from the “sin of the hidden tradeoff” (committedby suggesting

a product is green based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to

other environmental issues) to the “sin of fibbing” (which is committed by making false

environmental claims).19 The other sins are the sin of no proof, sin of vagueness, sin of

irrelevance, sin of lesser of two evils, and sin of worshiping false labels. A greenwashing firm

engages in two behaviors simultaneously: poor environmental performance and positive

communication about its environmental performance. A firm’s environmental performance

can be considered to fall along a spectrum. For simplicity, we can bucket firms into one of

two environmental performance categories: poor environmental performers (called “brown”

firms) or good environmental performers (called “green” firms). Noting that it would be

counterproductive for a firm to actively communicate negatively about its bad environmental

performance, and that brown firms will thus choose to either remain silent about their bad

environmental performance or try to represent their bad environmental performance in a

positive light, we can consider firms as falling along a communication spectrum ranging from

no communication on one end to increasing degrees of positive communication on the other

end.
II. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND GREENWASHING

Greenwashing is a term that describes when a corporate entity makes claims or

actions that overshadow the potentially damaging work it is actually doing. It is perception

management, but it isn’t challenge. Greenwashing intention’s is to engage in deception

Generally, it has environment connotations, such as an oil company conducting an

environment protetction campaign after an oil spill.

Corporate Social Responsibility is a way for corporations to service demand for

charitable acts-that are requested by Non-Government-Organization. This is not to be

confused with corporate social responsibility (CSR), however, as true CSR has an honest

agenda which should incidentally benefit an organization-not the other way around. When

strategic onset is to manipulate consumers’ perceptions of a brand or company, this is

greenwashing. With CSR a key element of corporate affairs in the 21st century, it is

important to have a clear ethical compass, especially when framing claims, Corporate

communications specialists need to act in the best interest of what company they represent,

but also the community as well.

III. GREENWASHING SINS

In 2009, Terrachoice identified Seven Sins of Greenwashing

(http://sinsofgreenwashing.org) identifying one addition to the Six Sins originally

published in 2007), discussed below and at their website (http://www.terrachoice.com ).

 The Sin of Fibbing: Understandably this category is the least often encountered

as it involves false statements which would be actionable, such as claiming an

inappropriate certification.

 The Sin of the Hidden Tradeoff: This kind of greenwashing attempts to

misdirect attention away from brown practices and towards apparently green

practices. For instance, a company may tout one product which includes

recycled material while not addressing its other polluting and wasteful practices

and products.
  The Sin of No Proof: This greenwashing category includes claims lacking

supporting evidence, such as third-party certification. Examples include claims of

statistics that are creations of the company and for which no data is publicly

available.

 The Sin of Vagueness includes images and claims that are not clear in their

import, such as claiming or implying that a product is all-natural or that the

company is environmentally conscientious.

 The Sin of Irrelevance involves images and claims that imply or assert

information that is not relevant, that is, not helpful to users deciding among

alternatives. For instance, claiming that products or processes do not use or

produce a banned substance, when by law, no company can legally use or

produce that substance.

 The Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils is a form of misdirection within a product

category, emphasizing the greener aspect of an environmentally harmful

product.

 The Sin of Worshipping False Labels is the seventh sin, added in the 2009

report, and includes company images and implied or explicit claims about

certifications that are fabrications. An example would be a label designed to look

like a certification

IV. RECOMMENDATION

We highly recommend to all organization to increase the transparency of

environmental performance. They should be true to their words in the public in the form of

their advertisement and product labeling. Increased transparency about firm environmental

performance would decrease brown firms’ incentives to engage in greenwashing, even in the

current regulatory context. It has also been demonstrated that firms themselves benefit from

increased transparency about environmental performance in the form of less unsystematic

stock market risk Such transparency could be achieved through both mandated and
voluntary corporate disclosure of firm-level environmental performance, and policymakers,

NGOs, and managers should play central roles

They should maintain active internal communication. They should have cross-

functional meetings and interactive internal communications (among executives and

members of the organization) can foster enthusiasm and align departments on sustainability

issues. Aligning departments can help companies avoid greenwash that results from a

discrepancy between what one group is communicating and another group is doing

Also they should initiate NGO Partnership. Companies that engage in continuous

dialogue with NGOs often gain wider understandings of the issues—and, in consequence,

stronger and more strong environmental communications. An NGO with a sharp eye for

effective environmental initiatives can help you identify greenwash before you communicate

with the public.

Lastly, we strongly encourage to all organization to have reasonable and balanced

reports. To achieve this, we recommend the following principles to be implemented in their

organization to avoid greenwashing;

 Balance: The report should reflect an organization’s positive and negative

sustainability impacts to enable a reasoned assessment of overall performance.

 Comparability: Issues and information should be selected, compiled, and reported

consistently. Reported information should be presented in a manner that enables

stakeholders to analyze changes in the organization’s performance over time, and

analyze performance in comparison to other organizations.

 Timeliness: Reporting should follow a regular schedule, and information should be

available in time for stakeholders to make informed decisions.

 Accuracy: The reported information should be sufficiently accurate and detailed for

stakeholders to assess performance.

 Clarity: Information should be presented in a manner that is understandable and

accessible to stakeholders.
V. CONCLUSION

Greenwashing intention’s is to deceive the market to gain business interest. It is

not good for any company to falsify and mislead products’ information to supply what is

being asked by their consumers. Due to the high demand of greener products, companies

tend to manipulate their product-labelling and advertisement to be on the top of the market.

Furthermore, companies tend to forget their Corporate Social Responsibility to the general

public.

NGOs have long played activist roles—even before the term “greenwash” existed.

Such NGOs educate the public on recognizing what does and does not constitute a valid

claim. As environmental messages have become popular in recent years, NGOs have

developed a range of approaches to expose greenwashing. NGOs can also work with

companies to help them understand issues more deeply and provide advice to ensure that

they are not greenwashing. To be credible with NGOs, companies need to consider not just

their communications approach, but practices throughout the entire company—the impact of

all their products and services, and how much is invested in the environmental initiative

relative to other projects. We are able to recommend strategies to fight greenwashing inside

an organization. They need to increase transparency in words and actions, they should have

active internal communication among executives, members and other stakeholders, initiate

NGO Partnership to have wider understanding about the said issues and maintain

reasonable and balanced reports.

We therefore conclude that success in business can’t be achieved by deceiving the

public to look good with your products and services. True success is being transparent and

taking action for environmental stewardship. Be clear about the environmental benefits of the

product, but do not infer the generalization that the entire company is green if your other

products do not support this claim. Be responsible.

 REFERENCES

 Purple Romero, abs-cbnNews, “Beware of green marketing warns greenpeace

exec”, September 17, 2008, March 31, 2018, http://www.abs-
cbnnews.com/special-report/09/16/08/beware-green-marketing-warns-
greenpeace-exec .

 2010 EnviroMedia Social Marketing, March 31, 2018,

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/what.php.

 2010 EnviroMedia Social Marketing, March 31, 2018,

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/spot_gw.php.

 Meaningful reporting:How to avoid greenwashing?, March 31, 2018,

www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-non-paper-Report-or-Explain.pdf

 Cuerel Burbano, V. & Delmas, M. A., 2011. The Drivers of Greenwasing. California
Management Review, March 31,2018,
http://www.think2100.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65:re
gulation-greenwashing-ftc-green-products-buy-purchase-consumer-business-
advertising-marketing&catid=35:green.

 Gangadharbatla, H., Nyilasy, G. & Paladino, A., 2013. Perceived Greenwashing: The
Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance
on Consumer Reactions. Springer Science & Business, March 31,2018,
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/10/ftc-cites-kmart-tender-dyna-e-
for-false-green-claims/