Practice what you preach: Will the ASA crackdown finally put an end to greenwashing?

Greenwashing: ​activities by a company or organisation that are intended to make people think that it is concerned about the environment, even if its real business actually harms the environment.

Put like that, it’s quite a damning indictment of any company or brand, but greenwashing is more prevalent than many of us realise. A green leaf added to the packaging, claims of being organic or sustainable… it’s everywhere, and there’s been very little in place to govern it. Until now.

Earlier this month the European Parliament and the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) took a decisive step in the fight against greenwashing – and in the process hope to have signed a death warrant against the entire nefarious practice.

Although non-binding, both moves signal a renewed intent to put a genuine end to greenwashing – whether intentional or otherwise – and make offending businesses more accountable for their claims.

The European Parliament banned brands making claims of carbon neutrality centred around offsetting – a practise which has been described as ‘worthless’, while the ASA will also be stricter in its enforcement on the use of terms such as ‘carbon neutral’ and ‘nature positive’.

While many brands are keen to communicate their ‘green’ credentials, unfortunately, many are not as transparent with those claims as they could be. But why do companies persist with blatant greenwashing when the consequences – both regulatory and in terms of reputational damage – are increasingly severe? And how will the new regulations change the way brands advertise?

Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free

Sign up here to get the latest marketing campaigns sent straight to your inbox each morning

Why do brands end up greenwashing?

For many brands, greenwashing is the result of genuine error. Up until very recently the laws and regulations surrounding the practice had been somewhat vague and ill-defined, leaving marketing departments in genuine uncertainty.

The opaque nature of the legislation up to this point is stressed by Jonny White, senior business director at AMV BBDO and AMVxGreen lead, who notes that marketers have had to rely on “guides, not hard and fast laws, with room for interpretation [that] can vary across markets and channels.”

He also points to the frequent “disconnect between the desire in marketing departments to showcase green credentials and the reality of what claims they can actually make and substantiate” as mitigating factors.

In essence, White likens the situation to a spider’s web, describing it as “an increasingly complex topic with contrasting views and often extremes of opinion” that can often leave marketers “tangled up” and falling foul of the rules.

This need for brands to be painstakingly precise with their eco-marketing is echoed by Isla founder and CEO, Anna Abdelnoor.

She implores businesses not to “shy away from talking about their sustainability achievements due to greenwashing fears”, highlighting the importance of “framing [those achievements] in such a way that there is a clear congruence between what they say they’re doing and what they’re actually doing.”

Tougher greenwashing regulations

Although many from within the marketing industry would like to suggest that most cases of greenwashing are unintentional, there are undeniably a slew of brands acting in bad faith, whose only goal is to tick a box.

One such recent claim by 3M’s Scotch tape that its latest product was ‘greener’ and made with ‘plant-based’ materials was witheringly picked apart by eco-commentator NC Hawkins.

This type of vague marketing highlights why the ASA’s latest set of toughened-up regulations are so important. Brands will no longer be able to use terms such as ‘carbon neutral’, ‘net zero’ or ‘recyclable’ in their advertisements unless these claims are backed up with substantial tangible evidence.

For White, the only way forward is for the regulation to become increasingly specific and airtight. He argues that there should be no room for flexible interpretations which risk “muddying the already complex waters of what is permissible and what is deemed unacceptable”.

He also noted that while regulation is key in fighting the issue, public backlash and ‘shaming’ of firms who have fallen foul of the rules will also act as a potent deterrent, thanks to the damaging “knock-on impact” on brand perception and image.

Have we seen the back of greenwashing?

The legislation will have a significant impact on the aviation industry in particular, which has long tussled with various advertising regulators as it tries to reconcile the destructive impact of the sector with an increasingly climate-conscious clientele.

Only last month Emirati airline Etihad was ordered by the ASA to take down two Facebook ads which the regulator said “exaggerated” the environmental benefits of its flights.

The ads claimed Etihad’s journeys carried a “smaller footprint” due to reduced single-use plastics on board and that “the most modern and efficient planes” were being used.

Lufthansa was similarly given a sharp rap on the knuckles by the ASA, which felt that the German airline’s claim to be ‘protecting the world’s future’ was simply unpalatable.

Aviation isn’t the only sector in the ASA’s sights however, with HSBC and Persil both ordered to take down ads last year which contained unverifiable or misleading claims of carbon offsetting.

This begs the question, how do brands get it right? Abdelnoor argues that only genuine sincerity will cut it if brands want to avoid a regulatory and public backlash.

“Businesses need to root their sustainability messaging in substance. 360-sustainability strategies that evaluate the environmental impacts of all parts of the business shouldn’t only speak to internal policies, but to legislative requirements, investors, the communities that businesses are serving and more.”

Essentially, brands need to stop lying, bending the truth and exaggerating the impact of carbon ‘offsetting’ policies if they are to truly to steer clear of greenwashing.

These latest developments and more rigorous regulations will certainly put a spanner in the works for many insincere brands – but will they kick-start meaningful change? Ultimately, the goal must of course be to stop greenwashing – but it is also paramount that brands take positive action as the climate emergency continues to grow ever more urgent.