The word “greenwashing,” the term “greenwashing” has been around for quite some time. When did the greenwashing phenomenon start and for what reasons?

Federica Furlan: “Hi everyone and thanks for having us. Green claims are actually very well-known claims in the advertising world. They date back, for what concerns Italy, to the mid-90s, I’d say. The first decision on environmental claims was probably issued by the Italian Advertising Standards Authority in 1991, and it was related to a slogan that claimed that driving a car defends the environment.
Of course, back then no one talked about greenwashing, but eventually only about misleading claims in general. I believe that only recently, and based on the growing attention to environment, the sensitivity of consumers has grown and people are beginning to take more and more in consideration the environmental impact of goods and services. This, of course, has a direct impact on advertising and claims, of course.
Considering that the environmental impact and sustainability programs of companies represent a choice driver for consumers nowadays, companies have started to build their advertising campaigns and communication programs on environmental impact and sustainability policies. This trend is actually confirmed by numbers: according to 2021 IBM research involving more than 14,000 stakeholders from around the world, 54% of consumers prefer environmentally conscious brands, even at the cost of paying more. So, recently more and more brands are focusing on sustainability in communication. As the number of green claims around increase, so does the risk of greenwashing.”

So, continuing on with Federica—if you can tell us now, how can a business avoid the threat of greenwashing? And are there strategies for small and medium companies to not fall into this trap?

Federica Furlan: “Well, first of all, let’s talk about what you call the “greenwashing threat” from two different points of view. On one side, we have the purchasers—both consumers and companies, if you think about suppliers—and on the other side, we have the advertisers.
So, on one side we have those who purchase and choose to purchase from the company or supplier which at least appears to be more sustainable than others. It is not by chance that I talked about “appearance.” In Italian, we say that “it is not always gold what sparkles.” In fact, we happen to see sustainable claims almost everywhere and coming from everyone. But we must be very careful in considering such claims and read them carefully as to understand if they are actually grounded or not.
In fact, most times, very generic claims such as “sustainable,” “environmentally friendly,” “natural,” are not at all grounded and have no proof of the sustainable claim advertised. So, it’s helpful to ask ourselves: what does that claim actually mean? What does “sustainable product” mean? If the advertising campaign provides for elements and proofs of what sustainability means in that specific case, then probably the claim is grounded. However, most of the time such generic claims are simply greenwashing.
But what does greenwashing mean? It simply means that there are messages aimed at creating a deceptively positive brand image in terms of environmental impact. So, this is in order to divert the attention of consumers from the negative environmental effects generated, or more simply, just to sell more products. The same simple rules must work for advertisers as well. So, to avoid greenwashing, you need to avoid generic claims and you must always collect updated proofs of your environmental claim. This is of particular relevance to advertisers because, depending on the case, they are the ones who are liable for any greenwashing conduct and, possibly, jointly with the seller. So, according to the prevailing case law, any wrongdoing resulting from deceptive advertising is attributable exclusively to the professional who conveys the advertising message and benefits from its effects, regardless of the breakdown of the product chain.”

I’d like to now ask the next question to Marina. Have you ever experienced situations where you had to regulate greenwashing claims and take action to solve these issues? Can you give us some relevant examples?

Marina Savio: “Yeah, almost on a daily basis, I’d say, and more and more in the last two years. As we were seeing before, environmental claims are used nowadays almost on every advertisement coming from every industry. Very often we are involved in evaluating green claims and, in general, environmental advertising. To name just a few, we came across green claims in the food, fashion, health, cosmetics, energy, and also technology sectors.
It would be great to be able to point out an overall working rule that applies to every company and every industry, but unfortunately, this is not possible. So, with this in mind, the first thing we ask to publishers and advertisers is what they mean with the claim at stake and what are the proofs and evidences for sustaining each claim. Basically, what we try to do from the very first moment is to try to understand if, by a consumer point of view, the claim is clear and straightforward and, as we were saying before, if it’s actually grounded.
To give you just an example, we were asked to give an opinion regarding the use of claims such as “green” or “sustainable”—very common green claims—with reference to a clothing collection. These claims were obviously vague and generic if considered by themselves. So, on that occasion, we suggested to better specify the composition of fabrics and to further clarify the characteristic of such fabrics or manufacture process involved. But there would be many other examples.”

We often speak of certifications. Greenwashing also means using internal certifications that are created just to achieve a particular result and to communicate misleading achievements. Marina, which are the positive outcomes of being evaluated by a truly recognized external entity that delivers a reliable certification?

Marina Savio: “Yeah, just as you were saying, showing some kind of certification certainly gives much more credit to the product and more credibility to the claim. We must also consider that, generally speaking, average consumers are easily impressed by certifications. This is mainly because, in their mind, this means that the product, the company, and the claims have been in some way verified by someone.
Most of the time, internal certifications are not actually misleading or wrong—I refer, for example, to the verification methods adopted—but it’s just the way they are led that is contradictory. That’s because, in such cases, they are performed by the interested party, so by the brand itself. As you know, the main aim of certifications is to have the product, the qualities, or whatever certified by a third independent party as to have an objective evaluation. So, if such objectivity is lacking, then it’s just incorrect to talk about certification.
Greenwashing referred to certifications happens when the advertiser exploits a self-made declaration and, in this way, leads consumers to believe that such declaration stands for an objective evaluation by a third reliable party. What I mean is that the misleading effect stands, in these cases, on the very existence of a certification related to specific environmental claims, which may not be misleading or deceptive per se, but which have not been evaluated by a third independent party and consequently cannot be presented as certified.
At some points in this regard, people began to speak about “Greenwashing 2.0” as the practice of presenting a product or service to consumers as certified, but basing such claims on certifications that are self-declared and not validated by third entities, reliable entities. This, as you were saying, naturally in order to gain a competitive edge by leveraging the sense of reliability that nowadays talking about certifications evokes in consumers.
This is one of the reasons why the recent directive proposal on green claims actually prohibits the use of environmental labels that have not been awarded under an environmental labeling system established under Union law.”

I would like to stay with you, Marina, for the next question. Talking about the directive proposal, are there any regulation proposals you deem maybe relevant?

Marina Savio: “Yes, indeed. As we all know, the directive proposal was published last March and this raised a lot of hype. We must say that the proposal at hand is still at a rather preliminary stage. In fact, this is a proposal for a directive that has not yet completed the legislative approval process and will then have to be transposed by each Member State.
However, the principle set by the directive draft should already be taken into consideration, at least as leading principles of business and advertising activity. In fact, the basic structure of the directive proposal and the main provisions already seem quite defined. For example, some obligations to substantiate the green claims are provided. This means nothing more than an obligation for traders and advertisers, for example, to specify if the claim is related to the whole product or part of it, rely on widely recognized scientific evidence, and also take into account all environmental impact of the product, including the negative ones.
The directive also makes an interesting difference between primary and secondary information, where primary information means data made available directly from the trader and secondary information means data obtained from suppliers or other third-party providers. In this sense, pursuant to the directive proposal, green claims should always be substantiated in the first place by primary information, while secondary information should be used only as a last chance.
Guidance is also provided regarding comparative green advertising, which actually follows the rules already generally applicable to this type of advertising, but also rules on how green claims should be communicated. So, basically, green claims may be conveyed only if substantiated in compliance with the rules briefly described earlier, also by Federica, and also supplemented with additional information via links, QR codes, or other printed documentation. But we will indeed see in the coming months how the discussion of the European institutions will proceed on this point.”

Thank you for that response, Marina. So, let me take this over to Federica now. Can you give our listeners three tips on how to create a more trusting relationship with their communities and how to report sustainable results in an effective way?

Federica Furlan: “Yeah, sure. Everything we have talked about so far does not mean that it is absolutely forbidden to talk about sustainability today—I want to be clear on that point. Actually, a brand that actively invests and engages in achieving environmental benefits for its products or activities must be able to communicate that. I’d actually say that the basic idea behind the battle against greenwashing is exactly to highlight the real environmental benefits of a company, of a brand, and try to stop those misleading campaigns that do nothing but water down the communication of those who have real green value to show.

So, I’d say that to mitigate the risk of greenwashing:

• First of all, it’s advisable to use only specific, accurate, and truthful green claims and specify what aspects of the product they refer to. Please remember that the use of technical terms must be evaluated not only in terms of truthfulness—I mean, that’s the first point—but also in relation to possible divergence between its purely technical legal meaning and the meaning that is normally attributed to it by the consumers. So, what I mean is that one must always put oneself in the shoes of the average consumers and assess whether the claim is properly understood in the first place.
• Secondly, I’d suggest to gather on an ongoing basis documental evidence to support the environmental claims conveyed and assess the need to perform appropriate certification prior to campaign release.
• And last but not least, I’d say that it’s advisable to monitor the supply chain down to the raw material level and monitor what partners, distributors, and customers communicate to the public, possibly providing actual guidelines on green communication.”