Since the rise of environmental consciousness, corporations have been adopting sustainability efforts — packaged as acts of altruism in concern for the planet. The truth is that slapping a Go Green sticker (whether literally or hypothetically) on a product/service has yielded higher returns one way or another, meaning that — while there may be genuine concern and regard for the environment — these efforts also have monetary benefits.

Are they doing this to reduce waste, or to increase revenue? Besides some misleading labels, embellished claims, selective reporting, and sometimes just straight up scams, it’s an open secret that companies benefit financially from going green. Many business minds found themselves wondering how to go green with little to no disturbance to the workflow.

That’s how we’ve come to experience what we now know as greenwashing, a deliberate effort to deceive consumers that a company’s products or services are more environmentally friendly than is actually the case.

Capitalizing on investors and consumers seeking out eco-friendly companies or products does more than just pad returns— many companies use greenwashing as a tactic to rehabilitate their image or cultivate goodwill with customers, as 60% of consumers are more inclined to support eco-friendly companies.

For that reason, marketing their commitment to sustainability gives companies a competitive advantage in the marketplace. In a 2019 study, there was ample evidence illustrating that catering to environmentally-conscious consumers sees a direct incline in profits in more ways than one.

A 2014 study showed that corporations with green initiatives secure an 18% higher ROI than other companies, and a whopping 67% higher than companies that flat out refuse to share emissions reports. On average, companies claiming to be green averaged 8% more growth than companies who don’t.

But some companies aren’t just leaning into the green wave, they’re taking advantage of it. Consumers are routinely getting less bang for their buck as a result of corporations' exploitations of eco-friendly sensibilities, directly profiting off good-willed consumers.

In layman's terms, the exploitation of the green movement is glorified shrinkflation. You’re paying just as much for less of whatever you’re buying, which effectively means that these companies are charging you more for less.

Apple reportedly saved USD 6.5 bn by removing chargers and earpods from iPhone boxes, reported the Daily Mail. A decision they allegedly made to cut waste and reduce carbon emissions. Environmentalists rallied behind the resolution, as the company projected a reduction of 2 mn tons of carbon emissions per year, explains the article.

Conveniently, these measures meant they could transport 70% more devices on a single pallet, and that they could start selling customers accessories they had up until then received without charge with their iPhone purchase. Charger bricks and AirPods are each priced at USD 29, garnering an estimated USD 284 mn in sales last year.

Airlines are another industry guilty for greenwashing.In a claimed effort to increase fuel efficiency, Airlines have implemented measures to reduce weight on planes. They have started encouraging passengers to reduce the amount of luggage they have “for environmental reasons,” fining you for extra bags, which conveniently makes them an exorbitant amount of money, clocked at USD 29 bn per year. Not to mention that they get to save on fuel too.

In a similar vein, premium prices for greener products or services are common practice. Understandably so — the cost of sustainable materials are more expensive and produced in smaller quantities, and mindful consumers have no problem paying more for eco-friendly products despite the 75-85% hike in price. So what’s the problem? False advertising.

Fast fashion brands are the main culprits. Several companies have introduced “sustainable” collections allegedly made of organic materials or using ethical manufacturing practices, but actually do little to back up these claims. Not only do they neglect to follow up on these promises, they have routinely used these labels as an excuse to use cheaper material, guaranteeing more sales when consumers replace items at a faster rate.

Just last year, fashion giant H&M was the subject of a class action lawsuit for their Conscious Collection, marketed as a line produced “with the planet in mind,” and the brand marked up garments to premium pricing. H&M published that their clothing line was scored at -20% on the Higg Index, a sustainability indicator whose ratings marks how sustainable the material is, which they neglect to mention actually means that it consumed 20% more water than normal.

An investigation also revealed that several of the products in the Conscious Collection were 100% polyester. These are a couple of examples of the egregious crimes against the environment marketed, priced, and sold as green products by H&M and fast fashion companies as a whole.

It gets worse: In 2020, pharmaceutical giant Bayer acquired Monsanto, an American agrochemical company, and represented its weedkiller Roundup as safe for users and the environment. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took legal action against them for causing cancer, and Bayer paid USD 10.9 bn in penalties as part of a settlement agreement. At the time, there were also paying USD 1.22 bn to settle two other cases involving water pollutants.

Apart from the horrific exploitation of the green label to hide environmental crimes, greenwashing does have positive effects on the environment. The ethics of it are suspect, but there is no denying that the pressure to conform to consumer expectations have ultimately benefited the planet.

While we are thankful for this happy accident, time and time again, we have learned that when a company says that they are environmentally-friendly, the only green they care to save are greenbacks.

Tags: