Green Marketing, defined by the American Marketing Association as the development and promotion of products that minimize negative impacts on the environment or enhance its quality, has gained ground in a world concerned about the climate crisis. A clear example is the commitment of major multinationals like Nestlé, Danone, BBVA, and Grupo Santander, who have joined international treaties and agreements to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels or decrease plastic use. However, these voluntary agreements lack guarantees of effective and legal implementation.
The Green Marketing Company complements this definition, highlighting that Green Marketing capitalizes on changes in consumer attitudes towards brands, influenced by environmental practices and policies affecting environmental quality. But to what extent are these strategies sincere?
From energy companies to food brands and sports equipment, many have started to change their image to align with environmental consciousness. Unfortunately, many of these strategies remain superficial, failing to truly transform their underlying production that contributes to the climate crisis.
A recent Greenpeace report reveals the phenomenon of “greenwashing,” where large multinationals make efforts that, at first glance, seem committed to the climate emergency, but often lack substance. Six pillars underlying these practices are identified:
Non-Binding Commitments: A clear example is the agreement signed by 87 large companies and banking entities before the 2019 Climate Summit. Although Nestlé, Danone, BBVA, and Grupo Santander pledged to align their activities with the Paris Agreement, this agreement had no legal binding or enforcement obligation.
Deceptive Labels: Supermarkets are full of products labeled as “organic” or “eco” that, in reality, have a considerable environmental impact. A famous case is organic fruit imported from the other side of the Atlantic, carrying a significant carbon footprint.
Dubious Green Finance: While green finance is promoted, many companies continue to invest in fossil energy, oil, and mining, contradicting their commitments. For instance, about 130 international banks signed the Principles for Responsible Banking, but according to Bankrolling Extinction, they continue to invest in activities contributing to global warming.
Ineffective Reforestation: Companies like BBVA, Santander, and Campofrío have announced reforestation plans, but these initiatives often focus on monocultures instead of promoting the natural rebuilding of ecosystems. This could be driven by demand for paper pulp for cardboard due to the rise of digital shopping.
Techno-Optimism: Some companies rely on technological solutions like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), but this technology is underdeveloped and ineffective compared to the real needs to combat the climate crisis.
Incomplete Data: Companies don’t account for emissions associated with the supply chain, underestimating their environmental impact. A scientific study warned that many companies don’t include greenhouse gas emissions from the supply chain, which accounts for one-fifth of global emissions.
Complaints of greenwashing have increased. Lawsuits have been filed against oil companies and other industries, seeking to curb false or misleading claims about climate actions. For example, Global Witness and Greenpeace USA sued Chevron for misleading advertising campaigns about its environmental commitment.
In essence, Green Marketing must be more than a game of labels and superficial promises. Consumers deserve clear and transparent information to make informed decisions in their quest to support genuinely sustainable companies and the fight against the climate crisis.
