INFOTECH: Going Green? It's Harder Than You Think
Recent Gauteng Business News
Non-toxic? Eco-friendly? Green? Energy-efficient? Recyclable? Organic? These are terms that have become the main thrust of many a marketing campaign, particularly in recent years. There's no doubt that the uptake of 'going green' by the corporate world has led to a widespread awareness of the
concept. But at what cost?
Like any well-intentioned initiative, there is the opportunity to ride on the hype to make a profit with many companies jumping on the 'green'
bandwagon for this reason. However, many organisations are 'lulled' into a false sense of satisfaction that they are lessening the impact of business on the environment through their 'green' choices. But to a large extent, this is not what is happening. Even slightly reducing the overall impact of a product on the environment would be a step in the right direction, but instead many so-called green products are trading off one environmentally detrimental aspect for another - usually further down the product lifecycle and less apparent to the public eye.
To truly understand the environmental impact of a product requires assessing its entire life cycle.
The sin of the hidden trade-off
In 2007, US environmental marketing firm TerraChoice released a study called "The Six Sins of Greenwashing", highlighting the different ways in which consumer products use deceptive environmental claims in order make them seem like a 'greener' choice. Of the 1, 018 products they surveyed, an astounding 99% were guilty of greenwashing. The six sins include: The Sin of the Hidden-Trade Off; The Sin of No Proof; The Sin of Vagueness; The Sin of Irrelevance; The Sin of Fibbing; and The Sin of Lesser of Two Evils. Last year, they released an updated survey highlighting a new 'sins' - The Sin of Worshipping False Labels (giving the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists).
The most commonly employed tactic - and the most problematic one - is the Sin of the Hidden Trade-off. This is because it lays claim to a plausible environmental benefit - such as being recyclable or energy-efficient - which may be true, but the label does not disclose that other aspects of the product lifecycle may be severely detrimental to the environment.
An obvious example is the dilemma of the electric car. While it reduces carbon emissions, the 'green' component is rendered 'null and void' if the electricity that powers it is generated through the use of carbon fossils.
In other words, using an electric car in countries with cleaner electricity generation processing may be a greener alternative, but it's hard to gauge the trade-off in regions where this is not the case. In the same vein, buying products made from a rapidly renewable resource, such as bamboo, may make sense in Vietnam, but the carbon impact of where they are transported to can outweigh the benefits of this 'green' choice.
There are multiple points in a products lifecycle that determine its overall impact on the environment. And often manufacturers tend to 'green' whatever stage of their lifecycle is easiest and least expensive to do so.
So what is the solution?
The answer is obviously to gain a full understanding of a product's lifecycle in order to evaluate whether it is in fact a legitimately 'green'
product. However, this can be not only a lengthy exercise, but a tiresome one. With the Internet's abundance of information, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between a genuine and reliable source of information and one that is merely a more subtle and sophisticated form of greenwashing.
With this issue having come into the spotlight in the last few years, there have been more initiatives that aim to provide consumers and organisations with the knowledge to make informed decisions, offering certification of green products. There are however, limitations to how much certification can really tell you.
Aside from the 'questionable' certification labels surfacing, each life cycle assessment needs to decide on the boundary of the product's lifecycle.
Does it specify whether the manufacturer uses 'green' products, or merely whether its internal production processes are deemed 'green'? And perhaps the biggest issue is that currently, gaining certification from a reputable source is a costly exercise, putting smaller businesses at a considerable disadvantage.
Business News Sector Tags: Infotech|